Just ordered a new campaign bumper sticker

[soupcxan]

What do you think? Too obscure? Is it wrong to campaign for two guys who have been dead a while? Or does it still make the point? I created it on a website that will print custom bumper stickers for you.

[TromboneAl]

Too obscure?

Yes; I don't get it.

[soupcxan]

I just realized this post would be more appropriate in the "soapbox and headline news" section. Would one of the mods mind moving it?

[TromboneAl]

But tell us slow kids what it means first.

[brewer12345]

Well, I don't get it, but I did see one this weekend that about had me weeing myself in the parking lot of a county park:

Cheney/Satan '08

[HFWR]

Originally Posted by brewer12345

Well, I don't get it, but I did see one this weekend that about had me weeing myself in the parking lot of a county park:

Cheney/Satan '08

Isn't that redundant?

"Get behind me, Satan."

"Why, you going dove hunting?"

[ladelfina]

To me, Reagan and Goldwater are on pretty opposite ends of the 'conservative' spectrum. So no, I don't quite get it. Goldwater was anti-statist and more socially liberal and was utterly against mixing religion and politics. Reagan ushered in the wave of all that is the antithesis of that..

Reagan took the size of the government from a low of 19.7% to a high of 21.6% [of GDP]. All to leave it at the same level he had found it. What he did do, was to destroy much of the social programs created during the Roosevelt Administration, with a government that was even bigger than Roosevelt’s. In fact, up to the Second World War, the government was never bigger than 20.7% of the GDP, and this is during the years of crazy government spending to get out of the big depression.

The Politics of Debt » The Myth of Republican Fiscal Conservatism

[soupcxan]

Originally Posted by ladelfina

To me, Reagan and Goldwater are on pretty opposite ends of the 'conservative' spectrum.

The intended message of the sticker is a reaction against the neo-cons who have co-opted the GOP. I think the party should get back to smaller federal government and less interference in people's everyday lives. I'd appreciate any ideas on how to make that more clear.

Based on what I've read (I am by no means an expert), Reagan drifted away from Goldwater but their ideologies were still much closer to the old-school GOP that was based around smaller government. Reagan may have gotten mixed up with the religious right but I don't think he was nearly as bad as W in terms of using religion to market himself. And while Reagan met with limited success in actually reducing the size of the federal government, at least he espoused the idea, versus W who has heralded a massive expansion of the feds. And there's no question that W has completely forsaken any notion of fiscal conservatism.

If I got a bumpersticker that just said "Goldwater 08" on it, I doubted that anyone would even know who that was.

[ziggy29]

Originally Posted by ladelfina

To me, Reagan and Goldwater are on pretty opposite ends of the 'conservative' spectrum. So no, I don't quite get it. Goldwater was anti-statist and more socially liberal and was utterly against mixing religion and politics. Reagan ushered in the wave of all that is the antithesis of that..

In some ways you're right - but I think it's more a statement about taking back the GOP from the neocons than about a particular consistent Republican philosophy/ideology.

[ladelfina]

Hm. Sounds like you need a plethora of single-issue stickers from the left and the libertarians to carve out that position. A kind of "cafeteria" Republicanism. I can respect that!

How 'bout:







or maybe this sums it all up for you:

[samclem]

Originally Posted by soupcxan

The intended message of the sticker is a reaction against the neo-cons who have co-opted the GOP. I think the party should get back to smaller federal government and less interference in people's everyday lives. I'd appreciate any ideas on how to make that more clear.

Based on what I've read (I am by no means an expert), Reagan drifted away from Goldwater but their ideologies were still much closer to the old-school GOP that was based around smaller government. Reagan may have gotten mixed up with the religious right but I don't think he was nearly as bad as W in terms of using religion to market himself. And while Reagan met with limited success in actually reducing the size of the federal government, at least he espoused the idea, versus W who has heralded a massive expansion of the feds. And there's no question that W has completely forsaken any notion of fiscal conservatism.

If I got a bumpersticker that just said "Goldwater 08" on it, I doubted that anyone would even know who that was.

Yep, I'm with ya. Unfortunately, the country isn't. Not only is Goldwater forgotten, but so (seemingly) is his philosophy of the proper role of govt (smaller government, less intrusion into private lives, more liberty). I can't detect much popular groundswell of support for any of this. Right now the trend appears to favor a government that "solves my problems for me." I think government will need to take on more things, and continue doing them poorly, before the voters will get fed up and demand lower taxes and less government. This is what has normally happened, and Obama can be expected to accelerate the trend toward statism needed to prompt this response.

The risk: During his tenure, tax burdens get shifted up the income scale sufficiently that the majority of voters are net "takers." The aging population (more SS recipients) would contribute to this even without a change in tax policy. We are almost there right now. Once this happens, there's no effective counterbalance to higher tax rates/bigger government, and the homeostatic mechanism fails.

[CitricAcid]

Voting libertarian this fall, I don't live in a hotly contested area, so it doesn't matter which way my vote goes, we'll be voting for Obama come November. I have had this discussion with many of my more progressive-minded friends who blame my more conservative/liberal (traditional liberal) bones for being the cause of the federal deficit, and many other things from the neocons.

Oh well, what does it all matter? Who is John Galt?

[ziggy29]

Originally Posted by CitricAcid

Voting libertarian this fall, I don't live in a hotly contested area, so it doesn't matter which way my vote goes, we'll be voting for Obama come November. I have had this discussion with many of my more progressive-minded friends who blame my more conservative/liberal (traditional liberal) bones for being the cause of the federal deficit, and many other things from the neocons.

Texas is likely secure enough for the GOP that I can vote for Bob Barr without a guilty conscience or any perceived need to cast a "lesser of two evils" vote.

[soupcxan]

Originally Posted by samclem

and the homeostatic mechanism fails.

That would make a great bumper sticker! But I would need larger bumper to fit it all in.

I think when the time comes, Mr. Barr will get my support. Not because I think he should actually be president (which is not going to happen regardless) but to send a message to McCain and friends that they're way off course.

[HFWR]

Originally Posted by soupcxan

That would make a great bumper sticker! But I would need larger bumper to fit it all in.

I think when the time comes, Mr. Barr will get my support. Not because I think he should actually be president (which is not going to happen regardless) but to send a message to McCain and friends that they're way off course.

I've been sending this message since 1972, to no avail...