Can you be a Liberal Republican?

[Lasz]

I lived with one in college. Most Liberal Republicans are pretty close to what you would call libretarians.

 

[Wrong Element]

Rudy Giuliani: Pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-guncontrol. Republican contender.

He'd probably be the closest thing these days to a prominent liberal Republican, though by the time they actually start casting votes, I doubt he really will be a contender. And compared to past New York Republicans like John Lindsay and Jacob Javits, he's really not very liberal.

Back when the Republicans had a true liberal wing and the Democrats had a conservative wing, none of those issues you mentioned were significant parts of American politics. That's one reason why the parties have become ideologically homogenous (big words for a Friday night).

So the answer to sexy-girl's question is that while there were liberal Republicans for most of the party's history, there really haven't been any to speak of for the last 20-30 years.

 

[sister76]

I could probably be classified as a liberal Republican. Usually I identify with Libertarian.

I am extremely pro-gun and pro-choice (although I don't think I would ever get an abortion, I still think we should have a choice). I am very much in favor of state's rights, and believe state and federal government would do well to be downsized significantly.

 

[someplace]

C'mon back. We need you.

After 20 yrs of fighting the fights, I crashed and burned.

My head is still healing from all that wall-bashing it took.

If I never go back to it, I can rest knowing I helped at least two dozen women get elected to public office -- maybe more.



But thanks. I appreciate your sentiment.

 

[someplace]

I think it's time for some new labels.

"Liberal" and "Conservative" have become torchwords to the other.


Let's pull one back from the 70s. How about a Progressive Republican or Progressive Democrat? Much more positive and less polarizing.

 

[Peregrinator]

He'd probably be the closest thing these days to a prominent liberal Republican, though by the time they actually start casting votes, I doubt he really will be a contender. And compared to past New York Republicans like John Lindsay and Jacob Javits, he's really not very liberal.

Back when the Republicans had a true liberal wing and the Democrats had a conservative wing, none of those issues you mentioned were significant parts of American politics. That's one reason why the parties have become ideologically homogenous (big words for a Friday night).

So the answer to sexy-girl's question is that while there were liberal Republicans for most of the party's history, there really haven't been any to speak of for the last 20-30 years.

Well said, and I mostly agree. I'm curious to see how Rudy does in the primaries.

 

[houstonJW]

My spelling sucks BTW. Well I am either a liberal Republician or a conservitive Democrat.

My main hope everytime we have a national election is that the Presedent is 1 party and the majority of congress is the other party. That way things don't get so screwed up. They spend all their time fighting each other and leave the rest of us alone.

 

[Shaq]

just like Democrats, Greens, Libertarians and Peace & Freedoms, there are those that are liberal, the centrists and the more conservative of the bunch.

I don't see how environmentalism interferes with any aspect of conservatism or Republican-ism.

Well I guess it depends on ones definition of liberal and conservative.


For years, that Vermont I think senator Jeffords I believe, was certainly considered a liberal republican. It was argued he was republican only in name since he consistently voted with democrats before becoming an independent.


Today, I think a liberal republican would be a person who is "liberal" leaning on social issues like abortion, health care, education, gay marriage and things like that while still maintaining centrist or conservative economic views.


That seems to be consistent with how "conservative"democrats are determined.

 

[atmas]

I am by no means a liberal republican. I'm conservative, but I am so discretely. I don't follow the party line, and as such my views on each talking point are established by the facts as I know them.
An Inconvenient Truth addressed a very technical scientific point that, it if hadn't, would have allowed me to completely dicredit it out of hand. For me, as a part-time professional scientist but not one who deals with climatology, my biggest point was that if the polar ice caps melt it won't raise sea levels; ice is less dense than water, so floating ice melting would tend to lower sea levels. Gore's film spoke in certain places about non-polar, non floating glaciers melting.
This lended some credence. However the list of scientists presented on camera in the film is very short.
Al Gore.
That is all.
And the external arguments about the sources of global warming are far too equivocal.

 

[Snip2]

No they don't. They spawn from swamps.

Wrong...........not fond of swamps

 

[Snip2]

I lived with one in college. Most Liberal Republicans are pretty close to what you would call libretarians.

I would call them Democrats. JFK would be embarassed by them.

I'm more what you would call a conservative with libertarian leanings.....FWIW

 

[Snip2]

and what i mean is do any actually exist on literotica that wouldn't mind being identified as a liberal republican?

on an even more impossible note did any republicans watch "an inconvenient truth" and enjoy it?

(i thought it was good )

To answer your question................I would hope not.

 

[MechaBlade]

Please don't tell my lips that. It would make them very sad.

Your lips are living a lie!

It depends on what we're kissing.

Okay, Republicans don't kiss anything except ass. And not for sexual gratification.

I think it's time for some new labels.

"Liberal" and "Conservative" have become torchwords to the other.


Let's pull one back from the 70s. How about a Progressive Republican or Progressive Democrat? Much more positive and less polarizing.

No.

I am not a Democrat. I am a liberal. No matter what the Democratic party becomes or was back in days of yore I will always have been and will be a liberal (until the country becomes very liberal, in which case I'll (if I'm alive) technically be a centrist).

Today, I think a liberal republican would be a person who is "liberal" leaning on social issues like abortion, health care, education, gay marriage and things like that while still maintaining centrist or conservative economic views.

A liberal Republican can be liberal on social issues or on economic issues. They can be liberal on any issues they want. But they get the title "Republican" by calling themselves one and by generally siding with the way many Republicans vote/align themselves.

Wrong...........not fond of swamps

Bogs, then?

 

[TWB]

I could probably be classified as a liberal Republican. Usually I identify with Libertarian.

I am extremely pro-gun and pro-choice (although I don't think I would ever get an abortion, I still think we should have a choice). I am very much in favor of state's rights, and believe state and federal government would do well to be downsized significantly.

How would you define "liberal?"

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

A Republican, if that is assumed to be the Conservative Party, cannot be a Liberal. The Conservative believes in the individual and the beauty of his unfettered mind and efforts; that left to his own selfish interests coupled with a free market, the doers of society bring up the condition of society as a whole.

The Liberal is appalled at the idea of selfishness and thus has a basic mindset that we're all in it for each other, that we need government to coerce the selfish into providing for the needs of those whom are not doers, but watchers, let us say.

So to say, A Liberal Republican (as a Republican thinker is described in Federalist) is an oxy-moron. Similarly, if Democrat is taken as the name of the party of the people, then one really cannot be a Conservative Democrat unless one is an Elitist, i.e., a well-intentioned doer...

An Elitist believes in one set of rules for the doers and another set of rules for the watchers; it's obvious, some people CAN take care of themselves, others can't and WE are here to make sure they are taken care of. An Elitist, a Slave Owner, and a Communist have a lot in common.

(I'd throw in the Anti-War and Environmental crowd into that list too.)

 

[MechaBlade]

So to say, A Liberal Republican (as a Republican thinker is described in Federalist) is an oxy-moron.

No, it's not. It's like saying smartest retard. Not the retard that eats his own poo, but the retard that is really good with numbers, just can't seem to read that well. A liberal Republican is close to a centrist, a conservative Republican is closer to Reactionary.

There's a sliding scale of liberalism vs conservatism and neither Dem nor Pub are at the very ends.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

No, it's not. It's like saying smartest retard. Not the retard that eats his own poo, but the retard that is really good with numbers, just can't seem to read that well. A liberal Republican is close to a centrist, a conservative Republican is closer to Reactionary.

There's a sliding scale of liberalism vs conservatism and neither Dem nor Pub are at the very ends.

It's very possible, by the definition of retarded to have a 100th percentile.

Liberals tend to collectivism, Conservatives tend toward the individual.

A person who claims to be both says, I am not Communist, nor am I Capitalist, I am either Socialist or Fascist (or I believe in Democracy, thinking that that's NOT a collective mentality; when the majority rules. Like consensus Science!).

 

[sexy-girl]

some interesting points and views in this thread ... glad we have some sort of liberal republicans

and i don't believe liberal republican is an oxymoron ... i'm a liberal liberal (i just made that up) but there's things about the republican party that i can respect

also i don't believe we need new words to replace liberal or conservative because they've become "dirty" (like feminist has as well i guess) ... people should identify themselves with those words regardless and the fact that they've become dirty in some peoples eyes gives that identification a kind of weight anyway

An Inconvenient Truth addressed a very technical scientific point that, it if hadn't, would have allowed me to completely dicredit it out of hand. For me, as a part-time professional scientist but not one who deals with climatology, my biggest point was that if the polar ice caps melt it won't raise sea levels; ice is less dense than water, so floating ice melting would tend to lower sea levels. Gore's film spoke in certain places about non-polar, non floating glaciers melting.
This lended some credence. However the list of scientists presented on camera in the film is very short.
Al Gore.
That is all.
And the external arguments about the sources of global warming are far too equivocal.

well if you remember when he talked about the melting of the north pole he wasn't associating that with sea level rise but decrease in salinity of the sea and reduced reflection of sun at the pole ... and the added enviromental loss if you think the north pole is "pretty" and polar bears are "cute"

the increase in sea level was the land ice melting on greenland and antarctica

i enjoyed the film and i don't think it needed expert scientists vetting everything ... everything he presented is accepted scientific view and he was laying his reputation on that which is why the presentation was important coming from someone like al gore (as politicians are often unwilling to lay their reputation on anything) ... i particularly thought the historic atmospheric carbon measurements graph compared to the temperature graphs were interesting ... as it debunks what people say about the changes being in line with historic variance ... something i always try to argue with people because the changes now are far more rapid than past changes

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

The more I think about it, I would like to lay claim to the crown.

I am the smartest retard in the house...

Thank you.










.

 

[Byron In Exile]

The more I think about it, I would like to lay claim to the crown.

I am the smartest retard in the house...

Thank you.

.

But can you carry a tune like a conservative Democrat?

http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n307/byroninexile/si/diva.jpg

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

A man of zero ideology.

A man for all seasons...


Poll...

To the Left!

POLL...

To the Right!

POLL (the political clay pigeon) !!!

Good shot sir! As clean as Cheney aimin' at a lawyer...

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

A Republican, if that is assumed to be the Conservative Party, cannot be a Liberal. The Conservative believes in the individual and the beauty of his unfettered mind and efforts; that left to his own selfish interests coupled with a free market, the doers of society bring up the condition of society as a whole.

The Liberal is appalled at the idea of selfishness and thus has a basic mindset that we're all in it for each other, that we need government to coerce the selfish into providing for the needs of those whom are not doers, but watchers, let us say.

So to say, A Liberal Republican (as a Republican thinker is described in Federalist) is an oxy-moron. Similarly, if Democrat is taken as the name of the party of the people, then one really cannot be a Conservative Democrat unless one is an Elitist, i.e., a well-intentioned doer...

An Elitist believes in one set of rules for the doers and another set of rules for the watchers; it's obvious, some people CAN take care of themselves, others can't and WE are here to make sure they are taken care of. An Elitist, a Slave Owner, and a Communist have a lot in common.

(I'd throw in the Anti-War and Environmental crowd into that list too.)

Yep, it's a black and white world with no shades of grey.

I'm a social liberal and a fiscal conservative.
I am pro-choice, pro-gun (responsible gun ownership, sorry, you don't NEED automatic weapons), and believe war should always be a last resort.

We have a duty and responsibility to help those that are unable to help themselves, that includes being financially responsible so that our great grandchildren aren't paying off our debt.

 

[MechaBlade]

It's very possible, by the definition of retarded to have a 100th percentile.

Liberals tend to collectivism, Conservatives tend toward the individual.

A person who claims to be both says, I am not Communist, nor am I Capitalist, I am either Socialist or Fascist (or I believe in Democracy, thinking that that's NOT a collective mentality; when the majority rules. Like consensus Science!).

I guess you're no good at this time of night.

 

[BallinaB]

Okay, Republicans don't kiss anything except ass. And not for sexual gratification.

I don't know, I can't remember the last time I kissed ass for other reasons than sexual pleasure.