Can anyone name a well known republican who is actually for small government?

I know there are republicans who actually want small government, but they tend to be held back by the neocons more often than not. You don't really see any mainstream republicans supporting true small government. They merely support big government control over different aspects of American life.

They want bans on gay marriage because their religion says it's wrong........They want bans on recreational drugs because their drug company masters are not making money on shroom and pot sales, but they support drug companies pushing Xanax and Vicadin, which kill more people than heroin and cocaine combined every year.

Is there a single main stream republican, which gets airtime on conservative venues, who actually supports taking the government out of peoples' personal lives?

I know Ron Paul does, but I do not consider him mainstream, since Fox News did their best to discredit and disavow him during the campaign.

 

Rand Paul?

 

Ron Paul is still a Republican as well, even if he's mostly a Libertarian in policies.

Gary Johnson is a former Republican for smaller government, as is Bob Barr.

 

Rand Paul and Gary Johnson are not main stream republicans, neither of them follow the Neocon Rhetoric that the part has adopted over the last several years. They are fringe elements in the party, which ironically actually follow the classic republican beliefs.

 

It's a crock of BS about republicans wanting smaller government. Ask Virginia governor "Bob 'vaginal probes' MacDonald.

 

Mainstream? No. But there are a good number of them in Congress as we speak, even if they are small in number.

 

Is there even such thing as a mainstream republican anymore?

 

I supported Jon Huntsman, he was in the republican primaries though that would be my best example.

 

Rand Paul, Ron Paul, and Jim Demint, ya that's all the big time ones I can think of. I'm sure there are a few more out there.

 

Perhaps you can make a list of "mainstream" republicans for us to choose from.

 

Not really. The party is in chaos. If Romney loses, I guarantee you there will be another schism before 2016 like the 1960s, when the moderate Goldwater wing split from the far-right Christian dominance wing that all but owns the party today.

Only this time, I don't think the party will survive it.

 

There is as likely to be a split between Blue dog Democrats and the Crazy left that currently dominates the party nomination machinery. If both parties suffersuch a split the Conservative Christians being far and away the most numerous of the various splinters are likely to dominate governance in this country for some time to come.

 

Not going to happen, mostly because the "crazy left" doesn't dominate the Democratic party in any sense.

That's a disturbing thought.

 

I'm still waiting for more answers to the OP. The very small number of examples given so far is kind of disheartening

 

Very telling though huh???

 

Lol, you have absolutely no room to talk.

 

I never said whatever it is you don't agree with.

 

I'd say Blue Dogs and Neocons are the most numerous.

Evangelicals are very vocal, but their volume and high level of political involvement often makes it easy to overestimate their numbers.

 

Pew polls make it fairly easy to tell exactly what ther numbers are.

 

Link? I'm just curious to see what you're drawing that conclusion from.

 

Yes but your probably noticing the party has been transforming, as they always do, into a more centrist view while democrats are moving more left. Similar to previously when the republicans moved far right when the democrats were moving central. I'd say that since H.W. Bush the parties have been moving slightly which has allowed the Tea Party crowd to tap into the conservative base of the republicans and the adoption of some more liberal than usual policies by the democrats such as redistribution and massive state run programs such as healthcare.

I would not say that the republican party is for small government anymore, they just want to spend the money differently. It will be interesting to see if the Tea Party, who have been quite effective, remain working through the republicans or if they decide to branch off and form their own. I know there are quite a few people pushing for that but we'll have to wait and see.

I imagine that if Obama loses then the liberal agenda of many of the democrats will hit a wall and they'll have to backtrack a little or it may give rise to the Blue Dogs, sensible democrats, and let the retake their party back and actually accomplish some solid legislation. It will be interesting to watch.

 

Can anyone name a republican/conservative piece of legislation that either worked, or helped the middle class?

 

What have you been smoking?

 

One more reason to vote for Obama!

 

If you look at the legislation they support overall you can definitely see the trend. G.W. Bush is a prime example. His 100% support of low income housing loans, which led to the crash, his massive prescription medication plan, he was not very conservative. The republican Congress under Clinton was also not as conservative as they'd have you believe. They were more than willing to work with Clinton and compromise on any number of things. They are a bit more tight now but only because of groups like the Tea Party holding them back from going even further to the middle and the fact that the democrats are pulling further left then they are willing to go at the moment.

Trust me, you get a moderate democrat in there and I've no doubt you'll see big changes. Hillary Clinton would have accomplished far more than Obama has because he has shown reluctance to work with republicans at all. We saw how republicans were willing to extend unemployment benefits when Obama worked with them on extending the Bush tax cuts but Obama has walked away from the table. He has a great opportunity to do some compromising and give up some things but get others in return but he wants it all his way and it has led to a stalemate in Congress.