Possible Outcomes in the Marriage Equality Cases »« Poll: Majority in Ohio Want to Repeal Marriage Equality Ban

The Republican Reason Caucus

A new group has formed, the Republican Reason Caucus, which says its goal is to “Influence public policy in a way that respects sound science, the separation of church and state, and constitutionally limited government that upholds the liberties and equal treatment by the law of all individuals.” Sounds good so far. And I like a lot of the things that they’re saying on their site at the moment. Josiah Schmidt, their president, writes:

Modern conservatives care about social issues — we just have different opinions on social issues than the Republicans of four decades ago. We don’t believe that personal morals — what people do by themselves, without harming anyone else — need to be policed by the government. Modern conservatives believe in keeping America safe — we just happen to not treat the Pentagon budget as a sacred cow where no waste can be found, nor do we implicitly trust the same federal government we mock for the terrible job they do delivering mail and licensing drivers to fix every economic and diplomatic problem in any foreign country on Earth, nor are we willing to sacrifice every civil liberty on the altar of national security.

I happen to think the government does a fine job of delivering the mail and licensing drivers, but the rest is perfectly reasonable. In another post he says:

Former Sen. Rick Santorum (who was rejected by Pennsylvania voters 7 years ago) spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference (“CPAC”) this past week, stating, “For those in our movement who want to abandon our moral underpinnings to win, what does it profit a movement to gain the country and lose its own soul?”

Of course, when Mr. Santorum talks about “moral underpinnings,” he means opposition to legal equality for LGBT Americans, and enforcing a government prohibition on abortion procedures. When Mr. Santorum talks about “immorality,” he refers to a society that is “anti-clerical, anti-God.” The twenty percent of Americans who now do not identify with any religion (“anti-clerical”), many of whom do not even believe in the supernatural (“anti-God”), would take issue with being referred to as “immoral”. These non-religious Americans are caring parents, doctors, teachers, and scientists, working hard to make the world a better place. They are just as moral as their religious friends and neighbors.

Exactly right. When Santorum talks about “moral values” he just means “punish gay people.” Edwina Rogers is on the advisory board of this new group, but there’s one big problem: There isn’t a single member of Congress involved. And their congressional scorecards are simply absurd. They rate Rand Paul with a perfect 100 and rate Republicans far higher than Democrats on the bills they rated. How? By including votes on things like extending the Bush tax cuts, a ban on earmarks and a balanced budget amendment, none of which actually have anything to do with the pro-science, pro-secularism views they claim to have.

When a group claiming to be in favor of science, reason and equality gives Jim DeMint an 87% score, they’re either lying about their goals or rigging the results. Take your pick.

Comments

  1. says

    Modern conservatives care about social issues — we just have different opinions on social issues than the Republicans of four decades ago.

    They’ve admitted their party was wrong on social isues and the liberals were right all along? I guess the next rational step is to join the Democratic Party.

    …nor do we implicitly trust the same federal government we mock for the terrible job they do delivering mail and licensing drivers to fix every economic and diplomatic problem in any foreign country on Earth…

    Well, as long as their attacks on straw-liberals are waged RATIONALLY, I guess they’re okay.

  2. Who Knows? says

    As with the Log Cabin Republicans, they’d be better off as the Democratic Reason Caucus.

  3. Pierce R. Butler says

    “Republican Reason” deserves a top spot in the list of extreme oxymorons.

    It sounds like they just want to dump the culture-war baggage that had worked as camouflage for them for a while and get back to the core agenda of reverse-Robin-Hood-sim, corporate ripoffs, crimes against humanity, racism and reaction which has defined their noxious party for generations.

    A “reformed” Republican Party would still be nothing but a toxic menace to the nation and the world.

  4. says

    When a group claiming to be in favor of science, reason and equality gives Jim DeMint an 87% score, they’re either lying about their goals or rigging the results. Take your pick.

    I pick both. Does that make me a greedy yuppie?

  5. sailor1031 says

    I wasn’t aware that the federal government delivers mail; I thought it was the USPS a quasi-corporation that does a fine job despite being attacked by politicians at every turn. And I just checked my driver’s licence – sure enough it’s issued by the state of Virginia…….not really devoted to accuracy are they? However this is a welcome further fragmentation of the republicans.

  6. says

    It sounds like they just want to dump the culture-war baggage that had worked as camouflage for them for a while and get back to the core agenda of reverse-Robin-Hood-sim, corporate ripoffs, crimes against humanity, racism and reaction which has defined their noxious party for generations.

    In other words, they’re trying to do what the libertarians pretended to do, hopefully without all the toxic corporate propaganda and bogus ideology.

    And that, in turn, could lead to a truly comical fight between the con-artists and the people who took the con seriously.

  7. raven says

    The Republican Reason Caucus

    Looks like an oxymoron.

    It sounds good but how is a caucus with 10 people going to influence anything?

  8. baal says

    Is this just ‘no-labels’ rebranded? As a group, these moderates (center-right fiscal conservative would be the more normal polysci label) are purged from the (R) party and only exist on the fringes. When they start getting support from the party and more than 2-3 big donors, I’ll be more interested. Until then, I worry that this is nothing more than part of the oligarchs on the right policy of divide and conquer.

    The goal is to create a fake party (s) that can pin down 3-8% of the middle, middle right electorate. That group will then be unavailable to the Democrats. The (R) have been pounding that group for long enough that they won’t go (R) but form a big part of the Democratic voters that have weak support for (D) (duh, they aren’t even close to liberal and are just seeking an out from the abuse of the teaparty / ultra right wing (koch)).

  9. says

    …nor do we implicitly trust the same federal government we mock for the terrible job they do delivering mail and licensing drivers to fix every economic and diplomatic problem in any foreign country on Earth…

    They mock the government for doing some things, therefore they can’t trust the government to do other — completely unrelated — things?

    I’d give them a cookie for this baby step toward reason, but I ate the last one. Too bad, it was kinda shaped like Jesus…

  10. says

    “I happen to think the government does a fine job of delivering the mail and licensing drivers”

    If they’re soooooooo fine, then how come they get worse every time we cut their budget, hmm?
     

    “Exactly right. When Santorum talks about ‘moral values’ he just means ‘punish gay people.’”

    Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! I can’t believe you can be so wrong! He also means “slut shaming”.
     

    “By including votes on things like extending the Bush tax cuts, a ban on earmarks and a balanced budget amendment, none of which actually have anything to do with the pro-science, pro-secularism views they claim to have.”

    They are in favor of science. The science is in favor of tax cuts. Ergo…

  11. raven says

    “By including votes on things like extending the Bush tax cuts, …

    Which were a total disaster that produced the Great Recession and a lot generation.

    The Bush tax cuts were Magical Thinking in action. It was supply side economics and that trick, like Rocky says,, never works.

    Taxes were higher under Clinton and he left us with a roaring economy and a budget surplus. It’s going to take a generation to fix what Bush broke. If we are lucky.

  12. says

    Is there any relation between the “Republican Reason Caucus” and a certain blog called “Right Reason,” which very quickly proved itself to be neither?

  13. raven says

    While we are laughing at the GOP clowns, Ryan, once again, proposed his federal tax plans.

    They are vague as usual. For a supposed numbers guy, he doesn’t seem to even know what a number is.

    1. It was deep cuts to the social safety net, mostly food stamps and Medicaid.

    2. While lowering taxes on the rich. Maximun tax rates drop from 39% to 25%.

    I can’t see how anyone sane would buy that. Even if you are ultra-wealthy, it doesn’t do you any good when millions of poor and starving people roam the streets. What you save in taxes, you end up spending in fortified compounds and hiring armed guards.

    Or moving to a safer country. Like, you know, Europe or Canada, the commie hellholes. Many of the rich in the third world have homes in Europe and North America. When bin Laden’s group flew planes into the WTC, it turned out a lot of his relatives were simultaneously living…in the USA.

  14. Akira MacKenzie says

    In other words, they want the GOP to server ties with those politically embarrassing theocrats so they can finishing handing America over to the plutocrats.

  15. dingojack says

    baal – “As a group, these moderates (center-right fiscal conservative would be the more normal polysci label)… ”
    Do you mean American center-right (ultranationalists, Freepers, neo-Nazis and the loony right fringe) or real world centre-right (corporatists, Free-marketeers and the more extreme Tories)?

    Confusédly, Dingo ;)

  16. says

    Thank you for the kind post regarding our new organization! To respond to some of the comments and questions raised about our mission and our legislator ranks, I would remind you that while we were are dedicated to separation of church and state, social tolerance, and sound science, we are also still conservative Republicans. You will notice that the motto printed on the top of our home page is: “Science, Secularism, Small Government.” We support legal equality for LGBT Americans, the freedom of doctors and pregnant women to make their own decisions, and a scientifically realistic approach to marijuana policy. We also support slashing government spending, cutting taxes, promoting free market economics, and abiding by the original intent of the Constitution.

    The quote by one commenter, which referred to our support of capitalism as “reverse-Robin-Hood-sim, corporate ripoffs, crimes against humanity, racism and reaction” is precisely the reason why we cannot simply be Democrats. Despite a very vocal fringe of angry social conservatives, the GOP as a whole is quite welcoming of social moderates and libertarians. The Republican Big Tent can countenance economic conservatives who are cultural liberals. The Democratic Party, however, has shown themselves to us to be rabidly hostile to economic conservatism — they can only countenance those who are liberal on both economic and social issues.

    While we are happy to work with left-wing secularists on issues where we agree, we will have to part ways on issues where reason and evidence leads us in the direction of conservatism (mainly on economic issues).

    As for our list of elected officials and political candidates who have signed on with our cause, we have not yet released that list yet. That will not be released until after our official launch (which will take place this summer).

    Again, thank you for letting people know about our cause. I know there is much common ground between liberal and conservative secularists and we look forward to cooperating on many important issues.

  17. caseloweraz says

    I’ll add my name to those who think this is just about “packaging” — more of the kind of thing I’ve heard from Republican leaders in the past few weeks: that the need is to adjust their messaging so more people will vote for their candidates.

    As Ed Brayton observes, there are many indications that this is true. But my first clue was the use of the phrase “sound science.”

    In other words, their defense of the Republican Reason caucus sounds like typical Republican reason.

  18. Michael Heath says

    My first objection is these people name their organization a Republican one but then immediately refer to themselves as conservatives. That right there is a non-starter.

    While it’s true conservatives and conservative-libertarians currently control the Republican party, with no current room for liberals or even moderates; the legacy of the party taking liberal and moderate positions, i.e., those based on reality and support of equality, came from Republicans who were not conservatives but instead liberals or moderates. This continued discrimination against non-conservatives doesn’t bode well when it comes reforming the Republican party; that’s given the inherent nature of conservative thinking for most conservatives.

  19. says

    Josiah Schmidt “Despite a very vocal fringe of angry social conservatives, the GOP as a whole is quite welcoming of social moderates and libertarians.”
    Obviously. Besides all the slut shaming, gay baiting and Atwater Dogwhistles, the GOP is quite welcoming. Act now and you can get your photo taken with their mascot, Transvaginal Wandy!
     
    “The Democratic Party, however, has shown themselves to us to be rabidly hostile to economic conservatism…”
    Yes, but you’re forgetting that’s built on thirty years of hearing the same solution proffered to every problem. I called Republican Tech Support once, and instead of “Did you try turning it off and on again?” the guy on the other end kept asking “Did you try cutting taxes?” no matter what my question was. Sorry. That’s a lie. He also asked if I’d “…tried turning into a block grant and devolving it to the states”.

  20. Michael Heath says

    My previous comment post was published immediately after I read the quoted comment where the spokesperson referred themselves as conservatives. I hadn’t yet read the rest of Ed’s post on how they rated certain Republican members of Congress. The rest validates what I point above regarding the fatally defective type of thinking coming from conservatives and conservative-libertarians; that is denialism of reality to promote policies whose key factual premises can’t withstand scrutiny.

    They’re wolves in sheep’s clothing. Conservatives who control the Republican party remain committed to their denialist perspective of reality, they have no ability, let alone desire, to adapt their thinking to credible premises and therefore cogent arguments. This group labeling themselves reasonable or other GOP groups going after Hispanics without having to actually represent Hispanic-friendly policies, or the national interest for that matter, is all voodoo marketing. As described by Thomas Franks going on 10 years now.

  21. dogmeat says

    Josiah @23:

    I would remind you that while we were are dedicated to separation of church and state, social tolerance, and sound science, we are also still conservative Republicans

    So you then support the international scientific consensus regarding anthrogenic climate change?

    How do you address Ed’s other concerns?

    There isn’t a single member of Congress involved. And their congressional scorecards are simply absurd. They rate Rand Paul with a perfect 100 and rate Republicans far higher than Democrats on the bills they rated. How? By including votes on things like extending the Bush tax cuts, a ban on earmarks and a balanced budget amendment, none of which actually have anything to do with the pro-science, pro-secularism views they claim to have.

    When a group claiming to be in favor of science, reason and equality gives Jim DeMint an 87% score,

    And finally, what are your fiscal and monetary policies? The Bush administration’s policies were catastrophic, it sounds like your policies would be to continue those policies and potentially “double down” on them. We already have in the neighborhood of $2 trillion in investable currency available, but it isn’t being invested, why would a policy dedicated to clearing up more capital for investment lead to growth when we already have vast quantities of investment ready capital that isn’t being used? This seems to be ignoring the entire concept of reason and sound policy-making.

  22. Michael Heath says

    Who Knows writes:

    As with the Log Cabin Republicans, they’d be better off as the Democratic Reason Caucus.

    I strongly disagree. The best thing the Democrats can do is continue to evolve in their rejection of conservatism – not welcome the self-identified “reasonable” conservatives; that’s given both the inherent and defective nature of conservative thinking which can not reason on certain topics. The other problem is that conservatives remain loyal first to their political ideology, which is true even of theologically conservative Christians who vote, rather than some higher purpose or facts inconvenient to their ideology.

    Consider how a mere handful conservative Democratic Senators filibustered their own caucus over the past couple of years, including in Obamcare. As the older generation dies out and we see the younger generations age, there’ll be increasingly less room to hide falsehoods given the rise of the Internet. Democrats will therefore have increasing opportunities to weed out their conservatives and recruit non-conservatives to the party. It’s Republicans who need to recruit non-conservatives to remain a national party, not Democrats needing conservatives. The Dems would do well to be blatant in their condemnation of conservative thinking, to the point of over ridicule when deserved.

    The context to recuirt these new Democratic members is the need to continue to ignore their zealous liberals who think and use the same defectively structured arguments we see from conservatives; i.e. the tribalists. This is what hte GOP must do regarding their conservative Christians, but can’t because they are the predominant voting base; the Dems do not suffer this misfortune given this defective liberal thinking has been dying out now for several decades. If the Dems do that, they’ll continue to pick off non-conservatives whose legacy, or that of their ancestors, was the Republican party and/or theologically conservative denominations where those young people were able to resist being turned into authoritarians.

  23. busterggi says

    I remember another group of Republicans not so long ago who said many of the same things – no interest in interferring in personal behavior, cutting even the Pentagon’s budget and smallifying the federal government.

    They called themselves the Tea Party. Wonder what happened to them?

  24. Reginald Selkirk says

    Modern conservatives care about social issues — we just have different opinions on social issues than the Republicans of four decades ago.

    1) Modern conservative is an oxymoron. By definition, a conservative is not up with the times.
    .
    2) Such a large fraction of present day conservatives are indeed not modern. If they toss all the troglodytes out of your party, you won’t have enough votes left to elect a dogcatcher.
    .
    3) A lot of conservatives also like to promote absolute, objective morality. Acknowledging that your morals have changed over the last 40 years gives up the pretense that there is anything absolute or objective about your moral positions.

  25. says

    Oh looky, a new chew-toy…

    I would remind you that while we were are dedicated to separation of church and state, social tolerance, and sound science, we are also still conservative Republicans.

    In other words, you say you’re “dedicated” to certain principles, but then you remind us that you’re still in the camp that bitterly and hatefully opposes all of those principles. Are you TRYING to kill your own credibility?

    We also support slashing government spending, cutting taxes, promoting free market economics, and abiding by the original intent of the Constitution.

    The first three of those policies have proven disastrous for America — after eight years of it, we got the worst recession since the Great Depression, and all of it can be directly traced to the consequences of the policies you continue to advocate. And you clearly haven’t learned a damned thing from the experience. That’s “Republican Reason?”

    And the fourth of those “policies” is nothing more than a fancy way of saying “not letting the US government enforce the US Constitution in a way that’s meaningful in the present era.” That’s the same mantra we hear every time you need an excuse to keep on ignoring other people’s rights whenever you want to.

    The quote by one commenter, which referred to our support of capitalism as “reverse-Robin-Hood-sim, corporate ripoffs, crimes against humanity, racism and reaction” is precisely the reason why we cannot simply be Democrats.

    You can’t be Democrats because someone speaks harshly to you? Then I guess you understand why we can’t be Republicans.

    Despite a very vocal fringe of angry social conservatives, the GOP as a whole is quite welcoming of social moderates and libertarians.

    First, the “angry social conservatives” aren’t at the “fringe,” they’re at the center, on top, in full control of your party — and they eagerly remind everyone of that every time anyone of you gets uppity. Second, you call yourselves “welcoming,” but then you specify only TWO groups you consider “welcome” — that’s your idea of a “big tent?” And third, if you welcome libertarians, after they’ve proven themslves to be nothing but liars, idiots, con-artists, corporate shills and ideological rentboys, then you’re still every bit as irrational and useless as you were before.

    The Democratic Party, however, has shown themselves to us to be rabidly hostile to economic conservatism — they can only countenance those who are liberal on both economic and social issues.

    You’ve spent the last decate equating Democrats with terrorists, communists, socialists, and now even Nazis, and now you call US “rabidly hostile?” Remind us again which party coined the phrase “Second Amendment remedy?” I don’t think it was Jeremiah Wright who said that.

    While we are happy to work with left-wing secularists on issues where we agree, we will have to part ways on issues where reason and evidence leads us in the direction of conservatism (mainly on economic issues).

    When was the last time “reason and evidence” led you to economic conservatism? Reason and evidence has proven all of the basic principles of economic conservatism dead wrong — America was freer, stronger, more prosperous, and more fiscally sound BEFORE you took the reins than it is after eight years of uncontested “economic conservatism.”

    Again, thank you for letting people know about our cause. I know there is much common ground between liberal and conservative secularists…

    You just said there was practically ZERO common ground. Thank you for very quickly proving that your new “movement” is nothing but the same old extremist crap with a freshly-recycled coat of Reagan-era rhetoric.

  26. fastlane says

    Some random poster, supposedly from Republicans for Reason or whatever:

    We support legal equality for LGBT Americans, the freedom of doctors and pregnant women to make their own decisions, and a [b]scientifically realistic approach[/b] to marijuana policy. We also support slashing government spending, cutting taxes, promoting [b]free market economics[/b], and abiding by the original intent of the Constitution.

    What do you do when these things you support conflict with each other? For instance, would you be willing to change your stance if it is shown scientifically that the free market ideology, as touted by economic ‘conservatives’ (which always includes lower taxes) is actual more harmful to both the economy and the society as a whole?

    I’m not holding my breath on this being anything more than another teabagger-esque attempt at rebranding.

  27. scienceavenger says

    Sound science. Reason and evidence. Hmmmm. So your policy positions will be consistent with the overwhelming scientific findings that evolution is true, global warming is real and human activity is driving it,
    racism and sexism are still alive and well and having a negative impact on many people’s lives, ignorance only sex education does not work.

    Or are you going to stick to reason, flawed premises be damned, and to hell with the evidence?

  28. says

    fastlane “I’m not holding my breath on this being anything more than another teabagger-esque attempt at rebranding.”
    Actually, this look more like an everybody-but-the-teabagger-esque attempt at rebranding. You know, both of them.

  29. Who Knows? says

    Josiah Schmidt – “I hope someone can, Meredith! Rand Paul is about the only politician I really trust these days, but I have my concerns even with him. As a small business owner, I can attest that I am SUFFOCATED by taxes, fees, and government regulations at every turn, and I fear when I think of how much worse it’s going to get when all the unfunded liabilities hit the fan. It’s all due to this out-of-control federal budget and an administration/Senate that has no understanding of or respect for the free market that made us the most prosperous nation in the world for 200 years. I’m not voting for any more McCains and Romneys that just want to nibble at the deficit. I’m only voting for people who are serious about getting this beast under control.”

    March 21 at 1:10am

    Reading his Facebook is interesting, I guess that’s the word.

  30. Abby Normal says

    Josiah Schmidt said:

    the GOP as a whole is quite welcoming of social moderates and libertarians.

    I like much of what you’ve have to say, but the above does not match with my experience. Perhaps I’ve been looking for love in all the wrong places. Could you recommend any blogs or other online communities that exemplify this welcoming attitude?

  31. slc1 says

    Re Who Knows @ #39

    I would remind Mr. Knows that the Clinton Administration actually produced a budget surplus which the Bush Administration promptly pissed away in tax cuts for the rich. The way to reduce the deficit is to get GDP growth back up to 3.5%, with modest tax increases and elimination and/or cut backs for dubious federal programs, such as farm price supports for agribusinesses. That’s how the Clintons did it. It worked once, it can work again. This is in addition to not pissing away 2 trillion dollars on unnecessary wars in the Middle East. If Rmoney had been elected, he would probably already have intervened in the Syrian mess. For those who advocate such intervention, they should remember what happened in
    Afghanistan where our intervention ultimately resulted in bin Laden and 9/11.

  32. slc1 says

    Re Josiah Schmidt @ #23

    Yes indeed, the Tea Party fucktards are already threatening to primary Senator Portman for having the temerity to have an un-Tea Party thought in his head. Welcoming? Somehow I don’t think that former Senators Bennett and Lugar felt very welcome after they were primaried.

  33. fastlane says

    As a small business owner, I can attest that I am SUFFOCATED by taxes, fees, and government regulations at every turn, and I fear when I think of how much worse it’s going to get when all the unfunded liabilities hit the fan.

    I wonder if we could get this individual to come back here and actually enumerate all these fees, taxes, and government regulations that suffocate his business, and exactly how it does so. I do know that in my line of work (aircraft industry), government regulations drive a large part of our business. I’d be curious to know how many people would want to fly on ‘Libertarian Airlines’……

  34. wscott says

    we were are dedicated to separation of church and state, social tolerance, and sound science, we are also still conservative Republicans.

    Hey, I for one would LOVE to see a faction within the GOP capable of functioning in “the reality-based community.” Even if I wind up disagreeing with them on policy issues, at least we could potentially have a conversation. The “you’re conservative therefore you must not be rational” comments are exactly the sort of knee-jerl partisan tribalism we so often mock on the right.

    When a group claiming to be in favor of science, reason and equality gives Jim DeMint an 87% score,

    Grading on a curve much?

    So your policy positions will be consistent with the overwhelming scientific findings that evolution is true, global warming is real and human activity is driving it,
    racism and sexism are still alive and well and having a negative impact on many people’s lives, ignorance only sex education does not work.

    Well put. It’s all well and dandy to say you support science & reason, but are they willing to do so when it contradicts the right’s sacred cows? We’ll see…

  35. Pierce R. Butler says

    Josiah Schmidt @ # 23: The quote by one commenter, which referred to our support of capitalism as “reverse-Robin-Hood-sim, corporate ripoffs, crimes against humanity, racism and reaction” is precisely the reason why we cannot simply be Democrats.

    “One commenter” here. I ought to thank for you for equating my little string of descriptors with “capitalism”, but you missed that several of those extend well beyond the current form of corporate-sector plutocracy now regnant in the US. If you really need a one-word label for your policies, why not stick with “Bushonomics”?

    And please note that I did not advocate any support for the Democratic Party, nor does my choice of words reflect anything like that party’s typical rhetoric. Can you actually not tell the difference?!?

  36. Who Knows? says

    slc @ 41, what was said in my comment @ 39 is a quote from Josiah Schmidt’s Facebook page. In his comment @ 23, he used Facebook and you can follow the link.

  37. Who Knows? says

    @ Michael Heath, after taking a look at Josiah Schmidt’s Facebook profile, I’m inclined to agree. They have a home in the GOP.

  38. birgerjohansson says

    Josiah Schmidt,
    I am from Scandinavia where there are bona fide sane conservatives, so in theory your project is viable.
    In reality, US Republicans are so far down the rabbit hole your group are unlikely to ever become influential unless the Republican party collapses, like the Whig party before it, leaving a niche for a new conservative party without the luggage of stupidity.

    Also, getting credibility means breaking the dependence on donations from ultra-conservative billionaries like Koch and their ilk.
    And good luck making people forget how U S conservatives have channeled nearly all economic growth to the top few per cent for the last thirty years while the midde class is only marginally better off and the poor are worse off than ever. The stereotype of the rich, heartless Republican lives on because it is so often founded in reality.

  39. slc1 says

    Re who knows @ #46

    I apologize for not recognizing that Mr. know was pasting something from Schmidt’s Facebook page. Must make a New Year’s resolution to read comments more carefully. Thus my comment should, indeed be directed toward Schmidt.

  40. aluchko says

    The current Republican party has gone a bit insane, I don’t think anyone here will really argue that. But they’re not ALL crazy, a lot of the party isn’t wedded to the anti-science and social craziness and the culture can be changed.

    Josiah Schmidt’s statement is something that would belong in a rational conservative party, it would definitely be more at home in the Democrats than the Republicans right now, but that doesn’t make it a liberal statement. You’ve got a choice of bringing the conservative moderates like Schmidt into the Democratic party and moving the whole spectrum to the right, or they can work to fix the Republican party and help bring them back to reality. I don’t mind if they have to give some ridiculous endorsements to be taken seriously if it helps bring some sanity into the Republican party.

  41. slc1 says

    Re Josiah Schmidt @ #23

    How about Jon Huntsman, who is certainly conservative but doesn’t buy into the Rethuglican Party’s anti science and anti gay bigotry. I think he is a more mainstream version of what we at one time thought that Rethuglicans stood for then either of the Pauls.

  42. pacal says

    Josiah Schmidt said a lot i’d like to hear, but then in the end it appears that like so many other’s of the “Libertarian” persuasian if it votes what they percieve to be the advantage of their pocket book they hold their noses and vote for Theocrats and Social Conservatives because the bottom line is indeed more important to them than anything else.

  43. says

    Despite a very vocal fringe of angry social conservatives, the GOP as a whole is quite welcoming of social moderates and libertarians. The Republican Big Tent can countenance economic conservatives who are cultural liberals. The Democratic Party, however, has shown themselves to us to be rabidly hostile to economic conservatism — they can only countenance those who are liberal on both economic and social issues.

    I’m sorry, but I don’t believe that this at all resembles the little thing I like to call “reality.” Show me the cultural liberals in the Republican Party while also explaining people like, oh, Joe Manchin, for instance.

  44. sundoga says

    TCC is right. It doesn’t matter how far right you are on financial or legislative issues – if you aren’t a social conservative or a religious extremist you don’t really have a place in the Republican party of 2013.

  45. says

    How about Jon Huntsman…?

    What about him? How much support did he get the last time he ran for anything? Was he even taken seriously?

    And how many of those “rational” Republicans complained of racism and xenophobia when Ron Paul’s super-PAC photoshopped Huntsman’s face onto a Chinese army uniform?

    Yeah, “social moderates” have a home in the Republican Party. Just follow the signs that say “ghetto.”

  46. slc1 says

    Re Raging Bee @ #56

    I was only pointed out a conspicuous omission from Schmidt’s list of “reasonable” Rethuglicans. Huntsman, who is an estimable fellow, has no place in either major party because he’s a liberal on social issues and a conservative on economic issues. Essentially, he’s Barry Goldwater after he left the Senate and migrated toward a libertarian philosophy. Huntsman most closely resembles former Massachusetts Governor William Weld, another individual who has no place in either party.

  47. says

    It is now July 2, and so far, we haven’t seen the “official launch” that Josiah Schmidt promised. Why am I not surprised?

Leave a Reply