Really, you think people were that jazzed about Bush or just that Obama and McCain are weaker than I think they are?

But my goodness, look at who ran against them when they won:
For W, Gore and Kerry
For his father, Dukakis

I'm not saying those candidates are worthy of hatred, just that they weren't going to have folks energized about rushing to the polls to vote for them.

Honestly, I think some people were that jazzed about him (I sure as hayle wasn't---I can't stand the man)...especially considering that September 11, 2001 happened very shortly into his first term (and a day b/f my 21st birthday:().

I actually like both Obama and McCain (I still think he is too old:o) and I think they are both strong candidates but against W then...I don't think so. Against W now....W would get the breaks beaten off of him:rolleyes:...

Oh, honey, no. I voted for Bush twice, but there's no way that you can say now, knowing everything we know, that Bush ended up being a particularly conservative or a particularly effective President and that he would have more support than McCain. I don't think Bush could get elected dogcatcher now, unless he was running against Kerry.

ETA: I think there's some hope for his legacy once we're free of him, especially if we allow ourselves to stay and succeed in Iraq, but no, I don't think he's popular today.

LOL. Yours, my friend, are very, very full-on opaque red, I'm thinking.

I don't know about that, but conservatives can do better than McCain or Bush.

You gotta break the party from the religious right first, though. The hard right twists "true" conservative values into a morality play with religious overtones and demands candidates pander to them. Until the GOP can operate independent of the evangelicals, the party won't cyclone a different kind of candidate to the forefront.

What do you mean by "hard right"? Our terms might be off.

I don't think it's the "hard right" doing what you've described so much as the folks invested in perpetuating the party more than the ideals they want to see implemented.

They seem to actually be more centrist in what they are willing to advocate for which makes it easier for them to pander to people comfortable with government expansion.

And I think the panderers will abandon the evangelicals the minute they don't deliver enough votes to win, which might be soon.

I seriously have a hard time following your posts sometimes.

I'm not sure how the term "hard right" can be misinterpreted or otherwise defined. Religious right, evangelicals, extremists, these are typically descriptions of groups identified in the "hard right". I'm talking about the PARTY MACHINE that produces candidates, not the candidates, in my post.

The candidates are limited by what the party allows. The GOP has been in the chokehold of the far right and candidates have had to garner the favor of the extremists (sometimes called "the base", which should concern "normal" conservatives) to secure the nomination.

If conservatives want a different kind of candidate, the GOP needs to change who's pulling the levers on the machine. (the fractures in the primaries this year might have made some steps in that direction)

Well, you might have to work harder at following I guess. I know I'll work harder at being clearer.

The "hard right" could also refer to the most conservative of the party. And if you think of small government as being a conservative virtue, the group that you are identifying isn't actually the most conservative.

Basically, it's a question of whether you think fiscal conservatives or social conservatives are harder right.

And I don't think the party machine is actually "hard right" by either measure; they're the group I referred to in my post who are willing to do whatever it takes to stay in office, even it it means selling out conservative virtues to pander to segments of voters not presently attracted to what the Democrats are selling.

From 2000 on, the machine worked hard on evangelicals by exploiting social issues, like gay marriage, to get voters to the polls, but I don't think that William Buckley type conservatives or even Andrew Sullivan circa 1996 type conservatives, had regarded that as being a pressing issue for the party before Rove and his evil minions starting cooking it up and serving it as a main dish in the 2002 midterm elections.

And I think the party reached out with ballot initiatives in a lot of states, rather than the folks pulling the levels for the party first.

I agree with you though that the party may now be beholden to evangelical social issues. But only until A) the party machine loses an election while pandering or B) the rest of the party demonstrates with a candidate like McCain who doesn't typically pander that much to this base, that they can win without doing so.

Social conservatives have been dominating the party, so they have been defining the hard right.

Fiscal conservatives have clearly NOT been dominating the Republican party. Or this administration.

I think your final points are saying the same thing I started out saying in my first post, you just took the conversation around several corners along the way.

Fiscal conservatism seems to be about extinct.

Co-sign. It's to the point that I can't even stand to see him on TV with that arrogant smug smirk perpetually on his face, let alone listen to him speak.

Social conservatives have been dominating the "hard right" as you define it, but perhaps not as it actually is within the party, (unless you just use "hard right" to mean whoever controls the party which seems to be what you are trying to pull off).

Yes, that is what I was trying to "pull off". And thanks for the condescension. I didn't realize you were the definer of all terms here, please don't feel the need to redefine my posts through your spectrum and we'll stop writing in parallel to each other.