You are completely correct, but many people just don’t want to hear it. They think if we fire Boehner things would suddenly be better. They don’t understand that if we as a conservative movement can’t move public opinion, no matter who we have in elected leadership will cave to public opinion turning against them. They’ll feel they have to or they’ll infuriate the public and lose their seats.
This article is excellent too. The idea that there was some magic time in the 50’s or 60’s or 70’s where Republicans were more conservative is nonsense. Republicans used to be LESS conservative. Ike was fine with FDR’s tax rates and most of his policies, Nixon gave us the EPA and price controls, etc.
As a party we are probably more conservative than ever (though certainly not where we ultimately need to be), but as a movement we are not sufficiently moving the needle of public opinion. We can’t get anywhere if we can’t convince the public we are right. Unfortunately it seems we largely ceded the education, media and entertainment establishments completely to the left. It makes it much easier for them to beat us in the fight for public opinion.
I think its true that the GOP does not represent the base of the party very well, the problem is the base of the party isn’t representative of the overall United States. We need to change that before we are really going to start winning these fights with the Democrats at the national level.
“We cant get anywhere if we cant convince the public we are right.” - LB69
What is with this ‘we’ nonsense? Aren’t you the one that thinks all court challenges to Obama’s eligibility should be dropped, and that the long form birth certificate PDF posted on the whitehouse.gov site is fully legit?
Don’t you also mock sheriff Arpaio’s investigation?
Don’t you also claim that the clearly forged selective service document for Barack Obama is just fine? (Even though it is the only one in existence with a 2 digit date stamp for the year.)
I will tell you right up front, *YOU* are not part of *MY* we.
Worse yet, they actually post like they think a few symbolic votes against weak Bohner, for Donald Duck, actually means something.
No one will take that job as the goat.
Sure, Lou Gohmert of TX is in a 100% R district where a Dem cant win (it was created that way), so Lou can oppose everything the House passes that makes it into law and be loved by his district, but Lou sure doesn't want to be Speaker because then he has to worry about losing the other Seats.
I always post to look at Pelosi as a model of a Speaker who had one goal in mind : beating Rs to get results.
Pelosi let libs have their silly symbolic play votes, but when it was time to get her D House to fund the surge and then to extend all the tax cuts for 2 years(or even pass the Senate O-care Bill) , she got her team to fall in line even thought they ran against those things.
Her goal was winning and she was darn good at it.