Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
While I understand that talk can be used to make a case for GOP principles and/or convince the public, and its essential to publicize your position, talk that’s not backed up by any action becomes mere empty rhetoric and is perceived as such. Too often, the GOP message is weak. Some of this is, as you say , attributable to the GOP’s lack of powerful speakers. And to your second point, there’s also the problem of the message getting ignored or drowned out by a liberal media “headwind”. However, IMHO the GOP message isn’t always taken seriously because it often gives in without a real fight. It doesn’t always walk the talk.
In order to win in any contest, you have to put points up on the board. You do that by offense, by scoring against the other team. As an example, I think the House controlled GOP could have scored points by doing a better job of using the power of the purse when they had the opportunity. Even little victories build momentum. Just my opinion.
The GOP needs to adopt a more aggressive, winning attitude and not appear so comfortable with maintaining the status quo. If I was a Democrat, I would be thankful everyday that the Republican Party is as docile as it is. There’s nothing better than having a weak opponent.
There are lots of issues the GOP could win on IMO, especially in a political environment that is not so favorable to Dems. I think Reagan set a fine example of how to score points and win. The GOP needs to follow his example.
Regards.
>>I think Reagan set a fine example of how to score points and win. The GOP needs to follow his example.<<
While I agree that it would be nice to win a few in the House, playing the “power of the purse” game seemed to backfire on the GOP. Recall the beating the party took in polling during the last shutdown, even as Obama kept people out of national parks. The media is a tough opponent when it’s so soundly on the side of the opposition.
I think the game changes completely if Reid no longer controls the Senate’s agenda in 2015. The GOP will be able to send up individual funding bills that are overwhelmingly approved by the voters and it will be almost impossible for Obama to veto them and still claim it’s the GOP shutting down the government. And even if he does, Dem Senators up for re-election will almost be forced to vote to override early vetoes.
As for Reagan, I think there are some parallels to the current situation. Reagan wasn’t loved by the establishment; he had to fight for the nomination and he based his fight on conservative (actually, old-time liberal) principles of individual freedoms and responsibilities, coupled with a warning about big government run amuck. Once he secured the nomination he didn’t have to change his message (unlike Romney, for example, who first felt he had to tack right, then back left during the general election). Reagan just kept campaigning on the same principles because they resonate with all but devout leftists and he won.
I think that’s what’s now happening with respectable tea party supported candidates finally rising to the top of the candidate pool. If one of them wins the nominations he or she will be able to campaign in the general on the same principles. And if successful, a lot will begin to happen, starting with reversing most of Obama’s inane policies and replacing them with policies that emphasize personal responsibility and individual liberty while warning about the dangers of big government.
The recent poll (Pew, I believe) was illuminating in that regard. Younger voters are now primed for just such an appeal by the GOP, whether they realize it yet or not.