Win or Lose, Republicans Will Revisit the Party?s Image

[techs]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10...pubs.html?ref=politics

Win or Lose, Republicans Will Revisit the Party?s Image
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

No one knows better than Senator John McCain that his affiliation with the Republican Party has been more of a liability than an asset in the presidential race, and as it comes to a close, many Republicans are plunging into a fierce debate over how to rehabilitate the image of their party.

An idiosyncratic ?Theodore Roosevelt conservative,? Mr. McCain is better known for bucking the right than for leading it.

For months, some Republicans have been preparing for an internal battle to turn the party back toward its Reaganite roots even if Mr. McCain wins, in part by running their own candidate against his choice to head the Republican National Committee.

Others, planning for the possibility of Mr. McCain?s defeat, are stepping up efforts for a radical reinvention of the party, including repudiating what many call the ?hubristic? Bush administration foreign policy and embracing certain market-based expansions of federal government like the administration?s Medicare prescription drug benefit that many once called liberal.

In the tense final days of the presidential race, the intramural differences can be acrimonious. ?Right now, it is ?I am a reform conservative and you are a troglodyte who is stuck 20 years in the past,? or ?I am a believer in the true faith and you are a heretic,? ? said Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, who said he hoped that after the election the emergence of more specific policy initiatives could help resolve some of the division on the right.

Saul Anuzis, the Michigan party chairman, said: ?There is a general consensus that in many ways Republicans have lost their way. We are suffering from policies and actions and votes that clearly have hurt Republican candidates across the board.?

Battle lines over the future of the party are already taking shape in internal scuffles over Mr. McCain?s choice of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate, the Bush administration?s bailout of the financial system, the early competition for selection as the party?s next national chairman in January (Mr. Anuzis is one contender) and, for those anticipating a McCain defeat, the preliminary jockeying for position in the race for 2012 presidential primaries.

On the traditional conservative side of the party, Katon Dawson, chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party and the son of the founder of that state?s modern party, has campaigned openly for months for the job of national chairman, arguing that he could provide a more conservative counterweight to the White House if Mr. McCain won.

An old-school Southern populist, Mr. Dawson blames moderation for the party?s setbacks and recommends a vigorous push against illegal immigration. In the week after the election, he will hold a gathering of Republican National Committee members in Myrtle Beach to assess the results and to build his support.

Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, one of a handful of state executives who conservatives hope could help lead their party out of its doldrums, said President Bush had failed in his effort to rebrand the party and to expand its base. Mr. Sanford is among those counseling the party to return to conservative basics rather than risk undermining its ideological identity by trying to imitate Democrats.

?That is what ?compassionate conservatism? was about,? Mr. Sanford said. ?It was a disaster.?

He said the party should stick to its limited-government message: ?Our niche is maximizing individual liberty.?

On the side of change, James Greer, the Republican chairman in Florida, is campaigning to lead the national committee by calling for a thorough overhaul of the party?s national image.

?It is 2008, not 1980,? Mr. Greer said. ?The first message has to be, ?I want to listen more than I want to talk. As a voter, what is the Republican Party doing right and what it doing wrong?? ?

Mr. Greer emphasized his efforts to recruit members of minorities, warning that the party?s white reputation circumscribed its prospects. ?I have said since I became chairman of the Florida Republican Party that the party needs to focus on Hispanic voters and African-American voters,? he said. ?It is the future of the Republican Party.?

Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the party?s leader in the House, echoed the same theme. ?As a party,? Mr. Boehner said, ?we can?t just write off the Northeast, you can?t write off the upper Midwest, you can?t write off the West Coast of the country.?
He added, ?We need to develop new solutions to the issues that Americans care about.?

Some now call the Bush administration?s Medicare prescription drug program, once denounced by many on the right as big-government apostasy, a model for the party.

?We took responsibility for a problem that Americans had never taken responsibility for, and you had competition out there as an important element of how the program would work,? said Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the second-ranking Republican in the House.

Differences over how to broaden the party?s appeal or return to its roots have been spilling out throughout the 2008 campaign. Many old-school conservatives applauded the House Republicans who temporarily blocked Mr. Bush?s bank bailout bill, arguing that they had struck a blow to help re-establish the party?s populist image.

?I spent a good part of my life trying to tell people that the Republican Party is not the party of the rich and big business,? said Phyllis Schlafly, a veteran conservative organizer, ?and there just seem to be some people who are trying to make it that way.?

Ms. Palin has emerged as a flash point for a split dividing talk-radio populists and conservative traditionalists from some of their former intellectual allies at National Review and the Heritage Foundation.

?These are the people who are embarrassed by Sarah Palin,? Rush Limbaugh recently declared on his radio program, pointedly criticizing several columnists by name, ? ?cause she?s not an intellectual and she didn?t go to Harvard or have a college degree from approved universities and she drops her g?s from words like ?morning? and says ?mornin?.?

One of the columnists, David Frum, fired back on National Review?s Web site. ?Can even Rush himself believe this junk?? Mr. Frum said.

Those who think like Mr. Limbaugh, he said, ?are offering flattering illusions when we need truth.? Mr. Frum added, ?They are leading us to disaster ? and beyond disaster, to irrelevance.?

Those mentioned as possible new faces of the party include Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida, former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts.

Mr. Crist, a relative moderate, has a close ally who is in the race for Republican Party chairman: Mr. Greer, of Florida. So does Mr. Huckabee, a Christian conservative populist: his former campaign manager Chip Saltsman is also seeking the position.

Supporters of Mr. Romney, who lost to Mr. McCain in the Republican primaries this year, are circulating a list of the many general-election campaign stops he has made to build up party loyalty (20 in presidential race, 28 in House contests, 5 for senators, 2 contenders for governor and 11 others for conservative groups ? but who is counting?).

Mr. Romney could figure on either side of the internal party debates; he ran as a business-minded moderate in Massachusetts and a movement conservative in the presidential race




What is most interesting to me is the gearing up for a fight as to who takes the reigns of the Repubican National Committee, a post that has always gone to whomever a Republican President chooses.
This is a far more powerful post than anyone realizes in the Republican party, as the party is the big fund raiser nowadays due to the K-Street project and can make or break candidates by who it chooses to fund and how much. It's the real Senate and House Whips as they have a lot of power to influence votes in the Congress with campaign money.

 

[StageLeft]

Of course there's no win or lose about it, just the lose. They will either reinvent themselves, or they will go back into their shell and become even more incompetent and demagogic, which will simply put them further away from the presidency next time and help them lose more congressional seats.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Of course there's no win or lose about it, just the lose. They will either reinvent themselves, or they will go back into their shell and become even more incompetent and demagogic, which will simply put them further away from the presidency next time and help them lose more congressional seats.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skoorb nailed it. As we can see from the link, those on the far right are already well
mobilized and organized to lead the GOP to total extinction.

I certainly hope the GOP does not try to be the party of grid lock in 2009. But by primary season 2010, it may be the GOP electorate and not the GOP leaders who firmly reject the far right of the GOP. As a new generation of GOP moderates may prevail against even sitting GOP members.

Only time will tell.

 

[First]

Many call it Republicans becoming more "liberal", and indeed they are and have been espousing more traditionally liberal beliefs (slowly on healthcare and finance). But bottom line is that it's simply the correct thing to do, whether you call it liberal or not. Of course, many Americans thought freeing slaves, integrating schools, and legalizing abortion were all liberal. Nope, now it's just common sense and permanent.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Evan
Many call it Republicans becoming more "liberal", and indeed they are and have been espousing more traditionally liberal beliefs (slowly on healthcare and finance). But bottom line is that it's simply the correct thing to do, whether you call it liberal or not. Of course, many Americans thought freeing slaves, integrating schools, and legalizing abortion were all liberal. Nope, now it's just common sense and permanent.

Interestingly the "liberal" philosophy is probably more in tune with the neo-cons who believe give the people "something" to get the votes you need to put your agenda into practice. While the "Reagan" Republicans are talking about coming out against such things, like the Medicare drug plan.

 

[quest55720]

I would love to see the party become more moderate socially. I also would love to see the party shift back to the right fiscally. No more big government republicans like we saw in the first 6 years of bush.

I think the party will shift hardcore to the right on all issues. They will blame the moderates who jumped ship for losing.

 

[techs]

I agree with many the party needs to become more moderate on social issues. However, the real change I would like to see them make is the jump to the 20th century. The Republicans need to understand the world is a far more complex place then it was in the 18th and 19th centuries. Unrestrained capitalism has proven to be disastrous, and some amount of government regulation is necessary. The Republicans need to espouse effective regulation. And regulation that reigns in the proven result of unbridled capitalism which is a disastrous concentration of wealth and power in the very few.

 

[Butterbean]

If the Bush had been more conservative and less liberal he would not have dragged the party down. Bush was weak on immigration when 70% of people wanted borders secured. He prolonged the war fighting by half measures that the surge finally corrected. He gave away too much money and was biggest spender around. He should have held the earmark business in check. He should have kept to the ideas of reforming agencies within the US and not just letting them erode while incompetent buddies ran them. He should not have encouraged mortgages for illegals as the Dems were doing. He should not have bailed out his buddies on Wall St. Bush went off a cliff driving to the left. All the Bushs hurt the GOP with the "kinder, gentler, compassionate" rubbish. GOP doesn't need to be more liberal at all. We have some pretty horrendous things ahead and a lot is going to change.

The GOP need broader appeal but I dont limit it to non whites. I will hear a black say GOP doesnt represent me - but a lot of whites say the same thing because GOP went country club. The party cant attract the young because the colleges and media teach them to hate the country. The Marxist "sensitivity training" and intimidation is just brainwashing. The colleges and schools are hotbeds of cultural Marxism. University "diversity" pages read like Stalin runs them. Its like an autoimmune disease the way western kids are taught to hate themselves and their countries - and its all been intentional

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: quest55720
I think the party will shift hardcore to the right on all issues. They will blame the moderates who jumped ship for losing.

I think there's a good possibility of that, sadly.

 

[ProfJohn]

I think you may see the Republicans copy the right in Europe, who have been winning all over the place.

The European right is winning because they are focusing on quality of life issues. Instead of 'low taxes, less government' we should work on quantifying how that belief improves the quality of American lives.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think you may see the Republicans copy the right in Europe, who have been winning all over the place.

The European right is winning because they are focusing on quality of life issues. Instead of 'low taxes, less government' we should work on quantifying how that belief improves the quality of American lives.

Two different things. In Europe they have gone far to the excess in regulation. A "right wing" government in Europe is still far beyond anything even the most radical Democrat would ever even speak of here in the U.S.

 

[Lemon law]

At least IMHO, the death of the real republican party began with Ronald Regan, who pioneered the concept of spend and borrow. And while spend and borrow is a legitimate economic policy to revive a sluggish economy in the short term, it should never be made into a long term policy like Reagan did. As it is, GHB is the poor smuck that inherited the the mess, and was forced to say, read my lips, gotta raise taxes.
And the USA spent 12 years paying for Reagan's eight year put the bill on the national credit card party.

But compared to Reagan's abuses, GWB has shown that Ronald Reagan was comparatively better, Because we have almost nothing to show for GWB's orgy of spending but two money black hole quagmires.
And unlike Reagan, GWB has been unable to slink out of office before the bottom dropped out, as he has already managed to maybe collapse the entire world economy while driving the good name of the United States from a shining city on a hill into an international gulag.

And as out next POTUS takes office on 1/20/2009, the national debt will stand at close to 11 trillion, and at least 75% of that debt amassed in the 200 plus year history of this country comes from the 16 years
of Ronald Reagan and GWB. The direct result of unrestricted spend and borrow, GOP style. Until the GOP rejects spend and borrow, it can never again be a responsible national party.

 

[GenHoth]

They had better, It would be nice to have a party that could represent my views effectively.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think you may see the Republicans copy the right in Europe, who have been winning all over the place.

The European right is winning because they are focusing on quality of life issues. Instead of 'low taxes, less government' we should work on quantifying how that belief improves the quality of American lives.

It sounds like you're saying you're more about social conservatism than fiscal conservatism.

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
At least IMHO, the death of the real republican party began with Ronald Regan, who pioneered the concept of spend and borrow. And while spend and borrow is a legitimate economic policy to revive a sluggish economy in the short term, it should never be made into a long term policy like Reagan did. As it is, GHB is the poor smuck that inherited the the mess, and was forced to say, read my lips, gotta raise taxes.
And the USA spent 12 years paying for Reagan's eight year put the bill on the national credit card party.

But compared to Reagan's abuses, GWB has shown that Ronald Reagan was comparatively better, Because we have almost nothing to show for GWB's orgy of spending but two money black hole quagmires.
And unlike Reagan, GWB has been unable to slink out of office before the bottom dropped out, as he has already managed to maybe collapse the entire world economy while driving the good name of the United States from a shining city on a hill into an international gulag.

And as out next POTUS takes office on 1/20/2009, the national debt will stand at close to 11 trillion, and at least 75% of that debt amassed in the 200 plus year history of this country comes from the 16 years
of Ronald Reagan and GWB. The direct result of unrestricted spend and borrow, GOP style. Until the GOP rejects spend and borrow, it can never again be a responsible national party.

The GoP of the 90s was all about fiscal responsibility. When the GoP was newt's party they were all about keeping spending down. It is when bush took over did they Party take a bad turn to the left with big spending and big social programs.

 

[Lemon law]

As quest55720 says " The GoP of the 90s was all about fiscal responsibility. When the GoP was newt's party they were all about keeping spending down. It is when bush took over did they Party take a bad turn to the left with big spending and big social programs."

If ole quest is talking about Newt;s contract with America, he should acknowledge it was only partly legitimate, while a good part of it was empty PR, broken promises, especially on term limits, and worse yet, a morally bankrupt Newt pioneered a new national disaster all by himself. Because Newt Gingrich brought to Washington the concept of national divisiveness, thou must be GOP or thy is the enemy partisanship
we still suffer from to this day. While Newt was forced to fall on his own sword after leading the GOP to disaster in 1998, he still paved the way for the politics of Karl Rove and GWB.

In the long and ever growing list of national villains, Newt Gingrich deserves a place at the that group Villain table, as a repulsive prig , while the entire world would have been far better off if they had never been born. But now that quest55720 mentions it, be it resolved, Newt Gingrich is another thing the GOP must firmly reject before they can rejoin the human race and again become a responsible national party.

 

[IronWing]

There seem to be quite a few posters who believe that at some point in the future the "real" Republican Party will throw off the Christian Right and restore itself to its Buckleyesque capitalist/elitist glory. Sadly, the Christian Right is the Republican Party; they control the caucuses, they turn out for the primaries, and they make or break the general elections for the Republicans. The old guard isn't just old, it's dead. Palin is the new face of the party, a radical Christian populist. The capitalists are going to have to start their own party or join the Dems who have slid so far to the right they might as well be old guard Republicans.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Butterbean
If the Bush had been more conservative and less liberal he would not have dragged the party down. Bush was weak on immigration when 70% of people wanted borders secured. He prolonged the war fighting by half measures that the surge finally corrected. He gave away too much money and was biggest spender around. He should have held the earmark business in check. He should have kept to the ideas of reforming agencies within the US and not just letting them erode while incompetent buddies ran them. He should not have encouraged mortgages for illegals as the Dems were doing. He should not have bailed out his buddies on Wall St. Bush went off a cliff driving to the left. All the Bushs hurt the GOP with the "kinder, gentler, compassionate" rubbish. GOP doesn't need to be more liberal at all. We have some pretty horrendous things ahead and a lot is going to change.

The GOP need broader appeal but I dont limit it to non whites. I will hear a black say GOP doesnt represent me - but a lot of whites say the same thing because GOP went country club. The party cant attract the young because the colleges and media teach them to hate the country. The Marxist "sensitivity training" and intimidation is just brainwashing. The colleges and schools are hotbeds of cultural Marxism. University "diversity" pages read like Stalin runs them. Its like an autoimmune disease the way western kids are taught to hate themselves and their countries - and its all been intentional

i think when it comes to your posts, the best idea is to read, them, understand what you are saying, then do the opposite

 

[miketheidiot]

why is spending always 'left'?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Butterbean
If the Bush had been more conservative and less liberal he would not have dragged the party down. Bush was weak on immigration when 70% of people wanted borders secured. He prolonged the war fighting by half measures that the surge finally corrected. He gave away too much money and was biggest spender around. He should have held the earmark business in check. He should have kept to the ideas of reforming agencies within the US and not just letting them erode while incompetent buddies ran them. He should not have encouraged mortgages for illegals as the Dems were doing. He should not have bailed out his buddies on Wall St. Bush went off a cliff driving to the left. All the Bushs hurt the GOP with the "kinder, gentler, compassionate" rubbish. GOP doesn't need to be more liberal at all. We have some pretty horrendous things ahead and a lot is going to change.

The GOP need broader appeal but I dont limit it to non whites. I will hear a black say GOP doesnt represent me - but a lot of whites say the same thing because GOP went country club. The party cant attract the young because the colleges and media teach them to hate the country. The Marxist "sensitivity training" and intimidation is just brainwashing. The colleges and schools are hotbeds of cultural Marxism. University "diversity" pages read like Stalin runs them. Its like an autoimmune disease the way western kids are taught to hate themselves and their countries - and its all been intentional

Attention Republicans...THIS is the perfect example of the kind of thing you want to stay the hell away from if you want to improve the image of your party. "Everyone who disagrees with me, hates America" is disturbingly mainstream in the Republican party, and while it certainly appeals to assclowns like this guy, the turn-off it is for everyone else can't be overstated. You want to get more of the country on your side? Stop pretending like you're the only people who live here.

And I say this because it's basically the same problem Democrats had to face. Appealing to "the base" is fine, but not at the expense of everyone else.

 

[brxndxn]

Fuck the Republican Party until they acknowledge that Ron Paul does in fact exist. I don't think the party leaders, with their heads so far up their own asses, can see that they've managed to piss off a good 20% of the traditional Republican loyalists..

/proud member of the Republican party who will only be voting for Ron Paul Republicans.. and third-party or democrats otherwise.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: brxndxn
Fuck the Republican Party until they acknowledge that Ron Paul does in fact exist. I don't think the party leaders, with their heads so far up their own asses, can see that they've managed to piss off a good 20% of the traditional Republican loyalists..

/proud member of the Republican party who will only be voting for Ron Paul Republicans.. and third-party or democrats otherwise.

Paulbots need to form their own little conspiracy tea party and leave the Republican party the fuck alone.

 

[First]

Ron Paul is no Republican, let's clear that up for second. He's as much a libertarian as anything else, and he should be damn proud of it. For his own reasons he doesn't like to acknowledge his libertarian politics when they conflict with Republican ones.