Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rise of the 'Obama Republicans'
breitbart.com ^ | 5/21/14 | Craig Shirley

Posted on 05/21/2014 1:12:11 PM PDT by cotton1706

The 1980 campaign brought about the dissolution of the old New Deal Coalition and the rise of the Reagan Democrat, a phrase coined by Newsweek political writer Peter Goldman after that historic election. Yet all campaigns cannot be viewed as isolated incidents but rather as a river flowing from one through the next. Conservative Democrats broke with Adlai Stevenson in 1952 to support Eisenhower and many broke with Hubert Humphrey in 1968 to support Republican Richard Nixon or George Wallace, another Democrat.

By 1972, many conservative Democrats supported Nixon over George McGovern so at least in presidential campaigns, culturally conservative Democrats were already moving away from their historic home. Only the election of Jimmy Carter in 1976, a southern populist reformer--and Watergate--and Betty Ford’s liberalism--forestalled the inevitable.

The Gipper’s massive victory in 1980 was fueled by more that 30 percent of Democrats nationwide, who took a powder on Carter after he moved to the left. Reagan received the same amount in the 1984 election in part because he’d done nothing to disappoint them and the liberal establishment nominated Walter Mondale, a good man who was trapped in a New Deal past.

Reagan ran again as the anti-establishment candidate of the future and swamped the lifetime Democrat, ironically with the help of Democrats. Yet the Establishment Republicans simply could not abide by the realigning elections of 1980, 1984, and 1994.

By the final years of the last century, some inside the GOP wanted the Reagan Revolution to be over, thus the phrase “compassionate conservative.”

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: elections

1 posted on 05/21/2014 1:12:11 PM PDT by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

2 posted on 05/21/2014 1:13:01 PM PDT by cotton1706 (ThisRepublic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

History will record, (IMHO), that the current US House Republican Leadership failed for four long years to defend the US Constitution and implement the Constitutional Checks and Balances that they were given stewardship of.

Thus, the pathway has been cleared for all future incompetent wanna-be dictators that are elected to the White House to continue the “Fundamental Transformation of the United States of America” that has given Obama such progressively enjoyable, and EASY counterculture success.

The soft underbelly of the US Federal Government is now obvious to all: There is no effective penalty to those who violate the US Constitution, IF Federal politicians simply refuse to employ Constitutional Checks and Balances.

I call these current US House Republicans Leaders, and those House Members who keep the current House Leaders in power, “DOORMAT Republicans.” History will NOT be so kind - - - - .


3 posted on 05/21/2014 1:15:10 PM PDT by Graewoulf (Democrats' Obamacare Socialist Health Insur. Tax violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706
So, all this squawking about how I'm suppose to cast my vote for ____________(R) because doing so will stem the onslaught of Democrat despotism is all balderdash? Who knew?

The GOP is either in collusion or just plain cowardly.

4 posted on 05/21/2014 1:27:17 PM PDT by Jagdgewehr (It will take blood.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graewoulf
The soft underbelly of the US Federal Government is now obvious to all: There is no effective penalty to those who violate the US Constitution, IF Federal politicians simply refuse to employ Constitutional Checks and Balances.

Scary, isn't it?

Something needs to be done, but it will take a change in the constitution.

There ought to be a way of splitting the Justice Dept and Judiciary away from the executive and making them more independent.

5 posted on 05/21/2014 1:28:53 PM PDT by freerepublicchat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

Is Boehner crying again?


6 posted on 05/21/2014 1:29:46 PM PDT by rjsimmon (The Tree of Liberty Thirsts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freerepublicchat

Sure, the gevernment ignores the Constitution. Just try to ignore the government.

There is no room for any true conservative to find any agreememt with the communist 0bama.


7 posted on 05/21/2014 1:31:36 PM PDT by henkster (Do I really need a sarcasm tag?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: freerepublicchat
There ought to be a way of splitting the Justice Dept and Judiciary away from the executive and making them more independent.

The Judiciary IS a separate branch of government. The Executive branch is responsible for appointing judges, the Legislative branch is responsible for approving them.

I don't understand why you'd want to make the Judiciary even more independent.

8 posted on 05/21/2014 1:35:46 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: Ignorance on parade.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

Rise of the obama repulicans my eye! The demonicans, I like it better than repulicrats, have been in charge of the GOP for a very very long time!


9 posted on 05/21/2014 1:36:02 PM PDT by Mastador1 (I'll take a bad dog over a good politician any day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freerepublicchat

” - - - it will take a change in the constitution. - - - “

Not so!

WWTGDAS? (What would Trey Gowdy do as Speaker?)


10 posted on 05/21/2014 1:36:46 PM PDT by Graewoulf (Democrats' Obamacare Socialist Health Insur. Tax violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jagdgewehr
The GOP is either in collusion or just plain cowardly.

It's the media. They control the sentiment of a large part of the country.

Every time the GOP tries to get a spine they're vilified by the press. Of course they're afraid. They're walking through a minefield.

The left has had 50+ years of controlling the press and the media. The left took over all the important cultural institutions -- art, literature, education, the law. Nearly every institution the affects the culture is against conservatism. Journalism schools, law schools, and education departments have created an army of anti-conservatives. Of course the GOP are cautious.

It was miracle the Reagan was elected. I'm not sure a Reagan could be elected today. We at a point now were even the pope has shown sympathy with the left.

11 posted on 05/21/2014 1:41:47 PM PDT by freerepublicchat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706
By the final years of the last century, some inside the GOP wanted the Reagan Revolution to be over, thus the phrase “compassionate conservative.”

Come on Craig Shirley SAY IT: Bushes!

12 posted on 05/21/2014 1:42:51 PM PDT by Fledermaus (Conservatives are all that's left to defend the Constitution. Dems hate it, and Repubs don't care.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706
permanent entrenchment of Big Government Republicans, aka Obama Republicans. President Obama has had that much effect on the national debate, which has had a direct effect on the national Republicans.

Sorry, but this sounds like sour grapes from someone whose candidate lost...there has been a divide for DECADES in the Republican party...."Rockefeller" wing and "Main Street", or whatever you want to call it. Reagan was the one who broke through, and was able to bridge the divide. Oh, the Rockefeller wing still disagreed with him culturally, but he was the one bringing in the votes.

Reagan advocated changing the Republican party, not abandoning it....which is what Shirley seems to be promoting.

Leaving the more conservative of the two electable parties would be a fool's errand.

13 posted on 05/21/2014 1:46:00 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

The mood in the US is libertarian conservatives. They are different from empire America conservatives, who think the US must be the policeman of the world. If the world thank America for their interventions, empire American conservatives would be popular. They are not because after all those years of being policeman of the world, the ones we save respond with Yankee Go Home or Infidel Go Home. Top five nations polled, man on the street type poll with the most anti US sentiment are Afghanistan, and Iraq (Egypt, Iran and Pakistan round up the rest). Two countries we sent soldiers who bled and died for, and two of the five we spent billions in aid to (Egypt and Pakistan). Europe is no better. Only nations of Eastern Europe is most US friendly (except for Serbia) while most of Western Europe (after we saved their asses in WW1 and WW2) have a disdain for Americans. Empire Americans conservatives still want to be policeman of the world. After facing all these ingrates, time to follow the advise of our founding fathers, NONENTANGLEMENT!!!!! God gave us two great oceans, rich resources within the two oceans, no major powerful hostile power on our borders. We stay within these confines, practice commerce and maintain a strong military, the US will do fine.
The US did not become a great power thru empire building, rather we conserve our power while the great nations of the day killed each other.


14 posted on 05/21/2014 1:49:55 PM PDT by Fee ( Big Gov and Big Business are Enemies of America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: okie01
The Judiciary IS a separate branch of government. The Executive branch is responsible for appointing judges, the Legislative branch is responsible for approving them.

I don't understand why you'd want to make the Judiciary even more independent.

Because the current system allows for a partisan Judiciary. The Judiciary and the Justice Department need to be non-partisan and trusted by both parties.

The filibuster in the Senate helped somewhat. The minor party could protect itself from extremely partisan judges but Reid has removed that check. There is essentially no protection now. It would take a constitutional change to restore that protection.

And what can be done about Eric Holder? He's already been found in contempt of congress. He should be at minimum subject to a confidence vote.

The independence of Justice and Judiciary is impossible now.

15 posted on 05/21/2014 1:51:53 PM PDT by freerepublicchat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Fee
If the world thank America for their interventions, empire American conservatives would be popular. They are not because after all those years of being policeman of the world, the ones we save respond with Yankee Go Home or Infidel Go Home.

Same thing applies to the beneficiaries of the Welfare State or to those that might benefit from amnesty.

16 posted on 05/21/2014 1:56:29 PM PDT by freerepublicchat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Fee

This this this. I have never heard it better


17 posted on 05/21/2014 1:57:36 PM PDT by MadIsh32 (In order to be pro-market, sometimes you must be anti-big business)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

One is demonstrating subjugation, the other contempt and satisfaction...

Just sick...


18 posted on 05/21/2014 1:58:55 PM PDT by SZonian (Throwing our allegiances to political parties in the long run gave away our liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Fee

Libertarians are not conservatives, that is why they are “libertarians’, and they are part of the team, with the rinos, to defeat conservatism.


19 posted on 05/21/2014 2:04:41 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: freerepublicchat
Congress has the power of impeachment, and that over all federal judges as well as appointed officials, of which Holder is one.

All three branches and both parties are in rough cahoots. They all believe in a strong(er) federal government.

The elected branch (Congress) wants to avoid accountability, and pretty much does so. It can mouth complaints, but those words are designed to win elections, not to run a competent, restrained federal government.

I don't believe there is a solution. Universal suffrage pretty much guarantees the outcome.

20 posted on 05/21/2014 2:07:43 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706
I guess what he's talking about here are Republicans that he doesn't like and doesn't consider sufficiently conservative. He certainly can do that, but "Obama Republicans," "Obamicans," and "Obamacons" are terms already taken by self-professed Republicans or conservatives who voted for Obama. Believe it or not, there actually are people out there like that.

And just as you wouldn't call a Democrat in politics or the media who supported his party's candidates but was a little more conservative than his party a "Reagan Democrat," so you shouldn't label people who don't vote for Obama "Obama Republicans" just because you disagree with them.

Some of these Obamacons were voting against Bush's foreign policy. They were the opposite of neocons, and I doubt they're that crazy for NSA surveillance nowadays. Others were Republicans who went over to Clinton in the 90s and never switched back. These people talk about the Clinton years as if they were a golden age. However they felt in 2008, their support for Obama nowadays is grim and dutiful more than anything else.

It's harder to generalize about the author's "Obama Republicans." If you were really in favor of abortion and gay marriage and immigration amnesty you voted for Obama in 2008. What I think he's talking about are Republicans who didn't make opposition to such things the cornerstone of their political worldview. He may have every reason in the world to oppose them, but ought to spend more time figuring out what they actually believe rather than painting them with such a broad brush.

The article was confusing until you see where he's coming from. And even now, I wonder how on target it is. Maybe it's more an emotional response to a few primary losses than anything that goes deeper than that.

Obama Republicans have also spread out among the state bureaucracies, the academies, Wall Street, Detroit, and nearly all of corporate America.

Well, no. Those are Democrats. Certainly in the universities. Wall Street and Detroit nowadays, too. To say nothing of civil servants at the state and federal levels. If Republicans get any votes at all from those places, why insult them?

Now for the history:

Conservative Democrats broke with Adlai Stevenson in 1952 to support Eisenhower and many broke with Hubert Humphrey in 1968 to support Republican Richard Nixon or George Wallace, another Democrat.

To some extent. But support for Eisenhower was as much personal as ideological. Veterans who'd served under Eisenhower backed him even if they were Democrats. Obviously they weren't committed liberals, but most of them weren't conservatives by conviction either. Politics didn't work that way back then -- or not so much as it does now. And the 1972 Nixon-McGovern race makes the author's point better than the 1968 Nixon-Humphrey-Wallace contest.

The Gipper’s massive victory in 1980 was fueled by more that 30 percent of Democrats nationwide, who took a powder on Carter after he moved to the left. Reagan received the same amount in the 1984 election in part because he’d done nothing to disappoint them and the liberal establishment nominated Walter Mondale, a good man who was trapped in a New Deal past.

Carter lost votes because he was incompetent (and petty). Liberal Democrats didn't like him much more than Conservative Democrats. Some wanted to dump Carter for Kennedy. Others deserted him for Anderson. And whether it had anything to do with the New Deal past or not, Mondale just didn't connect with voters. He may have had the wrong answers, but for many voters it looked like he just didn't have any answers at all.

21 posted on 05/21/2014 2:14:57 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: x
To some extent. But support for Eisenhower was as much personal as ideological. Veterans who'd served under Eisenhower backed him even if they were Democrats.

What source are you suing for that description?

Eisenhower's gender gap in that election was pretty huge, with him winning females by a much larger margin than males.

22 posted on 05/21/2014 2:38:42 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Jagdgewehr
You can thank all the Sesame Street voters for that....today's election is brought to you by the letter (R).

The Stupid Party and its affiliates can't think beyond the letter after a person's name.

And, I would definitely say the answer to your last statement is, "collusion."

23 posted on 05/21/2014 2:48:26 PM PDT by Repeat Offender (Why are cops ROE more lenient against us, here in the US, than U.S. military's ROE's in a war zone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
You are busy today.

Eisenhower's gender gap in that election was pretty huge, with him winning females by a much larger margin than males.

Five percent? Statistically significant, sure, but huge?

The states Stevenson carried were Southern states most people would consider to be more conservative. John J. Sparkman, Stevenson's running mate, also wouldn't be considered a conservative in national terms. Eisenhower did quite well in states and among populations that we now think of as liberal. That suggests to me that ideology was less important than the author implies.

24 posted on 05/21/2014 2:49:57 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: x

I’m not busy, for one thing, I don’t write narratives to paint pictures.

A 6% gap of the female vote over the male vote in the favor of the republican, is a huge gap to some, “Women’s impact on national elections was not felt to a significant degree until the 1952 election, when the proportion of women voting for Dwight D. Eisenhower was six percent higher than the percentage the candidate pulled among men.”

But what I was asking you about, is where to find the veteran numbers between 1948 and 1952 you are basing your description on.


25 posted on 05/21/2014 2:55:54 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: freerepublicchat
Because the current system allows for a partisan Judiciary. The Judiciary and the Justice Department need to be non-partisan and trusted by both parties.

That would, indeed, be a preferable situation.

But how do you propose to achieve such an admirable outcome?

26 posted on 05/21/2014 3:07:29 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: Ignorance on parade.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
Congress has the power of impeachment, and that over all federal judges as well as appointed officials, of which Holder is one.

But the bar is high.

2/3rds of the Senate must agree to convict.

That's next to impossible to achieve.

Instead of impeachment, though, what about the requirement that officials like Holder go through a confidence vote process if more than 40% of the Senate have concerns?

27 posted on 05/21/2014 3:09:48 PM PDT by freerepublicchat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706
Two kinds, blackmailed or purchased
28 posted on 05/21/2014 6:32:23 PM PDT by bmwcyle (People who do not study history are destine to believe really ignorant statements.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

It should be no surprise that the Republicans on Capitol Hill offer nothing of opposition to Obama. They can best be labeled the “Rollover Caucus.”
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

That’s exactly why I have come to not shive a git whether the GOP takes control of the Senate or not. What good would it do? I’d rather enjoy seeing Mitch McConnell suffer the pain of defeat. Same goes for Thad Cochran and Lindsey Graham. I hope the 36% who did not vote for McConnell on Tuesday, don’t vote for him again in November. They can skip the top race and vote in the down-ballot races or, hell, vote for Grimes. But, why vote for a power hungry tyrant who vowed to crush you because you’re a Conservative and he’s an Obama a** kisser.


29 posted on 05/22/2014 6:53:45 AM PDT by Din Maker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Din Maker

It should be no surprise that the Republicans on Capitol Hill offer nothing of opposition to Obama. They can best be labeled the “Rollover Caucus.”
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

That’s exactly why I have come to not shive a git whether the GOP takes control of the Senate or not. What good would it do? I’d rather enjoy seeing Mitch McConnell suffer the pain of defeat. Same goes for Thad Cochran and Lindsey Graham. I hope the 36% who did not vote for McConnell on Tuesday, don’t vote for him again in November. They can skip the top race and vote in the down-ballot races or, hell, vote for Grimes. But, why vote for a power hungry tyrant who vowed to crush you because you’re a Conservative and he’s an Obama a** kisser.


30 posted on 05/22/2014 6:54:51 AM PDT by Din Maker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
“Women’s impact on national elections was not felt to a significant degree until the 1952 election, when the proportion of women voting for Dwight D. Eisenhower was six percent higher than the percentage the candidate pulled among men.”

In the last presidential election the gender gap was something like 20%. Eisenhower carried both men and women, something that more recent candidates have had trouble doing.

Moreover, I'm more than a bit skeptical about this "gender gap" business. Pollsters get the 1948 election results wrong, and then four years later they "discover" a "gender gap" that wasn't present before in their (clearly flawed) data? How do we know it wasn't there all along?

Pollsters didn't ask about veteran status, so we don't have hard numbers for that. My understanding was that veterans turned out for Ike. Gallup, though, tells us that Stevenson actually carried the under 30 vote in 1952.

I’m not busy, for one thing, I don’t write narratives to paint pictures.

Not exactly sure what you mean. It looks to me like you write plenty of narratives and paint plenty of pictures. Fortunately, the rest of the country doesn't follow you wherever it is that you're going.

31 posted on 05/22/2014 2:07:59 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: x

More irrelevant nothings.

The only breakthrough, is that my original question was finally answered, you made up your claims about veterans.

To: x
*””To some extent. But support for Eisenhower was as much personal as ideological. Veterans who’d served under Eisenhower backed him even if they were Democrats.””*

What source are you using for that description?

Eisenhower’s gender gap in that election was pretty huge, with him winning females by a much larger margin than males.
22 posted on 5/21/2014 2:38:42 PM by ansel12


32 posted on 05/22/2014 2:47:00 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
You realize that you aren't a prosecutor. Or maybe you don't.

There's no polling data on how veterans voted in 1952. I relied on what I'd always heard about Eisenhower's appeal to veterans. You can find it expressed in A Nation Forged in War: How World War II Taught Americans to Get Along by Thomas A. Bruscino:

Eisenhower had a special appeal among veterans. They connected with him in a way that they rarely did with generals.

You find similar sentiments expressed in many other accounts of the day. I assumed this translated to votes for Ike at the polls, and to some extent it must have.

If I went too far so be it. Die-hard Democrats probably didn't vote Republican in 1952 just because they had served under Eisenhower.

But you haven't shown me anything to indicate that much of Eisenhower support was personal rather than ideological, or that WWII veterans weren't more supportive of Eisenhower than of Dewey, or that there really was (by today's standards) a "huge gender gap" in 1952.

33 posted on 05/22/2014 3:34:23 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: x

Gee, that’s nice, thanks for your opinions.


34 posted on 05/22/2014 3:38:33 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson