# Republican Party heading into the wilderness to re-focus- What needs to happen? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 13, 2008, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-party-heading-into-the-wilderness-to-re-focus-what-needs-to-happen/467689 "2008-10-13T07:31:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-party-heading-into-the-wilderness-to-re-focus-what-needs-to-happen/467689/61 "2008-10-14T07:52:52Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I never said they were good ideas. The theories were created by real economists and published in real journals. Some of them were being published during the Carter administration, where it seemed as if Democratic economic policies were leading to stagflation. I was lucky enough to be in grad school during that period, but our side wasn’t doing a real good job. Please name these real peer reviewed journals that supported supply side theory and the Laffer Curve. [1] There are plenty of conservative economics departments. Some of them were monetarist during the 1970s and 1980s, some became real business cycle and Lucas’ rational expectations theory was highly influential. But supply side economics, whereby tax cuts lead to higher revenue under contemporary US income tax regimes, was always the province of crackpots. And Lucas never appeared on any Sunday chat show. Martin Feldstein argued for lower top tax rates during the 1970s, noting that during periods of high inflation after tax bond yields become very low or even negative for many potential savers. But that’s different than what Laffer was selling. [1] The “Debt Laffer Curve” doesn’t count. ---
**Author:** ![DMark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@DMark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMark)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 9:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-party-heading-into-the-wilderness-to-re-focus-what-needs-to-happen/467689/62 "2008-10-14T09:07:09Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > As of this afternoon, McCain said he’s got the democrats “right where he wants 'em”. With a 10 point dem lead, I find this most amusing. There are still three weeks to go, and as a nervous Democrat, I’m not counting McCain down for the count yet. The voting public is very fickle, and who knows what can happen before then…I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a sudden turn of sympathy votes for him simply because he is fading in the polls. Wouldn’t that be a kicker - him winning because of a sympathy “surge”. But back to the OP…as I have mentioned before, I actually kind of liked, or at least respected, McCain about four years ago. He seemed to be brave enough to stand up to the wacko fringe element and some of his polices (immigration for instance) were pretty much in line with many of the Democrats. Since then, he has sold his soul to get the nomination, and his choice of Palin (over his real preference of Lieberman) was final proof that he lost his spine and his “maverick” reputation. True or not, the Republicans have a reputation of doing everything for the rich, and nothing for the middle-class. They also seem to pander to every fundamentalist whim and seem to think all older voters are securely tucked in their pocket - in case they haven’t noticed, baby-boomers (like myself) might be getting up in age, but I don’t see myself (or any of my friends) suddenly standing on the lawn chasing kids away. Where exactly do the Republicans think they are going to get any new voters if they keep this up? Young voters? Nope. Aging baby boomers? Not in my lifetime. So how do they intend to get new voters if they refuse to adapt to the present? If they continue to go queer bashing and harping on non-issues like flag burning (when was the last time you even saw someone do that?!) they might as well suggest we ban computers as conduits to Satan’s porno and give tax credits to buy typewriters instead - they are headed towards becoming obsolete. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-party-heading-into-the-wilderness-to-re-focus-what-needs-to-happen/467689/63 "2008-10-14T11:00:56Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Start a thread on it and maybe you will get the response you want. This thread is not about those subjects, thus far, and it isn’t fair to say that people who are talking about something else don’t agree with you on those subjects. This thread is about what needs to change in the GOP and IMHO that is something which needs to change. So I agree with **Nobody** when he mentions them. > [@](#): > > I happen to agree that torture and destruction of the constitution are major issues, but they are not what is going to cause the Republicans to die and probably have a rebirth: economic policies and prolonged war are those causes. And that is exactly my point. That many Americans would not care much about the constitution or about torture if the war was being won and if the economy was going well. I find that sad. > [@](#): > > On edit: It has really pissed me off that the Democrats have gone along on these issues, and that will be reflected in my future political activities. In my view, on torture and butt wiping with the constitution the Democrats are full co-conspirators. In this we agree. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 11:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-party-heading-into-the-wilderness-to-re-focus-what-needs-to-happen/467689/64 "2008-10-14T11:05:02Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Instead, what the Republicans have to do is get the message across to religious fundies that it is in their own interest to keep religion out of politics. You seem to be suggesting that, since they cannot do the difficult, they should try the impossible. ---
**Author:** ![Carson\_O\_Genic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cdc98d/32.png) [@Carson\_O\_Genic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carson_O_Genic)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 11:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-party-heading-into-the-wilderness-to-re-focus-what-needs-to-happen/467689/65 "2008-10-14T11:08:07Z")
> [@DMark](#): > > Where exactly do the Republicans think they are going to get any new voters if they keep this up? Young voters? Nope. Aging baby boomers? Not in my lifetime. So how do they intend to get new voters if they refuse to adapt to the present? If they continue to go queer bashing and harping on non-issues like flag burning (when was the last time you even saw someone do that?!) they might as well suggest we ban computers as conduits to Satan’s porno and give tax credits to buy typewriters instead - they are headed towards becoming obsolete. ``` I see you've listed metropolitan centers in the location box, which I assume has prompted your viewpoint. Out here in the rural red, they simply grow like any other crop, and of course, one plant produces multiple seeds. ``` You have good reason to continue being a “nervous Democrat”. Social conservatives are perennial as the grass. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelQReilly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@MichaelQReilly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelQReilly)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-party-heading-into-the-wilderness-to-re-focus-what-needs-to-happen/467689/66 "2008-10-14T13:25:43Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > As I see it, nothing more embodies the radical nature of modern Republican politics than the Federalist Society. There are more than three centuries of American legal tradition of the common law, yet the Federalist Society members seem to me (and maybe I am not sufficiently familiar with them) to refute that rights exist unless specifically delineated and it seems to me they want to move our legal system far more quickly to a civil law style system where everything is put in statutes and judges, like juries before them, turn into mere fact finders and do not decide what the law is. Our legal and political history is rich with dissent and the Federalist Society seems to me to suggest that it was all cut and dried. My favorite counter example is that in the debate over ratifying the Constitution, the Anti-Federalists technically lost because the Constitution was ratified, but not before converting enough of the Federalist forces, especially Madison, to the view that a Bill of Rights was necessary, essentially winning the argument. What I love about Federalist Society-types who support a “strict” interpretation of the Constitution is that they go through obscene contortions to argue that the 9th Amendment DOESN’T mean what a plain reading of it and the “originalist” interpretation of the people who wrote it plainly indicate it means. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-party-heading-into-the-wilderness-to-re-focus-what-needs-to-happen/467689/67 "2008-10-14T14:03:09Z")
Thanks for this thread. It has been very enlightening. Some of the things you all say you want the Republicans to be, I would vote for in a second. Good luck. ---
**Author:** ![davidw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@davidw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidw)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-party-heading-into-the-wilderness-to-re-focus-what-needs-to-happen/467689/68 "2008-10-14T15:06:40Z")
> [@IClaudius](#): > > I try to be reasonable minded about how this happened, but I do think some of the more narrowing tendencies in conservative political cognition have provided fertile ground for this. But however we explain it, the reality is that tactics like resorting to crude caricatures about liberals and liberal positions, rhetoric which is invested in failure of governance, and trying to work the refs about some supposed systemic bias in media, over time, became internalized in a very uncritical and reflexive way which was inimical to rational discourse. I think this gets it exactly. The “move to the center, jettison religious conservatives, etc.” isn’t that big of a deal to me. The fundamental problem is that the Republican party is just no longer dealing with reality. They have to come to grips with the fact that not all unpleasant news can be attributed to liberal bias. ---
**Author:** ![Lightray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightray/32/391_2.png) [@Lightray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightray)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-party-heading-into-the-wilderness-to-re-focus-what-needs-to-happen/467689/69 "2008-10-14T15:18:08Z")
Interesting that not much comment has been made on the shifting of American demographics which the Republicans will surely have to address soon. Their core supporters are aging and becoming less and less of a majority demographic every year. The Democrats have been much better at reaching out to both Hispanics and more recent generations than the Republicans have, as far as I’ve seen. By and large, the Republican cart is still hitched to the aging white Protestant boomer horse… and every election that horse is showing its age more and more. Thing is, the Republicans _can_ appeal to these increasingly important demographics, without changing their stance overmuch. Hispanics favor many values that the religious wing of the Republican party hold dear – but are turned off by the shrill jingoism on immigration issues. Fiscal conservatism looks attractive to the after-boomer generations – but not when linked with rabid religious fanaticism. If the Republicans are to re-focus, they need to focus on _who is going to be voting Republican in the future_… because I don’t think that will be who they think it will be. ---
**Author:** ![50million](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/5/9fc348/32.png) [@50million](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/50million)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-party-heading-into-the-wilderness-to-re-focus-what-needs-to-happen/467689/70 "2008-10-14T15:29:52Z")
> [@IClaudius](#): > > In short, they have to start acting like a bunch of grown-ups and tract to the political centre… I think it is truly dangerous that even after all the travails of the Bush era, that we have neo-conservatives playing such as huge role in the campaign and cabinet of a hypothetical McCain Administration. Wow, great post. This is exactly what I was coming in to say (you know, that is, if I could write that well, had that much time, could phrase my thoughts like that, etc.) Just the other night my wife asked who I was voting for and I said Obama becuase the Republicans need to lose this election to get back to being a real political party and not just a parody of themselves. They’ve become the party of winning elections by exploiting hot-button issues and then not governing afterwards. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-party-heading-into-the-wilderness-to-re-focus-what-needs-to-happen/467689/71 "2008-10-14T15:40:09Z")
> [@Lightray](#): > > Thing is, the Republicans can appeal to these increasingly important demographics, without changing their stance overmuch. Hispanics favor many values that the religious wing of the Republican party hold dear – but are turned off by the shrill jingoism on immigration issues. Interestingly, [back before 2001, the Republicans were also making some strides on connecting with the growing population of American Muslims](http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=27695), who were seen as a natural Republican constituency—rather socially conservative, “moral values” voters with strong religious beliefs, hardworking small-businesspeople, and all that jazz: > [@](#): > > “The last 8 years have been truly distressing,” said Dr. Hesham A. Hassaballa, a physician and writer. […] > > In November 2000, buoyed by George W. Bush’s pledge to end the use of secret evidence in immigration cases – a form of racial profiling that disproportionately affected Muslim – American Muslim groups whose followers were largely of immigrant descent advised voting as a bloc for Bush. […] > > But conservative American Muslims identify with Republican “moral values,” especially opposition to abortion and gay marriage. Others, like 26-year old Tammer Riad, say Republicans support “individual liberty and free enterprise and their values are more congruent with ours as Muslims than the collectivist, moral-relativist Democrats.” […] > > But Dr. Hassaballa told me that “many, many Muslims fled the Republican Party after 9/11.” He chose to stay because he believed the Republicans need Muslims in their ranks. > > “I just feel, sadly, that the Republican Party, as it stands today, does not want Muslims,” he said. “The Republican Party today has abandoned its core principles, and it is being hijacked by the extreme right wing of the party. It is not the Party of Abraham Lincoln, the party it really should be.” Well, **that** door to the Republican big tent has been sewn shut pretty firmly, hasn’t it? It’s going to take a modern Republican Party a long, long while to get past the anti-Muslim convictions of many of its current members. The GOP might make up some ground with their [current outreach efforts to another growing population, Americans of Indian descent:](http://www.iarcnational.org/index.php?content=L11022004) > [@](#): > > Community activism combined with President George W. Bush’s leadership has led to a new, dynamic relationship between Indian-Americans and the GOP: > > · Nearly 20 Indian-Americans served as delegates to the Republican National Convention, the highest number ever, with close to 30 South Asian delegates in all. Indian-Americans have received 14 full-time political appointments in the administration of President George W. Bush. This is the highest number ever. > · There are at least 7 more Indian-Americans appointed to presidential commissions. > · For the first time ever in American history, a Hindu spiritual leader was welcomed into the White House. This occurred when President Bush welcomed Sri Sri Ravi Shankar into the Oval Office in May 2004. > · President Bush regularly mentions Hindus in his speeches in reference to his faith-based initiative, something no President ever did before. > · President Bush honored Hindus with an official White House celebration on the occasion of Diwali in November 2003. This was the first time ever such an event took place. > · President Bush honored Sikhs with an official White House celebration on the occasion of the 400th anniversary of the installation of the Sikh Holy Scripture, Guru Granth Sahib, in the Golden Temple. This was the first time such an event ever took place. > · For the first time in our nation’s history, an Indian-American, Bobby Jindal, will be elected as a Republican Member of Congress. > · Nikki Randhawa Haley, an Indian-American woman, will be elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives as a Republican. > · For the first time ever, the Indian American Republican Council (IARC) hosted a successful reception and dinner at the Republican National Convention to honor our Indian-American delegates and to express our support for Republican leadership. Nearly 200 people attended this event, including Members of Congress, media and other dignitaries. […] > > Many Indian-Americans are embracing the Republican Party because: we believe in limited government; support less taxes on American families and businesses; support curbs on excessive lawsuits; support medical malpractice reform, and support President Bush’s strong position in fighting the Global War on Terrorism, as we have seen the devastating effects of terrorism in Kashmir. Many of us are supporting Republicans because of our belief in traditional marriage, because we are pro-life and value the importance of faith in our daily lives. These are values we share with Republicans. As most Indian-Americans are Hindus, and many are deeply concerned about Muslim extremist terrorism in South Asia, anti-Muslim sentiments in the Republican Party aren’t such a deal-breaker for them. However, they are bound to come into conflict with the “Christians-first-and-only” theocrat wing of the Republican base. It doesn’t matter how deeply religious and family-values-oriented the average Indian-American may be: to the Christian right, they’re still idolaters and they’re going to hell. The GOP at some point is going to have to choose whether staying tight with the Christian Right is still worth alienating non-Christian conservatives. ---
**Author:** ![want2know](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/50afbb/32.png) [@want2know](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/want2know)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-party-heading-into-the-wilderness-to-re-focus-what-needs-to-happen/467689/72 "2008-10-14T16:20:24Z")
I have read some excellent ideas in this thread, and there’s not much I can add. I agree that the GOP needs to start moving away from the hardcore reactionary politics that have tainted the party–not necessarily “jettison” the fundies and radical rightists, but at least marginalize them and lessen their influence on the Republican platform as a whole. Bring this party back to being the party of Goldwater and Buckley instead of Brownback and Tancredo–that would be a good start in the GOP’s “rehab”. One other idea: get new “water-carriers”. Specifically, stop referring to Limbaugh, Coulter, Savage, Malkin etc. as “conservatives”. It is said that “the media is the message”–well, the message must change. I can’t help thinking that the aforementioned Goldwater and Buckley must be spinning in their graves every time one of these clowns spews their bile upon the political landscape, preaching their “us vs. them” doctrine ad nauseum. (Yes, I know the left utilizes this practice as well, and I’m not fond of that either, but we’re talking about the Republicans in this thread.) A previous Democratic candidate–I don’t remember who–once said, “In this country, there is no _them_; there is only _us_.” Obama is paraphrasing that in his “red states/blue states/United States” talking point, and I believe that’s the direction both parties must move in. In short, quit telling us that imminent destruction awaits by following _their_ path–tell us why your way is better and let us decide. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-party-heading-into-the-wilderness-to-re-focus-what-needs-to-happen/467689/73 "2008-10-14T16:33:15Z")
> [@want2know](#): > > In short, quit telling us that imminent destruction awaits by following _their_ path–tell us why your way is better and let us decide. The nearly complete destruction of rational public discourse is working against this. ---
**Author:** ![Lightray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightray/32/391_2.png) [@Lightray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightray)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-party-heading-into-the-wilderness-to-re-focus-what-needs-to-happen/467689/74 "2008-10-14T16:35:03Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > However, they are bound to come into conflict with the “Christians-first-and-only” theocrat wing of the Republican base. It doesn’t matter how deeply religious and family-values-oriented the average Indian-American may be: to the Christian right, they’re still idolaters and they’re going to hell. The GOP at some point is going to have to choose whether staying tight with the Christian Right is still worth alienating non-Christian conservatives. I really think that this is the same problem hampering them from reaching out to Hispanics. That weird idea that Catholics aren’t “real” Christians gets in the way. (not meaning to imply that all Hispanics are Catholic, but demographically they seem that way) Yet, they’ve managed to connect with Mormons – also often portrayed as not “real” Christians – so it should be doable. I guess that the Mormon demographic has fewer crossover issues with Democrats than the Hispanic demographic. Those crossover issues are going to be the key with Indian-Americans, too. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-party-heading-into-the-wilderness-to-re-focus-what-needs-to-happen/467689/75 "2008-10-14T17:39:46Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Um. Actually, the Laffer curve has been [del]reduced to[/del] replaced by the ranting of yahoos, now that they’re trying to cut taxes on capital gains altogether (not Laffer) & income taxes below 45% (also not Laffer). I don’t think the politicians ever understood the economics or cared. Oh, I agree. There is a big difference between supporting something untried and possible, and continuing to support it once it has been tried and failed. My use of this was in reference to the ideas that the conservatives had before coming to power. And as I said, the reason that they are in trouble now is that these ideas all crashed and burned when put into practice. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-party-heading-into-the-wilderness-to-re-focus-what-needs-to-happen/467689/76 "2008-10-14T17:42:57Z")
> [@MichaelQReilly](#): > > What I love about Federalist Society-types who support a “strict” interpretation of the Constitution is that they go through obscene contortions to argue that the 9th Amendment DOESN’T mean what a plain reading of it and the “originalist” interpretation of the people who wrote it plainly indicate it means. My pet issue is the 9th Amendment. And while an originalist interpretation would certainly give it meaning, the Courts have already ignored the 9th out of existence. So while it is inconsistent for FS members to contort it out of existence due to their orginalist stance, it is perfectly acceptable under modern jurisprudence to do so. I don’t like that because I think that it was the most important amendment, essentially limiting the federal government enormously (and the states through the 13th and 14th). ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-party-heading-into-the-wilderness-to-re-focus-what-needs-to-happen/467689/77 "2008-10-14T17:48:37Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > Thanks for this thread. It has been very enlightening. Some of the things you all say you want the Republicans to be, I would vote for in a second. Good luck. **Eris**! Hello! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-party-heading-into-the-wilderness-to-re-focus-what-needs-to-happen/467689/78 "2008-10-14T17:51:38Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Please name these real peer reviewed journals that supported supply side theory and the Laffer Curve. [1] > > There are plenty of conservative economics departments. Some of them were monetarist during the 1970s and 1980s, some became real business cycle and Lucas’ rational expectations theory was highly influential. But supply side economics, whereby tax cuts lead to higher revenue under contemporary US income tax regimes, was always the province of crackpots. And Lucas never appeared on any Sunday chat show. > > Martin Feldstein argued for lower top tax rates during the 1970s, noting that during periods of high inflation after tax bond yields become very low or even negative for many potential savers. But that’s different than what Laffer was selling. > [1] The “Debt Laffer Curve” doesn’t count. [This looks like one.](http://www.gmu.edu/jbc/fest/files/Monissen.htm). I’d be surprised that no one has ever published one - but I have been involved with enough journals and conferences to be well aware that peer review does not equal correctness. To repeat: they had tons of ideas, they implemented those ideas, and chaos ensued. Their problem now is that they need to find some new ideas, since blaming the crisis on Barney Frank doesn’t seem to be cutting it. Will the ideas involve the proper role of regulation, or is the acceptance of regulation today just a temporary thing, caused by the crisis? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-party-heading-into-the-wilderness-to-re-focus-what-needs-to-happen/467689/79 "2008-10-14T17:59:50Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > **Eris**! Hello! 🙂 Hi **Lib**. Good to see you’re still around. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Jurph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/50afbb/32.png) [@Jurph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jurph)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-party-heading-into-the-wilderness-to-re-focus-what-needs-to-happen/467689/80 "2008-10-14T18:08:00Z")
I’d settle for a party whose elected officials (a) Support and defend the United States Constitution, (b) Well and faithfully execute the responsibilities of the office to which they are elected. That first one covers a bunch of things already mentioned – no establishment of religion, no cruel and unusual punishment, no unitary executive, etc. The second clause, especially that “faithfully” (in the sense of “in good faith”) means I’d rather not have a President who lies to Congress or the people in order to build support for his policies. “Well” implies applying himself intellectually and searching for novel solutions when the Presidency demands a problem-solver. I’d look for the same thing in my Congress-critters, really. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-party-heading-into-the-wilderness-to-re-focus-what-needs-to-happen/467689.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-party-heading-into-the-wilderness-to-re-focus-what-needs-to-happen/467689.md?page=5)