The latest from Mr Steele: http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/44203877.html
Is this a viable strategy to get disaffected moderates back to the GOP?
Can you suggest a more viable strategy?
As someone who regularly voted Republican in decades past (but not in the 21st century), I have to say I’m not feeling any inclination to sit at their table.
Since the terms “Republican” and “Conservative” have now gone their separate ways, I think Moderates are all they have left…TRM
They have to start, you know, actually advocating and legislating moderate positions on specific concrete issues along with tossing out or at least marginalizing the extremists within their party before this can be taken as anything other than a teenage girl trying a new look to impress the boys.
So, IOW, no, this “strategy” will not work for me. Mainly because it’s not a strategy, it’s a talking point. If they actually went ahead and did it, then sure, I’ll listen.
‘You come in because that is the place to be.’
In other words - ‘We want your votes but we’re going to remain The Monster Raving Loony Party.’
It’s not a strategy, it’s a comment. A strategy would be doing something in support of the statement, and if he says the party welcomes moderates but will only “go back to its roots” and not change anything, then nothing will be accomplished.
“Now”? What do you mean “now”?
The GOP has pandered to Arlen Specter for decades, just as it used to pander to James Jeffords. The party gave him all the money he ever asked for, and actively did everything possible to discourage conservatives from trying to unseat him.
Arlen Specter now CLAIMS that he’s disillusioned with the Republican Party, but as usual, he’s lying. He jumped ship SOLELY because he read the polls, which told him he was going to get slaughtered in the primary.
As long as the GOP was struggling to hold a tiny edge in the Senate, we HAD to coddle this guy. Now that there’s no hope of winning a majority for the foreseeable future, we’re glad to be rid of him.
He’s YOUR headache now, Democrats.
Right now it just looks like such an obvious pander. Specter, a (more or less) moderate jumps ship, there’s speculation about Snowe and/or Collins following him, and suddenly they want to pretend they haven’t spent the last decade or so trying to marginalize moderates out of the party.
Same with Steele, actually - whatever his qualifications are/were, I don’t believe for a minute that he’d be in that position if we were looking at President (Hillary) Clinton.
Obvious desperation is not attractive.
From Steele’s own words last week, the don’t want moderates back if we happen to not be Pro-Life. They don’t seem to friendly to the idea of Green Republicans. They don’t seem to want anyone that doesn’t support laws to prevent Gay marriage. I don’t think they really want the Rockefeller or Roosevelt Republicans back on our terms. They want us to vote for their flawed platform without thought.
I actually think Steele’s words will push moderates like Olympia Snowe from the party if he doesn’t dial it back.
So the “we” that constitutes the heart of the GOP is well to the right, and any moderates are merely tolerated or actively “coddled”. Got it. So your answer to the OP would be no, moderates are not welcomed but actively discouraged. What are going to be the next groups to be excommunicated in the cause of purity?
Nothing much is going to change as long as that is the dominant attitude there. You’ll need a new generation of mature leaders to emerge who aren’t tied to the litmus tests or the utter irresponsibility of the last 8 years. That won’t be overnight, either.
But, they haven’t gone their separate ways. That’s what this whole Frum-Limbaugh flap is about – the party’s future direction.
It is in a girl, believe me. It can even be an adequate substitute for beer goggles. 
Yes, one that isn’t “Moderates who left the party to vote Democrat are welcome to come back just as long as they don’t expect the party to alter its platform in any way.”
He says this as though I need his permission to join the Republican party and have no influence on their platform. I can do that today, what do I need his invitation for?
The idea, Mr. Steele, is that if you expect people to come to your house because it’s the place they want to be, you need to make it a place that people want to be. Put up new curtains, plant flowers, increase the curb appeal. People are leaving in droves because it’s NOT where they want to be, putting up a welcome sign on your weed infested lawn isn’t the solution.
Steele says that and yet, yesterday, I hear Limbaugh & Hannity both giving the same lines: “They say we need to attract moderates – that just means they want us to be like liberals! Why should anyone who believes in the Republican party want to be like liberals?! Real Republicans will never need to sacrifice their beliefs and pander to liberal wannabes who don’t believe in liberty and freedom!”
No, Limbaugh & Hannity aren’t the “leaders” of the GOP. But they have more influence over the base than Steele does.
When there’s a real place in that house for pro-choice or pro-gay marriage Republicans without their housemates insulting their beliefs, this might mean something.
From the quote in the OP:
Moderates. Hm. In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya, I dinna thin’ that word means what you thin’ it means.
Not a chance. As others have pointed out this is a talking point, not a strategy. The GOP has spent decades alienating moderates from the party with their quasi-religious clap trap and their pandering to the right wing. They have ignored their supposed core stances on fiscal conservatism and small government as well. They aren’t going to win those folks back by simply stating that all is forgiven and that they can now come back into the fold with a shiny new place at the table.
Certainly. Dump the religious right wingers and let them fend for themselves, move the party back to a fiscal conservative stance with a more centrist position on many social issues. Basically they need to do what Clinton did to them in the 90’s…steal the Dem’s thunder on some of the key issues and make people think they are Republican issues and programs. Make a clear distinction between Dems and Pubs on FISCAL issues, not on a bunch of BS quasi-religious issues where nothing can or will be done. Disassociate themselves from the majority of the right wingers core issues (abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, prayer in schools, flag burning, etc etc) and take either moderate or neutral stances on those issues.
Well, I haven’t sat at the Republican’s table in decades, but I’m not exactly inclined to sit down with them either, certainly not based on a talking point. I think the proper place for disaffected moderate/liberal Republicans is as an Independent…if enough people show their dissatisfaction with the party then eventually either the party will figure out that catering to the religious right wingers is a no win, or they will fold as a major party and some other party who will better represent centrists and independents will emerge.
-XT
If Steele and Republicans like you and Limbaugh & Hannity keep this up, the Repubbies could go the way of the Whigs and then us Moderates will create a new party, start winning seats everywhere but the Deep Red South and Alaska and eventually become the second party.
Ah, but then she starts following you around, finding obvious excuses to turn up wherever you are…I guess I was thinking “stalker” desperation when I posted that!
But thanks for the giggle - it’s been a crappy morning and I needed that!
I think that the only way the Republicans can get back moderates and independents in significant numbers is by pulling back from the religious right, and moderating some of their actual policies. Inclusion means inclusion of voices and actual compromise, not just deigning to accept their votes.
I know that there are a lot of people who would prefer conservative economic policies, but are so turned off by the social conservative stranglehold on the party that they can’t support it. Sooner or later the GOP has to tell the James Dobsons of the party to take a hike. Gay bashing, creationism and xenophobia are no longer winning issues.
On that same note, I’ve long thought the Democrats would do equally well to drop the gun issue. They have no idea how many votes they’re turning off just on that one issue. Social libertarianism is the liberal strongsuit, but they need to stop being selective about it.
The thing is the Republicans lost because of GW Bush not because of any radical shift in politics. The 2008 election was very similar to the 1968 election where Humphrey was seen as an extension of LBJ. A vote for Humphrey in people’s minds was a vote for LBJ who had rating approval just a bit better than GW Bush.
The real issue is race, people are afraid to talk about it. Obama’s election showed that black people will vote for the black candiate. Blacks supported Democrats in 2000 and 2004 at about 90% ( Just slightly less for Clinton). But nearly all of them went for Obama.
The closeness of the election in 2000 and 2004 shows that if Kerry or Gore had gotten the same black vote they could’ve won (*insert joke about Gore actually winning here)
*
The other historical fact is in economic bad times the presidental party is voted out of office. This is a major factor in presidental election, the economy. It sucked. People voted against the Republicans.
Polls showed that the reason people voted FOR Obama was the fact Hillary voted FOR the Iraq war, and he was an outsider (Hillary was a “typical” DC insider).
Again this shows Obama got in by being in the right place at the right time. Carter and Reagan got in this way too.
The Democratic victory was not really an endorsment so much as a backlash. If the economy doesn’t get better, Obama won’t be around in 2012.
I recall after the near impeachment of Nixon people wrote about the “death of the Republican party.” Funny how I remember “no one” voted for Nixon in '72 but yet he won by a landslide. LOL
Of course all it took was the Carter administration to bring the Republicans back. Any Republican would’ve beaten Carter. (well short of a Goldwater type)
I’m perfectly prepared to settle for half a loaf- problem is, James Jeffords, Arlen Specter et al. never even gave us that.
The party hierarchy kowtowed to Jeffords and Specter for decades, actively undermining conservatives who wanted to run against them. You see how grateful they were for the party’s support.
As for a new “moderate” party, dream on. Who the hell would vote for them? Where’s the appeal? There’s obviously no place for ANY of the red states in this imaginary party, so you’d get no votes there. And the people currently getting money and support from the Democrats aren’t EVER going to vote for you, because the Democrats can always promise them more than you can.
Who are these “moderates” you imagine are going to flock to your party???
Frankly, I’ve almost never encountered a true “moderate.” Oh, I know tons of liberals who CLAIM to be moderate, but I’d love to know what you think a “moderate” is. Basically, a “moderate” is a liberal who wants tax breaks for his pet causes, or a liberal who wants to throw an occasional bone to big business.
Forgive me if I don’t see the makings of a powerful new movement there. There’s already a party for liberals.
What an idiot.
"You will be accepted as a moderate Republican as long as you keep your trap shut and acknowledge and accept the extremists vision for the party. " Oh yeah, that’ll work.
Yeah, how about chucking the Religious Right, other social conservative ideologues, and torture apologists as a start?
And for that I thank you.