Posted on 06/10/2009 7:00:42 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Poll: Majority unsure who speaks for the GOP Posted: 09:39 AM ET
From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney
WASHINGTON (CNN) – As the Republican Party struggles to regain its footing following the November elections, a new survey shows that a majority of adult Americans sees no clear leader for the minority political party.
Even more problematic for the GOP is that one-third of Republicans hold an unfavorable view of their party, according to the USA Today/Gallup poll.
When it comes to naming a “main person” who speaks for the GOP, 52 percent of Americans were unable to do so.
Among those who did name a speaker for the GOP, 13 percent identified conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh, while 10 percent named former Vice President Dick Cheney. Arizona Sen. John McCain and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich were each named by 6 percent of Americans in the poll.
Just 3 percent said former President George W. Bush is currently the most prominent Republican speaker, while Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and House Minority Leader John Boehner were each named by 1 percent of participants in the survey.
(Excerpt) Read more at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com ...
I was thinking the same...
We are waiting for Sarah to be the leader with Rush as her copilot.
Since the national Republican party is dominated by RINOs, this is a good thing. It shows the Repbublican rank and file are rejecting RINOs.
Republicans took back control of the house in 1994, because Clinton overreached and NEWT created a national campaign for Republicans based on conservative values. Republicans could have taken the presidency back from Clinton in 1996 had they nominated a solid conservative, so who do they nominate? Bob Dole. Mr. I’m a moderate.
So who was the ‘main one’ speaking for the Dems 4 years ago? Kerry? Gore? Good ol’ Bill? Miz Hillary? Howard Dean? Harry or Nancy?
The GOP has some great voices out there if people are willing to listen to em.
Sarah Palin.
Tim Pawlenty.
Mark Sanford.
Bobby Jindal.
Newt Gingrich.
Just to name a few.
Sarah Palin is out of the loop...She’s the only name out there that isn’t a globalist, as Obama is...She will never be supported by the GOP or the RNC...
If Sarah goes anywhere it will have to be a completely grass roots operation...There will be no Party behind her...In fact, the ‘Party’ will do everything they can to ditch her...
As straw men go, that’s not even a very good one.
The GOP is an organization with a structure, goals, and a budget. It is logical that it would have clear lines of authority, a clear message, and a designated spokesperson.
Black people are an ethnic group spread over every continent on Earth. Why on Earth would anyone think someone would speak for as disparate a subset of humanity as that?
That rino squish doesn't speak for conservatives anymore!
Give the media a break!
They’re just trying to figure out who it is they should be attacking...
Same issues were at play with Reagan. Ultimately, we’ll call the shots on this one too. And we’ll probably have half the Democrats on our side by that time, as well.
That’s part of the problem, of course, they need pizzazz to be listened to, and on that list only Newt and Sarah speak with pizzazz. Sanford and Palin are the only two reliably conservative in message—Pawlenty’s a cross between Crist and McCain for crying out loud! The opposition has dusted Palin up pretty well, and Newt has damaged himself. It’d be great if Sanford could pick up a little of Palin’s zing and Palin could add a touch of Sanford’s sober depth: then we’d have two good reps right there.
Paul Ryan is still young, but I think he’s got potential. DeMint is very good on economics. I’m sure there are others, but nobody yet to lead our leaders, if you will.
That's a really big "could have". 1996 was a whole lot like 2008, insomuch as there weren't any really attractive candidates. The GOP primary field was a who's who of people that would've been shellacked by Clinton - Alan Keyes, Pat Buchanan, Lamar Alexander, Arlen Specter...the list goes on and on of political also-rans.
And yes, Newt took back the House in '94, but Clinton's approval rating had spiked to just over 60% by the '96 election. It would have been near-impossible for any candidate to beat a sitting President with a strong approval rating and a growing economy in peace time. It just wasn't he GOP's year, regardless of who was nominated.
Michael Steele--floundering to find his footing.
Newt--great planner, historian, speaker, but too easily dazzled by the Dems (he admitted to being flummoxed by Clinton), and too busy contemplating his navel, er his next wife's navel to pay strict attention.
George Bush--been there, had his chance, and except for national security, learned nothing. He still thinks you can make nice with DC Dems.
Rudy--I really like him in a lot of ways as a reformer, but a bit too lib New Yorker.
Mitt Romney--some good points, but how could you trust someone with his background from MA to be other than a RINO.--he is handsome, a businessman, but a little too smooth.
John McCain--like the proverbial cat, he has had most if not all of his nine lives. Go away, already!
vaudine
If the Gutless Old Pantywaists were smart, they would beg Limbaugh to represent their party. But there is a reason they are called the Stupid Party.
I have believed for a long time that Presidential politics is a whole lot less about political ideology and a whole lot more about personal style with a strong dash of contemporary/situational happenstance.
While it seem unfathomable to people who frequent politically-minded discussion boards, the plurality of voters, possibly even the majority of voters couldn't describe the platforms or the ideology of the party that they'll self-identify with, if they even pick a party at all. They can't describe or define with any accuracy what is Capitalism, Socialism, Fascism or any other kind of "ism" for that matter. In short, they're politically illiterate.
Plus, in the final analysis, most people who aren't ideological fervent (what many will mistakenly call moderates, and I just describe as morons), either left or right, make up their during the debates. They go with the person with whom they have the greatest level of comfort. This could be physical, emotional or in some cases even spiritual comfort. But, they aren't reading the candidate's litany of position papers and making a critical and logical analysis of who's ideas are best.
It's a popularity contest. It has been for the at least the last 50 years, and probably will be for the foreseeable future.
As far as the mouthpiece of the GOP or are they talking RNC, for it would be Steele (but he's a mod damaged goods front guy for the RINOs) but GOP it would only be RUSH no one else at this time has the national audience plus the clear defined conservative message.
RINOs have no message as they "stand," as it were, for NOTHING!
It makes no logical sense to want to have an entertainer with approval ratings just marginally higher than Nancy Pelosi and Rev. Wright be the titular head of the GOP. No sense at all.
It's like saying Michael Moore would be a great spokesman for the DNC. Of course, you'll never hear the MSM make that analogy because they don't want to trivialize the Democrat Party and divide and conquer it's constituency.
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.