I hear you, k, but this is a little bit the price of reaching parity with the Democrats in party affiliation, the first time in perhaps 70 years this has happened. There are going to be more (and more vocal) varieties of Republicans.

But you've been cool even before it was cool to be a Republican. :)

I have often said that we need to make "Republican" cool or more interesting to young people. Why? Well, simply because there are a lot of young people going Dem ever since Clinton played the sax on MTV. Bush's carrier landing is changing that.

I'm not saying sacrifice substance for members. But even in NYC we have events that are the most highly attended by Conservs/Repubs and they are at Ivy-league clubs and suits only. Now I understand that dressing up demonstrates traditionalism and professionalism - you dress how you feel stuff.

I think we can have it all.

Worrying about why people became republican is not worth our time. There will always be pioneers that did it before it was cool, did it on principle alone, did it from day one. But supporters and followers need those pioneers to show them the light. The lure can be anything, but the clincher must be substance. We can have meetups ar bars, but we mustn't just bash Hillary and Dean. We must solidify our principles in everyone's minds and make us all understand why we are really there.

So, I support a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Conservative or liberal? Specifically, I think Roe v. Wade was a horrid ruling, but I support a woman's right to choose abortion. (I think we could have and would have gotten there the old fashioned way, through state legislatures. Won't happen now, unless Roe v. Wade is overturned.) Conservative or liberal?

I think the government has no right to make recreational drugs illegal, and business have every right to drug test employees and fire the ones who fail. Conservative or liberal?

My dream political debate would be between Jesse Jackson and Pat Buchannon on MTV's "Celebrity Death Match". (Actually, I should do a web search and see if that's been done.)

I understand what you're saying, Kashei. The problem is the words "Conservative" and "Liberal" have become hopelessly corrupted. I've always been sorry that Virginia Postrel's formulation of "Dynamists" and "Stasists" had caught on, because it really sheds light on the recent efforts of traditionally "left-wing" elements to support traditionally "right-wing" causes.

Now, now, now, you'r starting to sound like the fan of a band who thinks the band has sold out because they're getting popular, the frat boys are even listening to it and, gasp, one of their songs hit the Rick Dee's Top 40.

I liked the Popshot article because it does cut through some of the crap raised by the other two articles. And as an urban Republican or Southpark Republican or Monkey Republican (that's mine if it catches on), I like to see a little more publicity given to those of us who aren't over in the corner with Pat Buchanan.

Because whether we like it or not, large parts of even the moderate left still see the Republican Party as a group of white men just waiting to snatch up some uteruses and beat up some gays and take jobs away from minorities.

I don't want to be cool. I want to be right. And I want my party to represent what I think is right, not necessarily what these Family Amendment (or Marriage Protection or whatever) jackholes think is right.

Um. That's all for now. I need a drink cuz I'm not making sense.

No, no, I am really happy that the Republican party is growing. And, I certainly think that there are a lot of ways to be a Republican. And, that most of us are into the basic principles of small government, freedom, low taxes etc. I know Republicans (ok, A Republican, hi Dan!) who was against the war in Iraq. I know Republicans who aren't into free markets as much as I am. It's not the differences I'm having trouble with.
I guess its this: I get told often that I don't 'look' like a Republican. How ignorant. This whole 'I'm a Republican but not a conservative' thing seems to be the same type of story. It seems like spin. It seems like cultivating 'a look'. If people aren't comfortable with being Republicans and need to make excuses for it, that's sad. And that's just not my kind of thing.

I would like the Republicans to be conservative, rather than try to be popular all the time. I fear that the Republicans party under Bush's leadership has not been very conservative (see Doug Bandow's cover story in this week's American Conservative @ www.amconmag.com). Bush may be attracting more people to the Republican party but at the cost of the selling out conservative principles.

As far as the conservatives not being cool enough to attract young people, why blame the conservatives? I think we should be talking about raising the voting age back to 21 or even higher.

The plain truth is that 9/11 is the seminal event that made it ok for people to finally eschew their more liberal tendencies and take the side of the party that was best equipped to deal with the foreign threats.

That means that the party is naturally going to change. People are less willing to quibble over the divisive social issues when there are real stakes involved.

If that means that pot smoking, rock and roll listening, pro-choice, urbanites are joining the party in droves, well that just shows how out of touch the Democrats really are.

Plus, the Republicans don't make a big deal out of social issues anymore. Let's face it, in America no administration is going to take us that far to the left or that far to the right.

People are still going to want guns and butter and if their leaders don't give it to them, they're going to vote for the other guy. In this case, the Democrats, largely because of the Dean insurgency have lost all intellectual seriousness about the threat of terrorism.

As long as that continues, the Democrats will continue to remain in the minority.

politically, i think it's just that the republicans believe they need to simplify their politics in order to appeal to more people (the natural "LCD" consequence of free markets? you decide). whether that's true or not, i can't say. i can say, however, having just returned from a college republicans/young democrats "debate," that either party membership needs to be completely open to the membership or we need more parties, because unless i go down to some really basic principles, i am a woman who belongs pretty much nowhere. and i'd bet that a lot of us are in that position.

I'm on board with being just who I am. Even when some serious "representatives" of Republicans anger me, I always remember that it is I who choose my Republican principles - not them. Supporting Republicans no matter the intricacies is still smart. We need to build a base that identifies as Republican. That label is our cement to each other. We may not always agree, but when the time comes where we really need to take a stand, we will. Meanwhile, don't just spend time trying to convince Dems to come to our side, but try to push Repubs more to your position.

I would love to know when you made the big switch to the Republican party... It still baffles me to this day.

Me, DTDT?

Yes U...

[shocked and awed I presume?????]

Well, a big part is the whole born in Russia thing. My parents are feverishly anti-Communist, so that immediately tips them to the right. They celebrate the day we came to America every year. They are just in love with the idea of freedom and individuality (you'd think 'who isn't?' but there are plenty who value other things over these values). They thought Reagan was just THE man. You know my brother is named after him, right?

I was definitely a liberal in my teens, or what I thought a liberal was anyway. But, the more I read, the more I realized that liberalism is so fake. It's glossing over reality. It's fixing symptoms without curing anything. Republicans just are more down to earth, in my humble opinion. And then once that door is open, you just become more conservative with age. It's the truest thing but people become Republicans when they get that first paycheck and they see how much the government takes. That was definitely a motivation in my case too.

A Question of Behavior, not Policy

The material at hand seems to pose a problem of conservative philosophy that should not be abandoned, regardless of whether the conservatives at hand are republicans. Too much South Park and not enough Allan Bloom (prototypical curmudgeon to those like O'Rourke) serves to accomplish the following:

1. Cede increasingly reductionist moral ground to any expression of outrageous behavior as superior by dint of its embrace of "freedom". At NYU, for instance

2. Avoid looking at tough behavioral questions as to how "tribal" behavior and group balkanization are affecting marriage and family (necessary for actually building healthy communities) among the young.

3. Reduction of educated vocabulary, and loss of important historical knowledge and appreciation. (As in Conservative enlightenment thinkers like Johnson and Burke) Isn't it funny how liberal "tribal" behavior can always be considered open and fun even if proceeded or accompanied by Bush Bashing and anti-west agitprop. But let a conservative enter the fray with historically educated references that challenge the depth of chaotic behavior and all of a sudden they must be shut out from an issue because they could never be "fun".
With each wing nodding to the other in their presentations, maybe we could have educated fun.

7779 adipex