Advice for the RNC

[Liberal]

I invite people to argue against me or offer ideas of their own. Participate in any appropriate way, but I'd like it if people were analytical and studious about it with a minimum of drama and hyperbole.

If I were the Republican Party poobah, here's what I would do.

1. Dump the extremist evangelicals

Seriously. I'm sorry, but you're just going to have to do this. I'm not saying you have to disassociate yourself with the Christian faith or anything. I'm just saying that you have to dump the people who are scaring everybody away. Dump every person who had anything to do with spreading the rumors about Obama's religion. They practically define the set of people I'm talking about.

2. Dump all the Rovians in your ranks

It did take a long time, but Americans finally became fed up with Rovian tactics in politics. This happened because you launched smears that flew in the face of obvious facts. People could see with their own eyes that Obama was not the madman or nutter you made him out to be. You took it too far, and now people are alert to it. They've gotten to the point that they presume it from you.

3. Dump the ignorant and rabid hicks

These are the people who stood in line especially for Palin rallies. Now, I'm not saying anything about Palin per se, but for whatever reason (and this can easily be confirmed via YouTube) many of the people who went to see her were ignorant, racist, scare-mongering fucks.

4. Decide what Republicanism means and stick with it

I recommend that you define it in the way that best accommodates my suggestions (1) - (3). In other words, I think you should become more libertarian, along the lines of Goldwater Republicanism. What happened with Reagan Republicanism is that you went from being fiscally conservative and socially liberal to being fiscally liberal and socially conservative. That is not a tenable position to hold in a vigilant and empowered American society. Once the social conservatives (again, identified above) get started, their tentacles reach far and deep, and they become hard to disjoin from the party.

5. Find new young leadership in the Goldwater mold

This is a really tricky thing because it involves the biggest clash of personalities. A lot of people are going to want to vie for power, and a lot of people who have power are not going to want to let it go. Therefore, if your leadership is not interested in retiring from politics, overthrow them. Put them out, right along with the evangelicals, the hate-mongers, and the idiots.

Okay...

Now, those are my suggestions. And the most obvious quick rejoinder is, "What the fuck. You're suggesting cutting out whole chunks of membership. That's crazy. It's suicide."

And my answer is that you've already committed suicide. Well, you've made the attempt, anyway. You're not dead yet. But the people I've identified above are the cancer in your system that you need to irradiate. You really shouldn't be afraid of them because quite a number of them are lemmings anyway, and if you just tell them to shut up, they will. Make up bumper sticker slogans that tie being civil to being patriotic or something.

There will, in the end, be some number who won't tolerate your new radical views of personal liberty and financial responsibility. And they will fall away. But where will they go? They can't go to the Democrats, except subversively. They can form their own party, but doing so will be an enormous expense in both time and money. And like all third parties, it will peter out anyway. Eventually, they'll just drop out of the system and stop voting. And that's a good thing.

Once you've taken those steps, you can begin to bleed people away from the Democrats. People like me, for example, who were drawn to Obama's libertarian leanings. He is, frankly, more Republican (Goldwaterly speaking) than many of you are. Anyway, best of luck in your post-mortem soul searching.

[Sitnam]

Wow. Nothing like kicking sand in the face of the loser on the beach to make you feel big.

[Ethilrist]

And how exactly do they go about cutting these people out? Suppose I were an evangelical, Rovian ignorant fuck. What's to keep me from registering as a Republican?

[George Kaplin]

Originally Posted by Liberal

Now, those are my suggestions. And the most obvious quick rejoinder is, "What the fuck. You're suggesting cutting out whole chunks of membership. That's crazy. It's suicide."

I worry that the Rovian, evangelical smearmongers outnumber the reasoned Goldwater Conservatives by a significant margin. They may end up kicking you out.

[An Arky]

Originally Posted by Ethilrist

And how exactly do they go about cutting these people out? Suppose I were an evangelical, Rovian ignorant fuck. What's to keep me from registering as a Republican?

I believe he means stop pandering to those groups and doing the old nudge nudge wink wink regarding race. As far as Rovian tactics go, well, I don't think that sort of thing will ever change, because 1. It's as old as politics itself and 2. It works, unfortunately.

[HMS Irruncible]

There was a big round of this going around in 2004. Hand-wringing and identity crisis on the Democrat side concerning how they had to shape up or risk losing elections over and over. That was a mere 4 years ago.

In that context, the best advice to the Republicans would be to act bipartisan for 4 years and tempt the Democrats into going overboard with their power, enacting hasty heavy-handed legislation to try and fix everything.

In the spirit of the OP, though, the Republicans really only need to do one thing. Recognize that government exists to protect the public good by enacting sound policy. We can agree to disagree on entitlements, what good government means, etc. But fucking stop acting like the only way to improve the government is to destroy it and line your pockets with the pieces. It was Katrina, not Sarah who did you in.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Ethilrist

And how exactly do they go about cutting these people out? Suppose I were an evangelical, Rovian ignorant fuck. What's to keep me from registering as a Republican?

Having a platform that doesn't include: a constitutional amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman, seeking to interject creationism into classrooms or seeking to allow prayer in school, for a start?

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

Having a platform that doesn't include: a constitutional amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman, seeking to interject creationism into classrooms or seeking to allow prayer in school, for a start?

Not that I favor this, but are you aware that a majority of Americans, including lots of Democrats, would like to see prayer allowed in school and creationism taught alongside evolution? How would that improve the Republican's chances?

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Not that I favor this, but are you aware that a majority of Americans, including lots of Democrats, would like to see prayer allowed in school and creationism taught alongside evolution? How would that improve the Republican's chances?

Maybe some people would buy into the idea that they want the government out of our lives? People can be for prayer in school in an abstract way, but far, far fewer (imho) vote based on it. The good parts of the Republican party are those that are irrelevant to the fanatical cross clutchers.

Those that do are an albatross. Cut them loose and let them form the JOP.

[HMS Irruncible]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Not that I favor this, but are you aware that a majority of Americans, including lots of Democrats, would like to see prayer allowed in school and creationism taught alongside evolution? How would that improve the Republican's chances?

Actually I'm not aware of that, do you have a cite for it? I don't doubt the numbers are probably higher than most liberals think, but I have a hard time believing it's a majority, at least for those who want the teaching of creationism.

[Llama Llogophile]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Not that I favor this, but are you aware that a majority of Americans, including lots of Democrats, would like to see prayer allowed in school and creationism taught alongside evolution? How would that improve the Republican's chances?

Dumping those types would definitely improve the GOP's chances of getting my vote, if anyone cares.

I'm an independent who usually votes Democrat, but I could see voting for a principled conservative who has sound fiscal views.

However, if that candidate also embraces teaching creationism in science class, they have automatically attached a gigantic MORON sign to their forehead as far as I'm concerned, and will never get my vote.

A post-modern Goldwater type could tempt me though. Food for thought, GOP.

[rues]

Originally Posted by Sitnam

Wow. Nothing like kicking sand in the face of the loser on the beach to make you feel big.

There were actually a number of these sorts of threads after the last couple Bush wins, telling Democrats how to fix themselves.

In Liberal's defense, he's at least sticking to suggestions that incorporate what a large number of Republicans claim to stand for (fiscal conservatism, small government, etc) whereas the 'fix the Democrats' threads were mostly suggesting that Democrats become Republicans::shrug::.

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by rues

There were actually a number of these sorts of threads after the last couple Bush wins, telling Democrats how to fix themselves.

I participated in some of those as well. My suggestions then involved such things as being more tolerant toward people of faith, and so forth.

[What Exit?]

Originally Posted by Liberal

I participated in some of those as well. My suggestions then involved such things as being more tolerant toward people of faith, and so forth.

And it looks like they took your advice in the form of Obama. Obama was extremely savvy and overcame a very tough name and a legacy of bigotry this country still has. McCain would have been the Republican version of the man reaching out to all Americans in 2000 but Rove took that from him and this time McCain lowered himself and used the Rovian tactics. It was sad to see as I still retain respect for McCain and wish he had won in 2000.

I like the platform you laid out up top, but I doubt the party has fallen far enough yet to disenfranchise what has sadly become their base.

I guess deep down I am closer to Goldwater than most politicians since. That true fiscal conservative part of the party is buried. Goldwater would never have approved of Tax and Spend but even more so he would have railed against spend and spend like Bush/Cheney just gave us. It flew in the face of Fiscal conservatives. Now Goldwater was far from perfect in staying out of other people's business but at least he believed it deep down and gave it lip service. I doubt he would support gay marriage bans and I don't think he would have made it one of his platforms either. Just my opinion of the man.

Bush Sr. was an older style Republican and man of faith. He was closer to Rockefeller Republicans and he knew that faith was personal and had no place in politics. I liked Bush Sr, I just did not like his VP who was a precursor of the Social Issue Republican that took over the party. Sadly Bush Sr. just did not have a good feel for economic issues. He was actually quite excellent in Foreign Policy.

As to Bush the second, Cheney and Palin I won't repeat my feeling about them except to say again they have betrayed my party and finally drove me from it.

Jim (Independent since February of 2008)

[Liberal]

Perhaps some sort of test could be devised. Try, for example, fielding candidates who are distasteful to evangelical Rovian ignorant fucks.

[Cisco]

Although I personally agree with you, Liberal, I think their problems are the war and the economy, both of which will be much smaller or non-issues by 2012 or 2016 at the latest. I don't believe that social conservatism, ignorant hicks, and Rovian smear tactics really hurt them all that much, unfortunately.

[IClaudius]

A lot of it depends on how you ask the question to.

I'm not opposed to kids being exposed to teleological, ex nihilo explanations for the universe or god, in the context of philosophical discussions in school. Indeed, I would love it if schools expanded their syllabi to include a greater philosophical component.

What I think is complete indefensible, however, is trying to smuggle in creationism and young earth ideas into the class room under the guise of intelligent design. ID is NOT nor has it ever been a proper falsifiable scientific theory, so it's not science. It does not belong in the scientific classroom on equal footing with evolution; it's as simple as that. No matter how many people believe in it, it's not science.

I think the Republicans opened a Pandora's box by exploiting religious alienation from secular culture and getting these people whipped into a frenzy. They now have some degree of responsibility to create either ways from them to depoliticise, as they existed prior to Reagan, or engage in a more constructive way which isn't framed completely as them against the god-hating liberal enemy.

[BrainGlutton]

The Pubs can purge the Rovian strategists and be nothing but better for it. But to purge the evangelicals, etc., means purging a significant portion of their voting base. How will the party win elections without them?

[gonzomax]

The repubs do not have the numbers to compete with the dems. That is why they pander to single issue groups like anti abortion and gun nut groups. The evangelical group are rabid and will contribute and work for them.The repubs never give them a thing in return. The main base of the repubs are the wealthy and powerful who move the economy around to their advantage. They are not a huge group. They need the crazies to have a chance.

[jsgoddess]

I don't know that the RNC has to dump anyone. I do think they might need to work on defining themselves again. Read Free Republic for a bit and you'll find that Freepers think that Sarah Palin is a "true conservative" whereas Bush and McCain aren't.

From the outside, Bush and McCain look more like "true conservatives" than Palin does. Palin's only claim to conservatism seems to be being pro-life. If that's all it takes, why not be "pro-lifatives"?

If I can't figure out what they're selling when they say they're conservative, how am I supposed to switch to them?

[foolsguinea]

My suggestion for the RNC. Finish the transformation. Turn your party into an explicitly religious, litmus-test party. Continue to feel free to imply that those who vote for Democrats are un-Christian. Nominate officeholders who will engage in Inquisition of non-Republicans. Pursue power with the relentlessness of Sun Wu, & crush your enemies if you can.

[jsgoddess]

Originally Posted by foolsguinea

My suggestion for the RNC. Finish the transformation. Turn your party into an explicitly religious, litmus-test party. Continue to feel free to imply that those who vote for Democrats are un-Christian. Nominate officeholders who will engage in Inquisition of non-Republicans. Pursue power with the relentlessness of Sun Wu, & crush your enemies if you can.

I appreciate that sentiment, but the thing is that without competition for reasonable voters, the Democrats will get away with anything.

You don't want only one viable party. You really really don't.

[What Exit?]

Originally Posted by jsgoddess

I appreciate that sentiment, but the thing is that without competition for reasonable voters, the Democrats will get away with anything.

You don't want only one viable party. You really really don't.

Sure we do. The Democrats will go a little power crazy after the country is more or less fixed. Drift back to the left and then the New Moderate Smaller Government/Pro Business/Fiscal conservative party will occur. The old Republican party will fall by the wayside and in 2-3 election cycles disappear. It has happened before and can happen again.

foolsguinea is suggesting an excellent recipe for it to happen. Then we could go back to where we were about 50 years ago with a Liberal Democrat party and a Moderate party to keep the bread and circuses at bay. Of course back then the Liberal Democrats were somehow saddled with the Southern Theo-crats. Not likely to happen this time but I also don't think the Republican party is likely to follow either foolsguinea 's recipe for suicide or Liberal's very reasonable path to retaking itself and claiming the middle.

[Syntropy]

Originally Posted by jsgoddess

I appreciate that sentiment, but the thing is that without competition for reasonable voters, the Democrats will get away with anything.

You don't want only one viable party. You really really don't.

I'm not sure that's what would happen. There have always been factions within the GOP just as there have always been factions within the Democratic party. The GOP has always denied it, claiming unity, but now that the divide between the demagogic faction and the moderates and fiscal conservatives is so wide, why not let the demogogues split off and form their own party?

The GOP resembles nothing so much right now as "God's Own Party," with more moderate and sensible voices getting lost in the shouting for ID, anti-gay legislation and one nation under Christianity. Give them their own party and let sanity come back to the Republicans who know what it means to be conservative. Moderates and independents will follow, and I'll happily return to a party that right now scares the ever lovin' daylights out of me.

[foolsguinea]

Originally Posted by foolsguinea

Finish the transformation....Nominate officeholders who will engage in Inquisition of non-Republicans. Pursue power with the relentlessness of Sun Wu, & crush your enemies if you can.

I make snide suggestions as I did above out of an internal perversity. I then worry it would actually work. How much of America is ripe for fascism?

Originally Posted by jsgoddess

...without competition for reasonable voters, the Democrats will get away with anything.

You don't want only one viable party. You really really don't.

Eh. The Whigs collapsed, the GOP arose. The GOP collapsed under Hoover, & then only became the party of personal responsibility & hard money in response to FDR. The liberal establishment of the 1960's fell apart as the Democrats found McGovern & the civil rights faction, & part of the old coalition became neo-conservatives.

Eventually, the Blue Dogs or the nearly-Greens will opt out of the universal Democratic coalition so that two-party-ism can return.

The politicians don't want one-party rule either. They'll break it for us, in ways we don't yet see.

[foolsguinea]

Originally Posted by foolsguinea

The GOP collapsed under Hoover, & then only became the party of personal responsibility & hard money in response to FDR.

And let me add, the "conservatives" were the Washington Senators to the liberal establishment's Harlem Globetrotters for 45 years. We did OK then.

[Frostillicus]

If the Republicans kick all the whack jobs out of their party, they won't have anyone left.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Frostillicus

If the Republicans kick all the whack jobs out of their party, they won't have anyone left.

No, they'd still have the moderates, whom the whackjobs want to kick out of the party. Problem is, they need a coalition of both to win anything (well, in most states, anyway).

[Rand Rover]

Originally Posted by Liberal

If I were the Republican Party poobah, here's what I would do.

1. Dump the extremist evangelicals

2. Dump all the Rovians in your ranks

3. Dump the ignorant and rabid hicks

Sorry, not gonna happen. If Obama would have lost, would you have recommended that the Democrats dump poor people and minorities?

This is how the game is played. Those of us who want small government have found support from the evangelical hick idiots, and those of you want big government have found support from the poor and minorities. We each try to whip our idiots to victory with varying degrees of success.

[Maeglin]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

Sorry, not gonna happen. If Obama would have lost, would you have recommended that the Democrats dump poor people and minorities?

This is how the game is played. Those of us who want small government have found support from the evangelical hick idiots, and those of you want big government have found support from the poor and minorities. We each try to whip our idiots to victory with varying degrees of success.

I am not sure if the causality works in the direction that you suggest. For my part at least, I endure big government and vote left because I care more about social issues than I do about the size of the government. I would find it unlikely that I am the only one. I have little choice but to vote left because I simply have no social positions in common whatsoever with the right. If that were to change, so would my vote and the votes of many other urban professionals like me.

[IClaudius]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

Sorry, not gonna happen. If Obama would have lost, would you have recommended that the Democrats dump poor people and minorities?

This is how the game is played. Those of us who want small government have found support from the evangelical hick idiots, and those of you want big government have found support from the poor and minorities. We each try to whip our idiots to victory with varying degrees of success.

Wow that attitude completely stinks. Believe it or not, liberals don't believe they're cynically rounding up poor people as electoral fodder in the name of some a priori ideological agenda for big government. They actually believe in a different political and moral philosophy, which is under-scored by a different approach to political economy. That approach is not just marketed to poor people for some ulterior motive, it is directly premised on it being in those same poor people's interest.

Your application of that false cynicism to minorities is even more bizarrely repugnant, as if the mere fact of being a different race can be equated with material disadvantage, and intellectual weakness. An utterly contemptible and indefensible sentiment.

Typical juvenile South Park Libertarian abrasiveness.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

Sorry, not gonna happen. If Obama would have lost, would you have recommended that the Democrats dump poor people and minorities?

This is how the game is played. Those of us who want small government have found support from the evangelical hick idiots, and those of you want big government have found support from the poor and minorities. We each try to whip our idiots to victory with varying degrees of success.

The ironic thing here is your evangelical hick idiot run government that espouses a love for small government managed to do quite the opposite. Perhaps by itself one of the best indictments of the hijacking of the Republican party there is.

In a clear break from Republican campaigns of the 1990s to downsize government and devolve power to the states, Bush is fostering what amounts to an era of new federalism in which the national government shapes, not shrinks, programs and institutions to comport with various conservative ideals, according to Republicans inside and outside the White House.

SOURCE: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Feb8.html

George W. Bush rode into Washington almost eight years ago astride the horse of smaller government. He will leave it this winter having overseen the biggest federal budget expansion since Franklin Delano Roosevelt seven decades ago.

SOURCE: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...t-gets-bigger/

[Yossarian]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

Those of us who want small government have found support from the evangelical hick idiots, and those of you want big government have found support from the poor and minorities.

I am beginning to think that this paradox is part of the problem. I've lived in the west and now (since 2002) lived in the south (NC and KY). As a westerner, it was easy to get along with the Republicans, who were largely in it for smaller government and had a libertarian lean. The state I live in now went for McCain by about 58% (and higher for Bush), and has anything but a small state government--I pay state income tax, state sales tax, AND city income tax! I don't complain because I like and appreciate the public services these taxes provide me (well, that and because I'm a state employee). My impression is that folks here in the south are very socially conservative and are yet in favor of big government.

[IClaudius]

FriarTed, that sounds all pretty reasonable to me.

I take you feel somewhat alienated by the sense of visceral rejection of the religious right in this thread. But I reckon a lot of that stems from the central role they played in blindly enabling the recent era - after being dangled on the knee of the Republican Party with wedge issues and polarising rhetoric they never really intended to follow through with - such as the Federal Gay Marriage Constitutional amendment.

If the religious right was slightly less credulous about this, it could still be politically active and retain most of its key position in a more moderated without facing this level of animosity. I'm secular myself but I have no problem with people of faith - indeed I think many religious critiques of the hollowness of materialistic liberalism tend to be pretty well aligned with communitarian ideas.

What annoys me is the religious right using Supply Side Jesus, without any sense of humility or good works taught in the Christian tradition. What annoys me is an inability to step down the polarising rhetoric of god-hating evil liberals. The Democrats have to do their part to not be see as accepting of faith - but I think the conservative religious movement ultimately bears responsibility for following the Republican party off a cliff.

Thankfully, some of evangelicals have started to reappraise their blind support of the Republican agenda.

[BwanaBob]

Originally Posted by Liberal

I invite people to argue against me or offer ideas of their own. Participate in any appropriate way, but I'd like it if people were analytical and studious about it with a minimum of drama and hyperbole.

If I were the Republican Party poobah, here's what I would do.

.....
4. Decide what Republicanism means and stick with it

I recommend that you define it in the way that best accommodates my suggestions (1) - (3). In other words, I think you should become more libertarian, along the lines of Goldwater Republicanism. What happened with Reagan Republicanism is that you went from being fiscally conservative and socially liberal to being fiscally liberal and socially conservative. That is not a tenable position to hold in a vigilant and empowered American society. Once the social conservatives (again, identified above) get started, their tentacles reach far and deep, and they become hard to disjoin from the party.

Liberal nails it with #4. That's where the GOP lost me years ago.

[Knorf]

I'm a former Republican who's voted Democrat for the past 16 years. I left the Republican Party when I became extremely disappointed with the increasingly sanctimonious, divisive tone. I detested Gingrich's politics, and his appalling scorched-earth tactics. In 1994, the GOP was even blocking its own bills simply to increase the perception that the Democrats couldn't get anything done. Tom Delay -- another horrible man. Blantant gerrymandering, blatant refusal to acknowledge that the other had sometimes had a point: he browbeat his own colleagues if they didn't fall in line. Standard GOP operating procedure: demonize the other side, block them regardless of whether their ideas made sense, and present an inflated sense of your own righteousness to the public.

That is what has to go.

Here's what the GOP needs to do to get someone like me to vote GOP again:

--Adopt a policy of tolerance towards differences. Bring back the Big Tent.
--Resurrect your advocacy of smaller government, for real. Not just words. Do it.
--Resurrect your advocacy of financial restraint, and opposition to "pork-barrel" politics. Not just words. Do it.
--Reject all politics of demonization and destruction. Recognize that liberals are patriots, too. NO MORE "Real America" and "Liberals are Traitors" bullshit.
--Realize what holding the moral high ground really means. I.e., it means humbly realizing that you don't have all the answers, and that many different points of view deserve respect, if not agreement.

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by Knorf

I'm a former Republican who's voted Democrat for the past 16 years. I left the Republican Party when I became extremely disappointed with the increasingly sanctimonious, divisive tone. I detested Gingrich's politics, and his appalling scorched-earth tactics. In 1994, the GOP was even blocking its own bills simply to increase the perception that the Democrats couldn't get anything done. Tom Delay -- another horrible man. Blantant gerrymandering, blatant refusal to acknowledge that the other had sometimes had a point: he browbeat his own colleagues if they didn't fall in line. Standard GOP operating procedure: demonize the other side, block them regardless of whether their ideas made sense, and present an inflated sense of your own righteousness to the public.

That is what has to go.

Here's what the GOP needs to do to get someone like me to vote GOP again:

--Adopt a policy of tolerance towards differences. Bring back the Big Tent.
--Resurrect your advocacy of smaller government, for real. Not just words. Do it.
--Resurrect your advocacy of financial restraint, and opposition to "pork-barrel" politics. Not just words. Do it.
--Reject all politics of demonization and destruction. Recognize that liberals are patriots, too. NO MORE "Real America" and "Liberals are Traitors" bullshit.
--Realize what holding the moral high ground really means. I.e., it means humbly realizing that you don't have all the answers, and that many different points of view deserve respect, if not agreement.

A great contribution to the thread, Knorf. Thanks. Not that there haven't been others, but still.

[DSeid]

The rumors of the death of the GOP are greatly exaggerated.

Obama won by 6%. With Democrats coming out above historic norms and more than usual GOPs staying home. With an overwhelming percentage of the Black and an impressive percentage of the Hispanic vote. And with a populus throughly disgusted by the job done by the current set of bums. A few percent different in a few states and it would be different.

To use a cliche, what the RNC needs to do is not fight the was just lost, but get set for the war to come. Focus on regaining some seats in Congress next cycle. Let the Palin contingent (be it with Palin or someone else) lose the next president run (unless Obama screws up an incumbent is hard to beat) and think of where the electorate will be in 8 years.

The GOP turnout this time really is their floor. Hardly anyone could have run a worse campaign than this one and following as unpopular a President. All they need to do is expand a bit around the margins and find a way to keep the Dem turnout a bit more subdued, perhaps a bit less overwhelmingly winning Hispanics and Blacks.

Hispanics in particular are critical for them. More than anything else they need to turn down the anti-immigrant rhetoric. Many Hispanics are actually fairly conservative and are ripe for GOP picking if not for that. And Hispanics are a growing portion of the population. If the Hispanic vote had gone differently Nevada, Colorada, New Mexico, and maybe even Florida and Virginia could have gone differently.

[DSeid]

CJJ* if you read what I wrote as "a target-the-base strategy" then I would ask you to reread it.

More it is a recognition that their base, with even a modest portion of moderates, is still a major threat. They need to hold on to the base to win, but that can be done without targeting them. To win they need only have the Democrats become somewhat complacent and be able to pull in a few more at the margins - which is where they'll need to target.

Think of it as the inverse of the Urban Archipelago approach for the Democrats. For the Democrats the key is holding onto the urban vote and expanding into more of an influence in the expanding metropolitian areas and "edge cities" - and winning enough there to offset losses in the rural sections. The GOP needs to expand its share of the same edge cities and exurbs and in the groups that populate them. And yes a significant portion of that group are Hispanic and "ethinics" of various sorts who have not been adequately targeted by the GOP.

[DSeid]

Originally Posted by DSeid

CJJ* if you read what I wrote as "a target-the-base strategy" then I would ask you to reread it.

More it is a recognition that their base, with even a modest portion of moderates, is still a major threat. They need to hold on to the base to win, but that can be done without targeting them. To win they need only have the Democrats become somewhat complacent and be able to pull in a few more at the margins - which is where they'll need to target.

Think of it as the inverse of the Urban Archipelago approach for the Democrats. For the Democrats the key is holding onto the urban vote and expanding into more of an influence in the expanding metropolitian areas and "edge cities" - and winning enough there to offset losses in the rural sections. The GOP needs to expand its share of the same edge cities and exurbs and in the groups that populate them. And yes a significant portion of that group are Hispanic and "ethinics" of various sorts who have not been adequately targeted by the GOP.

Then again maybe I'm wrong. I mean if Steve Schmidt agrees with me I must be making a mistake!

There are many lessons for the Republican Party out [of] this election, and the party having been roundly defeated is going to go through a period of debate, and finger-pointing, and recrimination, and blame-gaming, as it seeks to rebuild and become competitive again on the national stage.

If you look at the returns from the southwestern and mountain west states, with rising Latino populations, it’s clear that Latinos are repudiating the party, their anger about the tone of the immigration debate, and the party has to figure out a way to communicate that wanting to have a secure and sovereign southern border and respect for Latinos are not mutually exclusive. But if the party does not figure out a way to appeal to Latino voters, it will become increasingly difficult, and maybe impossible, to ever again win a national election. ...

... The Republican Party wants to, needs to, be able to represent, you know, not only conservatives, but centrists as well. And the party that controls the center is the party that controls the American electorate. ...

[Liberal]

Well, quite obviously, there aren't enough values voters either.

[2sense]

Originally Posted by Liberal

Well, quite obviously, there aren't enough values voters either.

True. So suggesting the GOP purge the libertarian leaning voters and go for full on theocracy is equally bad advice.
-

Originally Posted by What Exit?

Actually the current Republican party, the one that supported Bush/Cheney for 8 years with barely a question is not on the right on economics. They have outspent government income by a large margin and actually expanded government. They have not had the federal government get less involved in citizen's personal lives but actually become more intrusive. In practice they took the worst aspects of both parties to make a truly terrible one.

The GOP is less populist now than they were when the Roc-A-Fella Republicans were relevant. Nixon at least promised to end poverty. Bush has recklessly cut taxes particularly on the top marginal rates, gutted institutions designed to serve and protect working Americans, and tried to kill Social Security.

__________________
Just my 2sense

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by 2sense

True. So suggesting the GOP purge the libertarian leaning voters and go for full on theocracy is equally bad advice.

You'll need to take that up with whoever suggested it.

[2sense]

Originally Posted by Liberal

You'll need to take that up with whoever suggested it.

Excuse me. I seem to have missed your point in pointing out that, "there aren't enough values voters either."

__________________
Just my 2sense

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by 2sense

Excuse me. I seem to have missed your point in pointing out that, "there aren't enough values voters either."

It certainly wasn't that they should "go for full on theocracy". Maybe I misunderstood you.

[erislover]

Originally Posted by Liberal

Well, quite obviously, there aren't enough values voters either.

Actually, my concern is that America is turning strictly into value-voters. It works like this.

1) Take a complicated situation and listen to extremely short comments on it.
2) Relate it to some random moral position.
3) Make a moral pronouncement.
4) When people argue morals, retreat to petty issues. When people argue issues, retreat to morals.
5) When things get tough, fall back to "it's my belief and I'm entitled to it without having to defend it, cuz it's belief."
6) To complete the circle, rally against moral relativism, so that the tactics of 4 and 5 are solidified, even if moral relativism is a total red herring (see 2).

These people generally argue with wishy-washy faux-relativists who think that just because two people have different preferences that they therefore must be able to get along. They're like neo-hippies, but it isn't a left/right thing.

In any case, all anyone can manage to do is discuss morality. Pragmatic solutions based in genuine compromise are totally gone.

[Siege]

Originally Posted by erislover

In any case, all anyone can manage to do is discuss morality. Pragmatic solutions based in genuine compromise are totally gone.

And I want them back. I want to see calm, reasoned discourse which can acknowledge that there are different approaches to solving our problems and we can't know for sure which will work, but we can decide on the most likely one. I'd like changing one's mind to be an indication of wisdom, not wishy-washyness. I also want world peace and a pony, although I'd like to think that calm, reasoned discourse could lead to the former.

I'm a centerist by nature and a fan of capitalism. If the Republican committee wants to get my vote back, here's the biggest thing they can do: stop telling blatant, obvious lies. Let me give you a few examples.

Several times during the past couple of months, while I was watching the morning news and getting ready to go to work, I'd see an ad in which Obama talked about his plans and referred viewers to his website for more information. During the very next commercial break, I'd see a McCain ad saying Obama had no plans. As an ordinary, none-too-awake person, my response to that is, "What do you mean he doesn't have plans? I just heard him talking about them."

The whole "Obama pals around with terrorists because he associates with Bill Ayers" meme is another example of this. I looked into it and it seemed to be nonsense to me. What got me angry, though, was reading Sarah Palin's response to the debunking of this whole business. She said she wasn't going to believe the AP and continue to say Obama pals around with terrorists.

Finally, as was touched on earlier, the whole idea that legalizing gay marriage will force churches to perform them. I got married fairly recently. My church could have refused to marry me if I didn't use the service in the Book of Common Prayer, let alone if I were gay. They also required at least three mandatory counseling sessions, six if one of the people getting married had already been divorced, and this is a notoriously liberal church. If they can refuse to marry you because you want to write your own vows, I can't see why they'd be forced to marry you because you're gay. Saying churches will be forced to marry homosexuals sounds like another blatant, obvious lie to me.

The Rovian scare tactics, bullying, and general meanness I've seen from the Republican Party over the past few years have turned me from someone who agrees with some of their policies to someone who's actively fed up with them and dislikes them at times. I had legitimate concerns about America's going to war in Iraq six years ago. Because of those concerns and my opposition to the war, I was branded a traitor and accused of not loving America by some people.

Speaking of false characterizations, I would appreciate it if the Republican Party would stop immigrant bashing. Most of the first generation immigrants I know are conservative. My own mother voted Democratic for the first time this election, although I think Dad still voted for the Republicans. Immigrants aren't just poor Hispanics and refugees. They're engineers, doctors, and other professionals and saying we don't love America and want to destroy it is, in some ways, the worst kind of slander. I love America so much I went through several months of bureaucratic hassle to become an American. Yes, there are illegal immigrants here. I don't know what percentage of immigrants in America are legal and what percentage are illegal, but considering what illegal immigrants went through to get here and remain here, I think accusing them of not loving America is also a stretch. This spring, a Republican candidate for office was running ads saying he thought people who wanted to become citizens should be required to read, write and speak English. I saw a similar sentiment from someone in the Pit recently. That's a fair enough idea, but here's my problem with it. That's already a requirement. Saying you want to make it a requirement isn't technically a lie, but it does come across as foolish or uneducated.

Finally, as [b[Friar Ted[/b] suggested, I'd like the Republican Party to stop saying they want to make abortion illegal. (Thank you for saying that, sir.) I agree that abortion is immoral, but I also know there are circumstances in which there are no right choices. I read that a woman is four times more likely to have an abortion if her income is below the poverty level. If we really want to reduce abortion in America, and, as [b]Father Ted[b] pointed out, it has been dropping, why don't we do something about the circumstances which lead a woman to consider having one? Requiring that employers provide paid maternity leave would help, even though that is more government interference in business. On the other hand, I once worked with a woman who was aware that taking unpaid time off for maternity leave was just going to push her and her husband further into debt and the prospect was daunting. Personally, I think some sort of universal health insurance would also help reduce the number of abortions, but I'd settle for some form of free prenatal care and obstetric care for those who can't afford it. If that universal health care included free birth control, so much the better, although I'm not not asking the Republican Party to support that.

Look, I like the idea of fiscal responsiblity a lot and the idea of minimal government interference. Who was it who said, "The government which governs best governs least?" Twenty years ago, I was willing to give supply-side economics a chance. I don't see it as having worked. I've seen the rich get richer while things have gotten tougher for the lower and middle classes. I strongly support small businesses and I think they're an important part of the American economy and a vital part of the American dream. I also know from working for some of them that small businesses aren't perfect and can be just as unfair to their workers as any large corporation. Even so, I think government should support and encourage them.

If the Republican Party would give me reduced or eliminated Federal deficits, something I did not see under Reagan or the current administration, and encouragement for small businesses, and no unneccessary government interference, I'd be a lot more inclined to vote for them. If they lie to me and try to scare me, I'll continue to not only not vote for them, but actively dislike them. It is possible for reasonable men and women to disagree about what the best cource of action for a country is, yet work together for the benefit of that country. I'd like to see that happen again.

[Fear Itself]

I will make a suggestion that goes right to the bedrock of conservative principles. Regarding cutting taxes and cutting spending:

Cut spending before you cut taxes.

The Bush Republicans were like little children who demanded their dessert before they ate their vegetables. Tax cuts were absolutely necessary, but spending cuts were always promised for sometime in the future. I no longer think any party can be trusted to cut taxes now, and cut spending later. To restore any credibility, let the GOP vow to cut spending first, then cut taxes in proportion to the spending cuts.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

I will make a suggestion that goes right to the bedrock of conservative principles. Regarding cutting taxes and cutting spending:

Cut spending before you cut taxes.

The Bush Republicans were like little children who demanded their dessert before they ate their vegetables. Tax cuts were absolutely necessary, but spending cuts were always promised for sometime in the future. I no longer think any party can be trusted to cut taxes now, and cut spending later. To restore any credibility, let the GOP vow to cut spending first, then cut taxes in proportion to the spending cuts.

I proposed this a while back, and got no response. They know very well that it is politically impossible to cut spending as much as they want. They really want to tax cut and spend their way into such gigantic deficits that the government could no longer do anything but defense and the most basic of services. Remember starve the beast? Also remember that they were against the Democratic plan not to cut taxes unless there were equal cuts in spending?

[Fear Itself]

Shodan, in light of what happened with the Bush administration, do you think it would be a good idea to cut spending first, and then cut taxes in proportion to those spending cuts? Or should we just cut taxes on the promise of spending cuts later on?