Is the era now dead for the US political ideology of Conservatism ? ( B. Goldwater 1964 - G.W. Bush 2006)?
830653
Quite the contrary... The dems that were trotted out to run against the most liberal of the republicans were far closer to the center, more "conservative" tha the RINO's they ran against. The far left of the dems would not have been able to pull of the upsets that these moderates accomplished. I doubt you'll see major changes in taxes, Iraq, etc. right away. They know that that a lot of people did not vote for them for what they stood for, but just against what they perceived the republicans had become.. corrupt, immoral, big government, tax breaks for the rich & big business and war mongerers. The dems know if they screw it up, the republicans will be back!
625867
This smells like a research paper you should be doing your own research for.  I'll just say the foreign policy of the 1950's was totally dominated by worldwide struggle with the USSR for allies and hegemony.  Everything else was secondary.  On top of the perpetual war footing and a major shooting war in Korea there was the threat of nuclear holocaust.  And the American imagination has latched onto the idea that this decade was innocent and carefree, a Golden Age that makes our own times dark and frightening in comparison.  This grotesque glorification of the past plays right into the hands of the current regime, which manipulates fear to stay in power and strip away our constitutional rights.
361387
There are a few close races, but frankly, all indicators point to the status quo (which means a Republican majority).  The caveat here is that between now and November is a political eternity...anything can happen.  I can provide links if you like.
840878
Conservatives:\n\nDefend Bush and his mess in Iraq\n\nDefend sexual predators in their party.\n\nTwist words of Democrats when they are desperate.\n\nAre leaving their own party in droves by now.\n\nThose who stay in the now-stale "Neo-Right" are shameless.\n\nAnd immoral.
1173317
If by right, you mean conservative Republicans, check here\nhttp://www.dailykos.com/
810012
Neo-con comes from Neoconservative which was and is a political movement in the United States.  It started in the 1960's.  It can be likened to the 1950's New Conservatism movement and to the 1920's New Era campaign.  Neoconservatism has come back to life through the Regan years and GWB's administration.  People say the movement is dead but the ideology of neoconservatism is very much alive.  In fact today neocon is usually used to describe a member of the Republican Party.  One view that can be applied to what is happening today is they tend to believe in aggressive foreign policy and usually move forward despite what the rest of the world thinks.  And they do it all in the name of homeland security.  Even though there are more terrorists as a result of our actions in Iraq than there were on 9/11.  Basically the Neocons that benefitted from this war are Cheney and his Halliburton cronies, the Bush's and Bin Laden's, and anyone else in his cabinet.  Foreign and domestic business organizations alike are profitting greatly from this war.
375122
Bush's support is currently in the mid 30s. It has consistently gone down his whole time in office though, so it will probably drop further.
865639
That was then, this is now.\n\nDuring a time before "parties" truly had a foothold, independent ideas were not exactly welcomed or respected on the surface, but the "right" thing to do was more easily done without all the media hype and financial funding.\n\nIt is a different world now.  George Washington even warned us against party politics as being the demise of Democracy, and we didn't follow his heed.  \n\nWe are now in a situation where there is absolutely nothing moderate about government, and anyone that feels moderate has to split a ticket.\n\nSad really...
41613
Republican State   (example United States)\n\nThe party tends to hold both conservative and libertarian stances on social and economic issues respectively.\n\nThe Republican Party, often called the GOP (for "Grand Old Party"), is one of the two major political parties in the United States, the other being the Democratic Party. The party was first established in 1854 by Northerners who were opposed to the spread of slavery, and held a Hamiltonian vision for modernizing the nation. In the modern political era, the GOP is usually considered the more socially conservative and economically neoliberal of the two major parties.\n\nThe current President, George W. Bush, is the party leader. Since 2002 the Republican Party has held a majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. It also controls a majority of governorships, and a majority of state legislatures.
242375
The neo-con philosophy ? Hmm. Depends on who you ask.\n\nThe "Neo-Conservative" movement was founded by former Democrats who in the 60's and 70's were Hawkish" on foreign policy. Some of the fathers of Neo-conservatism were  Sen. "Scoop" Jackson, Irving Kristol, and  Jeane Kirkpatrick.\n\nthe positive view: "liberal mugged by reality" \nthe negative view: a bunch of mostly Zionist Jews who take a simple good vs. evil view of the world.
989947
Sadly those two parties are dominating our political landscape and the Republicans have certainly pushed the "us or them" division in recent decades.  There was a time where the division wasn't as polarized.\n\nWe do have choices, Green Party, Libertarian, independant candidates, but most of the media covers the Democrats and Republicans, and the other candiates are painted as "fringe" or just plain crazy.  Even a valid candiate is portrayed as wasting your vote.
586102
I think you're generalizing too much, and basing your opinion on too narrow of a timeframe.\n\nAll right, I'll tell you why I think we see these "end of times" programs.  Republicans are generally conservative, and Democrats liberal.  (Common knowledge)  Furthermore, the Republican party is more solidly composed of upper-middle class and upper-class people (than the Democratic Party).  Because of this, Republicans *in general* tend to pass laws that are more favorable of limiting power in general, while still providing more control and tax cuts to large corporations and wealthy people.  This undercuts the security of American people by making the poorest ones, who are already struggling at the bottom, fight even harder to survive economically.  Eventually, you see the kind of problems America is facing today, such as the issues with oil, the environment, the health care system, even the education system is suffering (though I believe that to be due to standardized testing and lower expectations than any specific political action or agenda...).  In America, the middle class is being eliminated thanks to actions by the Bush Adminstration, which is turning America into a corporate-controlled, imperialistic and pathetic excuse for a democratic Republic.  America no longer really embodies the things for which she professes to stand, and it's not just registering here as mild chaos, but also abroad where other countries are strongly questioning the country and the government.\n\nBecause of these downward trends, people - being on average pessimistic, as is the tendency of most human beings - jump on this "end of the times" bandwagon.  Human beings also have a nasty propensity to exaggerate, which only exacerbates the problem.\n\nAs for the sensational, Democratic scandalism - well.  I'd say there's scandal in every administration, and I don't understand where you're drawing your conclusion that it leads to popularity rather than punishment with Democrats.  Let's take the last two presidents as examples: Clinton had extramarital affairs with Monica Lewinsky.  Tsk Tsk.  Did he become popular?  In one sense of the word, yes, as he was on headlines for ages.  But he wasn't exactly loved because of it.  He even got impeached.  Bush, on the other hand, invades an admittedly screwed up country, but not in the true interest of liberating the citizens, rather out of greed and in the interest of supporting all the oil companies he's friends with/part of.  He lied more than Clinton did, and not only did he not get impeached, America reached a whole new level of intolerance regarding anti-government sentiments, and Americans banded together to elect him *again*.  That's popularity right there, not punishment.\n\nI'm sorry for any offensive tone my little "rant" may have; I have a hard time controlling my emotions when discussing political matters, which is why I usually avoid them in the first place (and why I didn't really answer your question the first time around...).
1060682
That's not just Conservatives, it's the US political machine in general.  War makes money and money makes great pocket stuffers during campaign time from businesses who profit from the war.  Just follow the money....
1111740
Bush's form of conservatism is known as "compassionate conservatism." When he was first elected, the general platform was to be traditional in social issues, and generous in fiscal issues. Tax cuts and social spending are the marks of compassionate conservatism. 9/11 changed all that.  With the idea of terrorism in everybody's mind, especially the idealist Bush's mind, security and defense became priorities. In addition, with his ear turned to Karl Rove, Bush was controlled by the whims of the "neoconservatives," a block of politicians, not even necessarily Republican who believed in the democratization of the Middle East.  Whether inspired by the idea of fully free market oil, or just plain crazy idealism, they considered Israel blameless and wished the remainder of the Middle East was as American.\nIt was their idea to use terrorism as an excuse to invade Iraq.  \n\nWith the want for a large defense budget and the want to be "compassionate," spending is pretty out of control.\n\nAlso consider, whenever a party controls the two legislative bodies, they will try to preserve it, and to do that, compromises must be made.  Everyone needs to be happy. Democrats are helpless to stop them. If they take back both bodies in November, expect Bush to start exercising his power of veto often.
858672
Research the differences between President Bush's neoconservatism and more modern conservatism.  The two are more than a little bit different.  As far as why so many Republicans are fed up with Bush, I could suggest that you ask them, but that would not answer your question.  If I were a betting person, though, I would guess that it's because he's waged the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so poorly, he's run up huge bills our children and grandchildren will have to pay, and he has refused to accept responsibility for his failings and to remove those most responsible for providing him with bad advice.  I'd wager there are also some among the Republican camp who are concerned with his stance on civil liberties.  I'm sure there are more reasons, including the vast liability he has become on the campaign front, but those are my best guesses as an unabashed libertarian.
527916
I think there are plenty of legit conservative republicans out there, but I think many people get so worked up about issues like gay marriage and abortion they ignore everything else and vote republican cause they dont like boys kissing.\nElection time they roll out what works for them, hot button social issues that only get attention every 2 years to get their base riled up and out to vote.\n\nOh yeah, this is from rnc.com, their 2004 platform.  I guess they havent rolled out 2006 officially, but I expect it to be almost exactly the same.\nhttp://www.gop.com/media/2004platform.pdf
746602
Very interesting point.  The only reason dems got control was because of the blue-dog conservative democrats who were elected this time around.  America hasn't gone less conservative...only less republican.  Now, the dem leadership isn't taking the hint.  Instead, they're reeling to the left once again.  Should be interesting.  I personally think it will open the door for a sweeping Repub victory in '08 - if they get back to their conservative roots.  Great point.