Posted on 11/19/2012 4:49:40 AM PST by LD Jackson
I am sure many of you can and will relate to what I am about to write. After the election, I was in a bad mood. I still wonder why we were not able to get out our vote and carry the day on November 6. I am finding it amusing to watch the professional pundits as they toss around ideas about how and where the Republican Party needs to change. Bill Kristol seems to believe we have to concede the ground on taxes and allow them to be raised on millionaires.
The main theme of change seems to be centered around Hispanics. The going opinion seems to be that the Republicans lost because they need to change their position on immigration. Marco Rubio was in Iowa over the weekend and rumors are already surfacing that he will run for President in 2016. While that may be true and can be supported or opposed in good time, I think it's a little early to be casting that net. If you look around, you'll not have far to go before you see supporters of Sarah Palin declaring she should be the candidate we put forward to defeat the liberals in four years. Again, that can be supported or opposed at a later date, but it is still early for that kind of speculation.
To be sure, there are things about the Republican Party that needs to change, assuming the party continues to be relevant in our political system. A lot of the change that needs to happen has to do with how we frame the narrative. We need to explain our positions better and we certainly do not need to run candidates who are going to run off at the mouth and destroy our chances of winning seats we should win. At the same time, we should consider changes of our position on immigration and other issues of importance and concern. But to change the entire focus of our party, changing it to go specifically after the Hispanic vote? Is that a smart thing to do?
For that matter, is it smart for us to go after any particular group, promising them the world, just to get their vote? If we start doing that, whether it be the Hispanics, women, young people, etc., at what point do we start robbing points from one group to give to another? How far do we go to appease one group of voters, without alienating another group? Do we not need all of them in our corner? I just believe it is a little ridiculous for the Republican Party to start tweaking its positions and its core beliefs, if they have any, just to be able to appeal to specific groups of voters.
Why not try a different kind of change? I know it isn't likely to happen, but why not remove John Boehner from his leadership position and elect someone who will actually stand their ground, even when they are trying to find compromise. And yes, I believe we can find a compromise that is workable for everyone, if the liberals are willing. I'm just not sure Boehner is the one to find that compromise. Other changes would include allowing the more conservative members of the Republican Party to hold positions of leadership in Congress. The Tea Party won big in 2010 and they were promptly cut off at the pass by Boehner and company, for one simple reason. The current GOP leadership are more concerned with retaining their power and that requires them to maintain the status quo. Allowing strong conservatives into leadership positions doesn't work for them.
You'll have to forgive me for the rambling of this post. It seems my thoughts are scattered in the wind. If you glean anything from what I have written, let it be this. The Republican Party does need to change, but I am not convinced the changes we see on the horizon are the changes that need to be made. We can start shifting our positions on this or that issue, but at what point does the Republican Party become just a slightly more conservative version of the Democratic Party. At what point will the GOP become completely useless as a political party?
Yes, the Republican Party needs to change, but not so much that it is completely unrecognizable to conservatives.
I heard a woman call into Rush’s show one day stating she was a marketing person who called the RNC to GIVE her help and talents in reaching the FLoridian minority voters (ie: hispanics, cubans, etc). She told Rush that the RNC didn’t want her help! This is the problem with the RNC = they only want their own people running things, and show disdain for anyone outside to come in with fresh ideas and ways to improve our chances of winning! I see guys like John McCain, John Boehner, and all the Washington DC crowd and they repulse me - they don’t know how American conservatives feel and what we want...they’re out of touch and they need to be thrown out of office.
“It seems like we are stuck in a DO LOOP and can never break away from these progressives RINOs in DC without forming another party. It would be bitter medicine to form a third party for a couple of election cycles, but I don’t know how else we get rid of these spineless idiots like Boehner and Rove?”
Exactly the dilemma. When to do it, when it will be a short term problem for a long term gain. I fully expect that we’ll be having this exact same discussion exactly four years from now.
It doesn’t matter what the GOP does or doesn’t do. The only thing that matters is finding a way to prevent voter fraud.
Voter ID laws seem to be good at stopping it. I supported Minnesotas law. The cheaters did not and they out numbered is (likely by cheating) this time around.
Voter ID laws seem to be good at stopping it. I supported Minnesota’s law. The cheaters did not and they out numbered us (likely by cheating) this time around.
> The GOP is seen by the public as old rich white men.
I disagree. We won in 2010 by being conservative. In 2012, the idiots of the party put up the most liberal Republican possible. He stunk from day one and I knew he would lose. If we stick to the principles, we win. If we sell out, we lose.
Let me rephrase, the young dimwit idiot liberals have been programmer to believe that the GOP is old rich white men that are not hip and in sync to today’s time. Visit some liberal websites and you will quickly find this their mindset. They have no reverence or respect for traditions or wisdom.
> The GOP is seen by the public as old rich white men.
I disagree. We won in 2010 by being conservative. In 2012, the idiots of the party put up the most liberal Republican possible. He stunk from day one and I knew he would lose. If we stick to the principles, we win. If we sell out, we lose.
Let me rephrase, the young dimwit idiot liberals have been programmer to believe that the GOP is old rich white men that are not hip and in sync to today’s time. Visit some liberal websites and you will quickly find this their mindset. They have no reverence or respect for traditions, experience or wisdom.
> The GOP is seen by the public as old rich white men.
I disagree. We won in 2010 by being conservative. In 2012, the idiots of the party put up the most liberal Republican possible. He stunk from day one and I knew he would lose. If we stick to the principles, we win. If we sell out, we lose.
Let me rephrase, the young dimwit idiot liberals have been programmed to believe that the GOP is old rich white men that are not hip and in sync to today’s time. Visit some liberal websites and you will quickly find this their mindset. They have no reverence or respect for traditions, experience or wisdom.
About 12 million Hispanics voted, about 8.5 million for Obama. Romney lost the full popular vote by about 3 million votes. So in order to make up the difference with just Hispanics, Romney would’ve needed to win 54% of the Hispanic vote, something the Republicans have never come close to doing.
The real key is appealing to lower income voters. Those making under $50,000 went overwhelmingly for Obama. Those making over $50,000 went strongly for Romney. The GOP doesn’t believe their policies are worse for those lower income voters, do they? Start explaining better to those voters why they’ll be better off under Republicans.
Correction, he’d technically need to have converted 1.5 million Hispanic votes from Obama to himself to win, so Romney would have needed 42% of the Hispanic vote to do that.
One analysis says Bush got 39% of the Hispanic vote in 2004.
http://www.vdare.com/articles/bush-didnt-win-44-of-hispanic-vote-the-smoking-exit-poll
From my point of view, I think everyone calling for GOP reform is making a big, incorrect assumption: They believe the GOP is the party of *conservatives*.
True, the GOP is more conservative (arguably) than the Dems, but that does not necessarily mean it is the party of conservatives. I don’t think it ever truly has been a conservative party, only “more conservative than the Dems” to whatever extent.
Bottom line (and I fear this is the case): The GOP is not at all interested in changing to accommodate conservatives; they are interested in conservatives changing to accommodate the GOP. There is a proportion of the voters who can be relied upon to consistently vote themselves goodies from the public treasury and it seems to be growing with each passing election. Nothing changes with the GOP until the proportion of those “gimme-gimme” voters shrinks significantly, because the GOP will always play the odds by trying to appeal to those voters (despite the GOP knowing full well that the dems will always be ready, able & willing to “out-give” any other party).
I am convinced that if you want to run candidates who are solidly conservative, you are going to have to find some way around the GOP and all their big-money supporters *PLUS* find a unifying conservative candidate who can convince & lead the public in spite of the combined forces aligned against that candidate (GOP, DEM & MSM) *PLUS* somehow convince a portion of those “gimme-gimme” voters to vote for your conservative candidate. Seems impossible to me, but at this point, I’ll listen to all ideas.
I sincerely wish you all those calling for conservative reform of the GOP all the best & I’ll do what I can, but my expectations are realistically low. I’m concentrating on preparing for the worst for the remainder of my lifetime and hope to be shocked that I was all wrong.
That is what the libertarian thing is about, democrat liberals who want an alternative to the democrats on economic issues, are trying to turn the GOP into a better version of the democrat party.
Getting rid of wimps like Boehner are a great idea.
I agree totally. The GOP stands back and let’s them cheat but do nothing to stop them. The GOP is too gentlemanly.
With all due respect, there were those of us on this site advocating your new-found philosophy before the election. We knew what damage a Romney candidacy would do to the Republican Party.
In response, we were shouted down and called traitors by people who thought like you used to. Perhaps not you personally, but those people weren’t difficult to find here.
Now you want a front seat on the bus. Welcome back to your principles, but the front car is full. Line forms at the rear.
Beautifully put Colonel.
I would also like to point out that I notice many, MANY of our former adversaries have had the proverbial come to Jesus moment. Some of them have even owned up to it...though most do exactly what I thought they would and pretend the whole sordid cluster never happened to begin with.
That’s OK. Just proves who is worth trusting and who isn’t.
Regardless, moving ‘forward’ if such is even possible considering the demonstrated people who we have to move ‘forward’ with, will REQUIRE strict ‘party’ discipline. If that means a bunch take their ball and go sniveling back to the GOP, so be it. I’d rather lose honorably against an opponent whose dishonest than kiss moderate vacillating to ‘win’.
Because as we just had shoved up our posterior so forcefully (and continue to see daily as the GOP blames ‘us’ for their loss), the ‘moderates’ including the easily swayed ‘conservatives’ cannot do anything but help Democrats get elected.
And I hope this ‘offends’ them greatly. Because it is a demonstrated FACT.
The first step in “changing the Republican Party” is to figure out what a republican is.
I’d be happy to spell it out if anyone is still interested in such things at Free REPUBLIC.
The first and most important part is in my tagline.
Considering the rules changes implimented by the GOP in August, and the fact that the GOP is filled top down with liberals who run arch-liberals as their top candidate, I cannot be convinced by logic or reason that any ‘retaking’ (or other synonyms) is possible, much less sensible.
The first thing any thinking person has to do is ask themselves the following...
“Is it more sensible to devote the time and resource that would be required (and both are in VERY short supply) to ‘save’ a thoroughly corrupted and wholly discredited albatross, or devote those scarce resources to a new party without all the baggage”?
It is a no brainer.
The infrastructure of the GOP is every bit the arm of the Dem party that the GOP ‘management’ is. That’s not honestly debatable by anyone who is serious. Considering the GOP and Dems trade aides, fundraisers, bundlers et all like baseball cards.
And further, the likes of the Roves, Bohners and ‘moderate’ types in thegop must be kept out or we will see the takeover of any startup just as happened with the TEA party. Notice all the NAME GOP types that started pulling for all the conservative ideas in the beginning, suddenly started preaching the moderate/Romney gospel when the election drew near.
And hundreds of thousands of TEA types fell for it hook line and sinker because they were ‘conservative’ and could not bear to buck the GOP when it mattered most.
Is my disgust showing? It should.
EV, I will say it again. If all the people mocking you and those who believe as you do voted for you or another actual conservative instead of forming the Liberal Appreciation Society of Free Republic, we could actually accomplish something.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.