Leadership questions in the GOP
posted at 12:45 pm on November 6, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
After the second straight losing cycle, Republicans want new leadership in the party — and they may well get it. In 2007, the House Republicans replaced most of the leadership positions, with a promise to strengthen the party’s “branding”. That didn’t work out well, and now Republicans understand that “branding” isn’t enough:
Younger, more conservative lawmakers moved yesterday to assert their influence in the House Republican caucus as the GOP began the traditional period of soul-searching that follows a major electoral defeat. Conservatives also began jockeying to fill the post of Republican National Committee chairman early next year.
Republican leaders, especially on Capitol Hill, said the GOP had strayed too far from its traditional principle of limited government and must reclaim its reputation as the party most committed to cutting spending and taxes. But some were also deeply concerned about the drubbing the party’s standard-bearer, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), absorbed among Hispanic and well-educated voters, as well as affluent suburbanites, and said that a more fundamental rethinking of the GOP message is in order.
On Capitol Hill, House GOP leader John A. Boehner (Ohio) appeared likely to hold onto his leadership post, but the No. 3 Republican, Adam H. Putnam of Florida, a major proponent of the $700 billion Wall Street rescue plan, resigned his post late yesterday.
The fate of the No. 2 Republican, Minority Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.), was uncertain, and one of the younger party mavericks, Virginia’s Eric Cantor, was poised to replace him amid widespread discontent among party rank-and-file with the Election Day performance.
Blunt resigned thsi morning from his position as Minority Whip, after the Post published this article. That only leaves John Boehner, who has already said he will fight to retain his spot at Minority Leader. That has some activists seeing red, such as Erick Erickson at Red State, who has a more pungent take on the question:
Here’s where I am on the House and Senate GOP leadership races.
The whole lot of them should be rounded up and hanged. Slowly.
When you lose two elections in a row, you pull out the ginsu knife and go for seppuku. Honor demands it.
Real leaders know when to get out of the way. People too comfortable to be effective do not.
Erick is, of course, speaking figuratively. At least, I hope he’s speaking figuratively.
Obviously, changes have to be made, but as Erick himself notes, we need to make sure we have effective leaders to replace the current team. It will take real efforts at change, and not just “rebranding”, in order to convince voters to trust Republicans with power again. But it will also take skilled leaders willing to deal with all of the frustrations of minority status to tangle with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for the next two years.
In looking back at the 110th Congress, both Boehner and Mitch McConnell did a pretty good job in derailing Pelosi, Reid, & Co from their efforts to lose the war and run wild with taxpayer money. Part of that can be attributed to the threat of vetoes from George Bush, who finally figured out how to accomplish them. In fairness, though, both Boehner and McConnell did their share in forcing Democrats out of the lane on left-tilting policies.
The question will be whether we have candidates ready for that task now. In the meantime, though, let’s forget about “branding” and focus on a return to the principles that unite the Right: limited government, fiscal responsibility, free enterprise and property rights, and peace through strength. We need leaders who can restore our credibility on these issues.
Addendum: Blunt resigned with characteristic class. Below is his letter:
Dear Republican Colleague,
In January 2007, I wrote myself a letter and mailed it to my office. The letter, unopened, sat on my desk until Wednesday. Almost two years ago, I wrote that our ideas didn’t lose the mid-term election, we did. I wrote that it was my intention to spend the next two years holding the Democrats accountable and defining the differences between our parties. I also wrote that, were we not successful in recapturing the majority in 2008, it was my intention to serve only two years as Minority Whip.
With another election behind us, I still believe that conservative ideas define where the country wants to be and needs to be. And I believe that together we held the Democrats accountable and that we began to define some of the differences between our parties.
Against the pundits’ best predictions, we stood against a flawed expansion of government run health care in the SCHIP bill. When many were saying it was political suicide, we gave the surge a chance to work and today we are rapidly handing over control of Iraq to a stable government capable of securing the peace. We stopped billions of dollars in frivolous spending. We won an unprecedented number of motions to recommit, defining the differences between our parties and on a few occasions forcing the Democrats to pull their own bills from the floor. And when an energy crisis threatened our families and our whole economy, we advanced common sense solutions that resonated with the American people.
Yet, in part due to circumstances beyond our control, we were not successful in 2008. And I believe my instincts two years ago were correct, I can best contribute to our efforts to regain the majority and advance the interests of the American people in a different role in the 111th Congress. Therefore, I will not seek re-election as your Whip.
It has been one of my greatest honors to serve in the House Leadership. I have been truly humbled by the trust you have placed in me and by the opportunity to serve our nation.
I am optimistic about our future. I firmly believe that if we successfully define the Democrat agenda for what it is and present a compelling alternative we will be the majority in two short years. I look forward to working beside you to build that majority.
Thank you for your friendship.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4
I think we will stop seeing our strength this way.
Strength will be found not in our weapons or our wealth, but in our ideas, diversity, youth, ingenuity, ideas, democracy, community, faith, labor and opportunity.
username on November 6, 2008 at 9:40 PM
I thought he was tying to be fictitious or sarcastic, perhaps we are witnessing one of the early Obama re-education camp graduates.
neuquenguy on November 6, 2008 at 9:42 PM
Yup, that confirms it.
neuquenguy on November 6, 2008 at 9:44 PM
The paranoia over Evangelicals is part of the propaganda of the left. Religion was a non-existent factor in this election.
More than propaganda, there is something else going on. I read it in comments all the time. People want their porn, their illicit relationships, their abortions, and their substance abuse. The problem with that, besides the effect on the next generation, is that many of these people still have a conscience. That conscience is muted by various distractions. Any reminder of the inescapable absolutes of our existence enrages them.
The sight of worshippers at a church enrages them.
The sight of a cross enrages them.
The sight of a creche enrages them.
The sight of a Christmas celebration enrages them.
More than that, it terrifies them. Not a church-goer myself, but as time marches on, I see the consequences of sixties “values.” Drugs, sex, and leftism are necessities, else someone might feel guilty about the teenagers buried in innumerable graveyards — those taught sixties values (do whatever you want). Those kids went crazy from a lack of boundaries and took drugs a lot stronger than what the hippies had then — or had them prescribed.
The hippies rebelled in a safe society. The kids today endure a crazy society which will brook no limitations on personal behavior, not even for the sake of the young.
Religious Christians are convenient boogie-men used as objects to displace guilt and fear.
Feedie on November 6, 2008 at 9:45 PM
All of you folks calling for the purging of this camp in the party, or of that camp, seem to miss one key point–that still doesn’t identify what we ARE. Maybe it says what we’re not, but that doesn’t help us to develop a message about what we are, and what we stand for.
Getting rid of the Christian right only means we no longer want religious voters any more. Okay, fine.
Getting rid of moderates only means we no longer want voters who straddle the fence on anything.
I believe in a Big Tent philosophy, and the Republicans should pursue it. By Big Tent, I don’t mean be everything to everyone, and pander left and right. By Big Tent I mean what it meant under Reagan– stand for a handful of important principles and draw your line in the sand there.
My line in the sand is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This country should be a shining light for everyone who yearns to stand up and succeed on their own, without shackles or barriers, and to rise or fall based on their own work and efforts. That’s why this country was established, and that’s why people still flock to this country in droves.
This philosophy appeals to young and old, citizen and immigrant, black and white, and it’s what we should stand for as Republicans. We should separate ourselves from the cradle-to-grave, hand-holding elitists who need to control everything we do.
There are more than enough people in this country now, and they will continue to come, who believe in this great idea… and we can have a monopoly on it.
Lower taxes. Smaller government. A country of people who are strong, and independent and who, when freed of the anchor of big government, can achieve truly great things.
To me, this is the only direction for us to go in. Everything else is just Liberal Lite, and I can’t vote for that any more.
Sorry for rambling.
12thMonkey on November 6, 2008 at 9:45 PM
Hey Ed,
Wot’s with all the spelling mistakes this post. In a hurray?
deebinto on November 6, 2008 at 10:08 PM
Our strength lies not in our arms or our wealth, but in our opportunity, ideas, democracy, and opportunity. Most importantly, our diversity.
GOP neglects this truth at its electoral peril.
username on November 6, 2008 at 10:08 PM
I agree with you, but I’d dump the phrase “Big Tent” because of its emotional charge. A purge is not what will happen — more like a withdrawal. The RINOs are not about to admit error and give up power without a fight. If they do not take a back seat and allow people with heartland values to lead, then the result is liable to be a schism. RINOs have lied and tricked and done it again so much that they actually believe their own lies. The conservative elites betrayed America with their snobbery and insular delusions. If they do not back off, the Republican Party could disintegrate.
The history of the formation of third parties is not promising, but it may be the only way to break the grip of the dinosaurs in the short term. If the remnants in Congress do not start listening and fighting for heartland values, then they are as suicidal as the liberals.
Feedie on November 6, 2008 at 10:20 PM
Really ? How quaint.
So the $600 million plus all the other untold millions that Obama’s camp solicited and used to buy up the election was just imagined ?
runner on November 6, 2008 at 10:20 PM
I disagree in this sense. Religion was why Romney was demonized when he had a shot of taking out McCain. Huckabee used religion as a prop to convince Republican voters they should be supporting him. Obama’s mysterious flirtations with Islam remains an open question even though he has been exposed as being a “Christian” who spent 20 years in a church whose main focus is the hatred of white people. Religion was most definitely a factor in this election.
People leading a hedonistic lifestyle without any grounding in faith will rebel against the buzzkill of a higher being and an afterlife. Evangelical Christians who dare openly express their faith will be attacked in 2008 America. Obama offers a way out- liberal of questionable faith will never ever be an uncomfortable presence in the life of the unfaithful.
highhopes on November 6, 2008 at 10:30 PM
I’m very careful not to make Reagan a cult-figure. Reagan had a long history of conservative thought before he took office. He is adored now for “really meaning” all the stuff he said for decades and getting the opportunity to act on those ideas.
Obama has no history but he has become a cult-figure because he is the first candidate that wasn’t a white male. Who would have ever imagined that the sperm from a black Muslim from Kenya and and a skanky gal from Kansas would arrive at the highest office of the most powerful nation on the planet without any real qualifications for being there beyond being over 35 and an American.
highhopes on November 6, 2008 at 10:43 PM
Pelosi and Reid have never missed an opportunity to get in front of the cameras to provide a sound bite of their message, however ludicrous or hostile or downright false their remarks tended to be.
Whoever becomes the minority leaders must be as aggressive in making a point to the public with bold, brief, memorable remarks in front of the cameras, too. The response must be shot, snappy, and truthful.
A simple statement that reflects the minority’s position–especially those that affect a taxpayer’s pocketbook or that limit government intrusiveness in our lives would be apt.
Keep hitting on the themes that liberty and protections/promotions of an individual’s or a family’s or a business’s prosperity are the rationales behind their bills or votes. Give a bread-and-butter example if need be.
Hammer the concept that Americans know best how to save or spend their own money and that any decision was made or promoted to protect that essential liberty.
If the Republican/conservatives reject a spending bill, couch the rejection in terms that are positive and forward-looking.
Get on the Sunday morning news programs and focus on talking points reflecting a conservative point of view. Don’t be diverted. Bring the discussion back to the message that conservatives want to promote. Should the host try to put you on the defensive, point out the folly of the opposition’s side and spend more time promoting why yours is superior.
onlineanalyst on November 6, 2008 at 10:49 PM
That is completely naive. If it weren’t for our weapons of war, those other virtues would be non-existent.
csdeven on November 6, 2008 at 10:51 PM
Sorry for getting here late and I haven’t read all the comments, but I want there to be a new leader of the RNC – a true manager that truly “gets” conservatism. I think either Fred Thompson or Newt Gingrich. I think there should be a chairman, of course, but then I think there needs to be different managers/specialists in charge of media relations, technology/internet/websites, etc., identify and relate to the different demographic groups – seniors, youth, children/conservative education, all income brackets – bottom to top, etc., etc., etc.
I think Boehner should go. I want him replaced with the most conservatively substantial and eloquently speaking person available. We need to send a signal that we’re re-tooling and the GOP is going “Back to the Future.”
Obama Youth? We need a Conservative Youth! There needs to be videos and educational material for PARENTS and children. We cannot depend on the school system to do this for us. Parents, wake up!!! Our kids are being indoctrinated slowly but surely. Then, we need to infiltrate college campuses QUICKLY!!!! The college-age kids are here to stay in the election process and we better get tech savvy and QUICK!
I want to be involved!!! I want to DO something.
Oink on November 6, 2008 at 11:20 PM
I agree, but one of the reasons we never see our party successfully articulating conservative points is because there are so few who actually hold them. It’s hard to get in front of a camera over and over and push for policies effectively when you don’t believe them.
The current batch of Republican leadership is, no surprise, not conservative. They’re politicians. They look to further their careers, spread pork and gain influence. And all of that is directly opposite of conservative values. THAT’S the reason we don’t hear our views being successfully championed.
Once we have some true conservatives, not the pork-flinging East-coast elites, we’ll see our viewpoints pushed for effectively.
12thMonkey on November 6, 2008 at 11:22 PM
Furthermore, I’m thinking about our own county’s GOP organization. It’s pathetic. I live in a fairly heavy DEM county, but it’s still pathetic. They need to get active! I think they just look at it as a club. The local GOP groups need to plan events for children, middle and high schoolers, and then college-age kids. It would be neat if there could be telecasts or webinars where kids could learn about conservatism in a FUN, tech-savvy way. We’ve gotta be tech-y.
Oink on November 6, 2008 at 11:24 PM
Yeah, thats why so many people want in Canada instead of America….please dont parrot Dem PC, its transparent as Obama’s “hope and change”
Opportunity Costs on November 6, 2008 at 11:24 PM
The problem is that they’d then return to school on Monday where their NEA teachers would continue to program them to believe conservativism is evil. Along with most of the movies they see and TV shows they watch, that is.
It would, however, help the party if its election apparatus was more web-savvy next time around. If we’re afforded a next time around, of course.
Blacklake on November 6, 2008 at 11:32 PM
Without another Ronald Reagan-ish figure that can speak with authority and clearly articulate conservative/federalist principles, it will be difficult to drown out the MSM drumbeats. Whoever it is, they will need to be authentic. Is Gov. Jindal up to the task? Time will tell.
Having a “manager” as president instead of a leader didn’t help the GOP one bit. During his 8 years, Bush himself rarely countered any of the crap that was being said about him and the economy, so the rubes and numbskulls just assumed the anti-Bush mantra the MSM was dishing out.
electric-rascal on November 6, 2008 at 11:45 PM
just ate up the anti-Bush mantra the MSM was dishing out.
electric-rascal on November 6, 2008 at 11:46 PM
Maybe I wasn’t clear with my thoughts. I was talking about the RNC Chair and “department” managers, not the POTUS.
Electric Rascal… do I know you from the Fred site? E-R?
Oink on November 6, 2008 at 11:48 PM
We must fight.
Oink on November 6, 2008 at 11:49 PM
You think Mitt Romney is more conservative than Mike Huckabee? I’ll let the Governor respond to you on this:
“When we were out there supporting Ronald Reagan, he (Romney) was running away from him,” Mr. Huckabee said on CNN. “That’s what rankles many of us. He’s a recent convert and now he shouts ‘hallelujah’ louder than the rest of us.”
Rankles us is right. In 94, Romney was standing shoulder to shoulder with Kennedy pushing abortion on demand, Mike Huckabee was supporting pro-life legislation. Huckabee is the consistant conservative, not Romney. Anyways, we’ll just have to respectfully disagree on that Marine_Bio. All I can hope for is that you are open to having your mind changed in the future. Thank you.
apacalyps on November 7, 2008 at 12:46 AM
Correct.
Correct.
Correct.
You guessed it. Correct.
apacalyps on November 7, 2008 at 12:49 AM
Neocon Peg, there appears to be something wrong with the link to your website. You have http://http/fauxnews.org on your username. The link fails.
apacalyps on November 7, 2008 at 12:52 AM
Excellent!
Well, again, I’m a right winger and I don’t understand how others can’t see that Mike is too. If he was a liberal I wouldn’t support him. Oh, well. Whatever.
Exactly right! This, I believe, is the primary reason that the Media and the GOP elite went after him. Rush Limbo and his hit-piece on Huckabee. And the other talk show radio hosts. Many of them phony Christians. They hate God and cringed at the idea of a true-Bible believing Christian governing from the White House. I’m not saying everybody felt this way who didn’t support Mike Huckabee, but I believe the majority did. This was certainly my experience defending him.
apacalyps on November 7, 2008 at 1:21 AM
Good move. You’ve got yourself a deal. I am thankful you are open to the possibility. Thank you.
Well, I had no problem with that ad because he didn’t mean it in the way the Media portayed it. He was trying to convey that he is a Christian man with Christian values who loves the Lord. I am a Christian who loves the Lord. When you identify yourself as a Christian, you cannot take positions completely opposite to what the Bible teaches and what a Christian would believe. So anyways, I don’t think you should be offended by that the same way the lying Media was. Thank you.
apacalyps on November 7, 2008 at 1:38 AM
There. Fixed it. again. Thank you. Have a wonderful evening (smiles).
apacalyps on November 7, 2008 at 4:29 AM
Republicans should FORGET the mantra “cut spending and taxes”.
They are obviously too stupid to do 2 things at once. Lat time they forgot entirely about that cut spending stuff.
Their mantra needs to be “We’ll cut spending everywhere and the taxes will fall on their own.”
Lonetown on November 7, 2008 at 5:25 AM
apacalyps, I’m probably not a familiar entity to you, I joined during the primary season open registration, and haven’t posted that regularly. Except for my Christian apologetic stances, my thoughts are generally more in the academic realm. I’m a conservative Christian biologist, which makes me a really confusing entity to those who hold secular beliefs, and a bit more on the academic in my approaches than most Christians are used to dealing with.
So I’ll try this again, just for clarity. I don’t have a problem with Huck, and am nowhere near as willing charge him as being too liberal as some who suffer from Huckabee Derangement Syndrome. I’m not a HDS sufferer, I voted for him in the primary because Romney had just dropped out when VA voted, and can fully acknowledge that in many ways he is a very admirable person, and would have made a first rate president. He’s just more liberal than I would like, as evidenced by his taxation policies and pardons in a relatively conservative state, Arkansas.
I will also easily concede that Zo may be correct in his argument that Huckabee would have been able to sell the platform far better than McCain or any of the other candidates. McCain happened because of Dems crossing over to vote for him as the “acceptable conservative”. You see how well that worked out for us.
Now, about Romney, is he a recent convert or was he a stealth conservative in MA? As he is a Mormon, I fully believe it is the latter. Say what you will about that, but remember that he was elected as governor of Massachusetts! A republican gov in Kennedy country is no small feat. To hold that position, you need to be willing to compromise a bit. Am I happy about his abortion stance while in office? Absolutely not, but that’s part of why I don’t live in MA. (And I do believe that the Federal Government should not be involved in abortion decisions, that should be left up to the individual states. It isn’t right for it to be going on at all, but that should still be up to the states.)
Now, that being said, had Romney been chosen as the candidate, it would have been a bloodbath. America is too prejudiced towards Mormons to put one in the top office.
Marine_Bio on November 7, 2008 at 6:31 AM
Still could be interpreted as an idiot.
Let him find his strength in ideas, diversity, youth, ingenuity, ideas, democracy, community, faith, labor and opportunity when facing a terrorist.
After he’s lost his head, I’ll grab my weapon.
:)
Marine_Bio on November 7, 2008 at 6:37 AM
neuquenguy,
Joking aside, the reducation camps will be turning out idiots, so the distinction will be very difficult to make. But the rest of his sentence points toward an idiot who drank deeply of this crap, and doesn’t need re-education.
Not one country that has shifted philosophy and tolerated diversity to the exclusion of building a common culture with a shared language has survived beyond 3 generations. Diversity without a unifying force is destrutive.
*slaps forehead*
OH Right, thats the role Obama will try to assume as the post partisan uniter that he is…….right?
I need more coffee.
Marine_Bio on November 7, 2008 at 6:56 AM
Yes. Pushing diversity based on race, ethnicity, gender, etc. is actually very detrimental to the success of any organization or the country.
I was a manager in a large high-tech corporation for many years and saw the effects of this. I put together many successful teams and learned to appreciate the benefits of a different type of diversity based on skills, leadership styles, experience, thinking styles, etc. The fact that many of these teams were also “diverse” in the sense it is being pushed here was totally accidental. It was not the difference in skin color or gender that made them successful, it was the combination of all these other performance factors.
What happened to “the self evident truth that all men are created equal”? liberals certainly don’t believe in that anymore. “diversity” is the wedge they use to divide and conquer.
neuquenguy on November 7, 2008 at 8:02 AM
Heh. So your diversity was based on experience and reality, not the artificially imposed ones of gender, skin color and culture? How shocking.
/sarcasm off.
Ok, couldn’t resist. I’ve had similar experiences, and quite honestly, that’s the dream that Dr. Martin Luther King had, holding people in esteem for the content of their character. But the liberals don’t want to look at the truth that MLK was speaking. It wouldn’t perpetuate their base of power.
Marine_Bio on November 7, 2008 at 8:16 AM
Excellent points. Kudos to both of you for capturing the nub of the issue.
The Dems have used identity politics to divide our population and set us at odds with each other. Polls that insist on categorizing voters with these identities perpetuate the divisiveness.
An effective political leader is one who focuses on what unites us as Americans. Liberty and the individual’s right to pursue happiness and economic self-determination generate much better results.
Collectivists have an essential distrust that people know what to do with their own money and how to conduct their own lives.
onlineanalyst on November 7, 2008 at 8:41 AM
Bush more than anyone else destroyed the GOP.
He refused to defend himself, his party, or conservatism. He thinks it’s beneath the office and he doesn’t much care for what others may think of him.
Very noble, but perception is what matters in politics. He allowed the MSM and the Dems to change the perception of the GOP, and now we are in the wilderness.
Perception matters more than anything, and good communication is the key to changing perceptions. Especially when it comes to conservatism, which appeal comes from ideas, not handouts.
commodore on November 7, 2008 at 9:10 AM
This statement represents a serious misunerstanding of American political history and it’s something folks on the right consistently screw up. Prior to the Civil Rights Movement neither party had any real use for minorities or women (with the exception of the brilliant Margaret Sanger). When African Americans demanded the right to vote and enforced citizenship in the sixties in compelled a bunch of other discriminated against groups (women, Mexicans, latinos etc.) to begin demanding that same access to full citizenship. To claim that the Dems “created” and “exploited” identity politics doesn’t account for a world where the only way minorities and women could force political change was to create organisatins that fought for those constituencies, because no one was supporting them. The Democrats then, gradually, absored those groups into its political structure (and at times, marginalized them) but they at least INCLUDED them. This was the big mistake of Nixon-Reagan era Republicanism. When Republicans allowed for the continued prominence of segregationists like Thurmond, Helms, Lott etc. in the party they didn’t just become the party that opposed the excesses of the 60s, they became the party that opposed ALL progress period. And that worked for a while. Because the country backlashed against the sixties. But that was 40 years ago and those same radicals have come off their highs, literally and figuratively, and have recrafted their message in a way that includes capitalism and that assumes establishment is OK. The GOP has not recrafted it’s message and it continues to exclude constituencies which were a part of those movements in the sixties, to their detriment.
Also, being white IS an identity and the GOP has played identity politics with white voters. Comments like “real Americans” for example. It’s time to recognize that and start just realizing that identity exists, demographics exist and the GOP has to respond, or die.
DeathToMediaHacks on November 7, 2008 at 9:18 AM
Tech is interesting because it tends to be very diverse–to the point where English language skills among teammates can be a challenge. But if you manage on merit, as it sounds like you did, you get to see diverse groups work effectively and harmoniously. However, where diversity is mandated, especially in leadership positions, productivity can really suffer.
dedalus on November 7, 2008 at 9:19 AM
The McCain Lieberman Party!!!!!!
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/08/10/opinion/10brooks.html?_r=3&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slo
As Rush said, conservatism didn’t lose on Tuesday, it was not on the ballot.
Angry Dumbo on November 7, 2008 at 9:21 AM
OK, I first have to say that I grew up in the time of Reagan and I remember how great our country felt and was and now with President-Elect Obama about to take the White in 70 odd days. What is left for Republican party to do? Where is the frappin’ leadership … oh they are busy looking for there teeth after two years of not standing up and conservative values. The only reason why I voted for McCain was because that I felt he was better on the abortion issue. I surely didn’t believe in the socalist vibes I was get from The One and MSM made him be able to walk on water. This frappin’ nonsense with Palin has to stop, to tell you the truth she was a breath of fresh air and I wish that the ticket was reversed. I will tell you one thing that happened with this election I know I am no longer an independent anyone. I want leadership, not a frappin’ slogan. Heck sign me up for the revolution!
NorDak75 on November 7, 2008 at 9:29 AM
We need new, young blood we need Paul Ryan.
will13smith on November 7, 2008 at 9:30 AM
For all who want to dump social conservatism in order to attract more moderates, let me remind you that gay marriage and affirmative action initiatives lost in every state they were raised and they were raised in many states.
Plain and simple, McCain was not comfortable pushing social conservative issues. Fine. He can be the mythical social liberal fiscal conservative, but Republicans who want to win need to tap popular conservative issues. Social conservatism won and social liberals lost this past election.
Angry Dumbo on November 7, 2008 at 9:59 AM
ALL of the attacks on Palin and the allusions that they come from Romney’s supporters are instigated by the very forces allied to defeat conservatism.
The Bush/Clinton alignment always stank.
The McCain/Clinton alignment always stank.
The Bush/McCain alignment really stinks.
maverick muse on November 7, 2008 at 10:17 AM
I took it to mean that he was THE authentic Christian and the other candidates were not. It simply has no place in a campaign.
csdeven on November 7, 2008 at 10:22 AM
Need to find people to defeat these people in 2010
Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas
Main article: United States Senate election in Arkansas, 2010
Incumbent Senator Blanche Lincoln was reelected with 56% of the vote in 2004, a year when President George W. Bush carried the state easily and GOP candidates nationwide won in what was termed as a GOP year. Lincoln is popular in Arkansas and is well known. Former Governor Mike Huckabee, who was a 2008 presidential candidate, may run, since he remains a relatively well-liked figure. Regardless of Huckabee’s position, Arkansas has elected only one Republican Senator since Reconstruction, who was defeated in a GOP landslide year of 2002.
[edit] Barbara Boxer of California
Main article: United States Senate election in California, 2010
The chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, California Democrat Barbara Boxer announced in February 2007 that she will seek a fourth term in 2010.[6]
Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger may seek the seat, as he would be ineligible to run again in the Gubernatorial race due to term limits.[6]
[edit] Ken Salazar of Colorado
Main article: United States Senate election in Colorado, 2010
Ken Salazar has been mentioned as a possible cabinet appointment by Barack Obama, but downplayed such speculation before the 2008 election.[7]
[edit] Daniel Inouye of Hawaii
Main article: United States Senate election in Hawaii, 2010
Veteran Democrat Daniel Inouye will complete his eighth term in the Senate in 2010, at age 86. He was reelected in 2004 with 76% of the vote.[8]
[edit] Barack Obama of Illinois
Main article: United States Senate election in Illinois, 2010
Governor Rod Blagojevich will appoint a person to replace Obama in the US Senate due to Obama’s status as President-elect of the United States.
[edit] Evan Bayh of Indiana
Main article: United States Senate election in Indiana, 2010
Evan Bayh, a former two-term Governor of Indiana, is now in his second Senate term. He won reelection with 62% of the vote in 2004.[9]
[edit] Barbara Mikulski of Maryland
Main article: United States Senate election in Maryland, 2010
Democrat Barbara Mikulski will be 73 in November 2010. Mikulski has often been elected by large margins.
[edit] Harry Reid of Nevada
Main article: United States Senate election in Nevada, 2010
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will seek a fifth term. In 2004, he was reelected with 61% of the vote.[8]
[edit] Chuck Schumer of New York
Main article: United States Senate election in New York, 2010
Chuck Schumer, current chairman of the DSCC
kangjie on November 7, 2008 at 10:49 AM
There is a website were conservtives can discuss these issues in a forum
http://www.conservativesforum.com
Go sign up and get some other HAer to go over there
Start thread etc
kangjie on November 7, 2008 at 10:50 AM
An open letter to the GOP/RNC.
.
As I sit here this evening licking my wounds over the election I am not angry at the 20% of all conservatives who voted for Obama. No who I am angry with is you, the GOP/RNC and the RINO republicans that we voted for over the last 8 years who completely betrayed us while in office. The representatives and congress people who spent money like is was free and abandoned our traditional core values in a senseless attempt to court the “independents” and the center. Well we can certainly see how well that worked out can’t we..
.
Got got an arab, marxist, muslim as president and a majority of demo-communist in the house and the senate too. And it is already started even before “The Anointed One” takes office. On Wednesday morning Chucky Schumer was blathering on CBS News saying that the Fairness Doctrine was necessary “just like we control pornography on TV”. That pesky first amendment? We don’t need that any more. It was enough to make me puke.
.
Well you know what? We got the government we deserve and bend over because “Change” is coming and you had better “Hope” there is something left of this great country when the Democrats finish with it.
.
In the mean time you, the GOP/RNC, can kiss my foot before you are going to get any more contributions from me. You have abandoned your core and you got your ass handed to you as a result. Nice work.
.
So maybe in 2012 you will get your cranial/anal inversion fixed and return to your core principles instead of shilling for the votes of independents and the center and run some candidates that aren’t paralytic bed wetters on the traditional values of the party like you did this year. You know candidates who really believe in fiscal restraint and that big government and the nanny state isn’t a good thing in the least. Folks who believe in personal responsibility and that the wealth you create through hard work should be left with you and not collected up and handed out to welfare queens so they don’t have to worry about putting gas in their cars and making their mortgage payments…
.
And give us some candidates who are ready and willing to run the tough ads against the incumbents that calls them out on their associations with domestic terrorists and their hate spewing pastors, not shy away because its not “honorable”. You know what’s not honorable? Putting Obama and his socialist minions in control of this great country…
.
So while we conservatives take an absolute pounding from Obama and Reid and Pelosi and the rest of those marxist/communist creeps for the next 4 years because of your complete and total abandonment of the traditional values of the Republican Party, you should have some real quality time to contemplate how you completely screwed the pooch this year and how you aren’t going to do it again in 2012 under the delusions of moving the party even more towards the center is somehow going to save it..
MikePappas on November 7, 2008 at 10:54 AM
The abortion restriction initiatives lost. It seems unlikely that states would outlaw abortion from the point of conception, even if Roe could be overturned. To the extent that a pro life position is a litmus test for a GOP candidate, some good candidates may be screened out based on a policy position that can’t practically be implemented.
Some of the social conservative positions work against GOP candidates in the North East, where now the party has no congressmen from New England.
dedalus on November 7, 2008 at 11:02 AM
Its the most admirable goal and I wish it was that simple.
Some of them are going to be more easily sent to Jail than voted out. (i.e.Schumer)
Most of them come from a state with electorate that is so stuck on stupid they vote for anyone with a D, as long as they aren’t a complete idiot. (i.e. Mikulski.)
It is very frustrating. I focus on Mikulski because I actually detest the woman. When I lived in MD, I was on a crusade to get Mikulski out of office. It is unbelievable how entrenched she is.
If that is the goal in these states, based on my experience in MD, I’m convinced that the only way is to find a candidate that is so stunning it is attractive to those who sit on the fence, but vote for the same person because they “aren’t that bad”.
Case in point of why it has to be that way…The 2002 MD governor’s race.
The then LT Gov Kathleen Kennedy Townsend was running against Bob Ehrlich and Michael Steele. Ehrilich won for one term, because Townsend is so stupid that the only way she was ever elected was by adding the Kennedy back into her name. (Ran in late 80s for congress as townsend and failed miserably. Then added Kennedy back in and BINGO she was elected.)
The very next election, the stupid, extremely corrupt mayor of Baltimore ran, and BINGO, now he’s Governor.
Ehrlich is a good man, who did a lot for the state. Did not matter, because he’s not a “rockstar”.
I’m so glad I moved out of that state in 2004.
Marine_Bio on November 7, 2008 at 11:09 AM
Or maybe it was 2000? Seems like it might have been now that I’m looking at it again.
Marine_Bio on November 7, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Totally agree. And if you can’t restrict abortion in South Dakota is pretty clear you cannot do it anywhere. Instead nobody is worryed about the loses in North West, South West (New Mexico) and mountain west (Nevada and Colorado). Maybe abortion shouldn’t be the litmus test for republicans in certain states.
clemycali on November 7, 2008 at 11:15 AM
We can hold conservative values and still appeal to the middle. Cutting pork, balancing the budget, Partial birth abortion, cutting taxes ect…. Most core conservative priciples are attractive to everyone if they are presented properly.
The Dems have been successful in labeling republicans as big business rich guys. Congress bolstered that image by spending like drunken sailors and Bush never vetoed any of it.
Mc Cain did an extremely poor job of explaining any of this on the debates. He gave Obama a pass on the 95% of people get tax cuts issue during all three debates.
Being a successful salesperson is easy. Find the customers needs, overcome objections, know your competitors product, and follow through. Of course good delivery helps but if you don’t follow through you will lose the customer. it doesn’t take a rocket scientist.
ldbgcoleman on November 7, 2008 at 11:26 AM
It’s not necessarily true that the leadership isn’t conservative… the problem has been the Homer Simpson approach… hide under the pile of coats and hope everything turns out OK.
They just didn’t do enough… nobody was out there “making the case” (following the lead they were getting from the White House).
mankai on November 7, 2008 at 11:31 AM
I’ve been a republican since Goldwater in 1964. I have never seen the party in such sad shape. Even the Nixon years didn’t tear us up this badly. I can’t see any charismatic republicans on the horizon. Romney is too limited and can’t do it although I sort of like him. Huckabee has too narrow of a support base. This year it was ” if not McCain, then who?”
There are no republican leaders. NONE. It will be a long 4 years ahead. We must rebuild from scratch. The midterms in 2010 are going to be our chance to get some new blood in there. We had better start now.
Remember, all politics is local. Start there and start now. Don’t wait. If we can’t get exceptional Republicans to run for office we won’t win anymore. McCain proves a left leaning republican can’t be elected. We need to get back to our roots. We need someone who is a little like Reagan. A person who can communicate a vision for America. When we find that person we’ll win the whitehouse back.
kanda on November 7, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Nice to have you here.
As Christians, we have nothing to apologize for.
A Christian biologist, huh? Amen. Most branches of science were developed by Bible-believing Christians. Law of gravity – Isaac Newton. Scientific Method – Francis Bacon. Physical Astronomy – Johann Kepler. The list goes on. There is no conflict between science and the Bible.
I am so glad you are not an HDS sufferer.
Huckabee vs Romney Over Clemency.
Huckabee would have destroyed Barack Hussein Obama in the debates. And with Conservatives behind him, he would be President right now.
Romney is a recent convert. He is not a true conservative and his record proves it. You look at the primaries, Huckabee was more than patient with this slimy excuse for a Republican until he started hammering him with misleading attack ads. Alot of us couldn’t believe it when this guy was tearing down a life-long committed pro-life conservatives like Huckabee. Romney is not pro-life and anyone who believes him is deluding themselves. Even on the guns issue, Romney changed his positions in order to run for President. Here’s Mitt supporting gun control in Massachusetts. In another video I can’t post (there seems to be a limit we can post at HA before the filters kick in) Mitt’s flailing, dodging, and then supporting automatic weapon bans. Huckabee, on the other hand, was the first Governor in the country to have a concealed handgun license. He believes Second Amendment rights belong to individuals, not cities or states. He opposes gun control based on geography. Mitt has proven he is NOT committed to protecting our 2nd Amendment rights. The choice is clear. There is no better candidate on the 2nd Amendment and the protection of life than Governor Huckabee. And these are just a couple examples where Mitt has flip-flopped. We’ve only looked at two. We haven’t looked at the others. We haven’t looked at what Romney did to progress the GLBT agenda in MA.
I don’t understand why somebody would give states the right to have abortion laws if they want. If abortion is murder, why give anyone the option to murder?
On this issue of Mormonism, forget about prejiduce. People can believe whatever they want, okay. Believe whatever you want! Here’s the concern. Just because somebody says the word “god” does not mean they are talking about the same person that is the God of the Bible. And if you really believe God exists and you pray He will bless your nation, then you better make sure you are praying to the right ONE, otherwise, instead of a blessing you may get a curse. When you have God wrong, you have everything wrong. So, people are rightly concerned. Thank you.
apacalyps on November 7, 2008 at 4:00 PM
No, csdeven. That’s not what Mike meant. He didn’t mean he was THE authentic Christian. That’s the way the lying bolshevick media spun it. I would have spoken out had he meant that. Remember, my allegiance is to the good Lord Jesus Christ, not Mike Huckabee. I support Mike Huckabee because I believe he is a decent man, and a fine leader, who loves Jesus, and wants to see His will done on earth as it is done in heaven (Matthew 6:10). But, as soon as Mike deviates from the Truth, I would not support him.
apacalyps on November 7, 2008 at 4:22 PM
Hey, I know you mean well, but you have to slow down on the emotional response in this kind of format. There are some corrections needed.
I’m talking about apologetics, meaning that I defend Christianity. When engaged in that endeavor, I have more fervor, because I came to faith from a staunchly atheistic background, fully embracing evolution as a flawed theory. That little academically honest acknowledgment is what saved my hide, and many in science don’t have it, but I digress.
Almost all other discussion is much more academically disconnected. Think of it like the discussion is approached as if picking up a rock, looking at it and telling someone about it. Not exactly the kind of thought process that comes naturally to everyone, but it can make this kind of format a challenge. Picture Spock talking to Dr. McCoy if you will. Its a good metaphor for what has gone on between our posts.
Now, about Mitt, you may be right, but your argument is weak. He is a savvy politician and when in a heavily democratic state, you will need to make concessions. That will create the appearance of inconsistency no matter which way you turn that around. Remember he was elected as a Republican in MA, which is the most bizarre state in its politics, and the electorate is FAR to the left of Arkansas’ electorate. It makes a difference.
Regardless of this, my overall point is that America is too prejudiced for him to be elected to the presidency. Now again I remind you that this is from an academic standpoint. (i.e. your point is valid about god not necessarily being the same as the God of the Bible, and as a christian you should be duly concerned, but that is completely irrelevant to what I’m saying.) He would never get to the point of where John McCain was, because of prejudice.
And by the way, with this one..
Look at it again thinking academically, and not emotively. I’m not saying that the right should be given to the states. The states should be making the call, not the federal government.
It makes it much more appropriate in the framework of our constitution, as in powers not enumerated in the document belong to the states….:) It also works much more to the end goal of working this abomination out of our country. Local politics, not federal, are much more aware of community grass roots work. Also keeps the stupid folks like planned parenthood spread more thinly and without backing from fruit loops in the US Congress.
Cheers.
Marine_Bio on November 7, 2008 at 9:39 PM
I knew that, Bio (smiles). When I said, “Apologetics… who’s apologizing? I’m not apologizing for nothing!” I was only having fun with the term, apologetics. I think it’s a poor word they came up with to describe the defense of Christian doctrine. I believe, without apology, that God made the world about 6,000 years ago; 4,400 years ago there was a Flood that destroyed the world; 2,000 years ago Jesus came, died on the cross, and here we are today. Here we are today, waiting for the Lord to come back in about 5 minutes. I hope that makes sense.
On the other subjects like Romney, Mormonism, and the states making the call on abortion, not the federal government. Well, we can agree to disagree. I see where you’re coming from and you explain yourself nicely, but, uh, I just see it differently. So maybe we can get into this another time. I’ll try to convince you another day. What I wanna say though before finishing is that based on what I’ve read I think we’re on the same side overall. I mean, it sounds to me like you love the Lord, and if that’s true and you’re saved on your way to heaven, well, then, you’re a brother in Christ, and we gotta work together. Like my good friend Huckabee said, “When we become believers, it’s as if we have signed up to be part of God’s Army, to be soldiers for Christ.” The way I see it Bio, these are the last days, and there’s still so much we’ve yet to do! United we stand, divided we fall. It can’t be any clearer than that. Have a good day/night!
apacalyps on November 7, 2008 at 11:26 PM
Then Huck needs to get out of politics. The laws of this law demand a separation of church and state. Mike dragged his Christian faith into the campaign as a tool to garner votes AND to create distrust for Romney.
Scripture says: Render that unto Caesar etc….
It demeans Christians for Huck to do such a thing. It is hypocritical and he is not being a good example for those he would hope would turn to Christ.
csdeven on November 8, 2008 at 7:13 AM
Not true. This is the basis for so many arguments and it’s a myth. There is no reason why we shouldn’t elect our political leaders based on their religious conviction. The first 5 books of the Bible are called “the Law” (Matthew 7:12; Luke 24:27;44) and they just so happen to be the foundation of the American legal system. In Genesis 9:6 God commissioned human government to carry out those laws. Government was not formed to change God’s laws but rather to enforce them. In 1846 the South Carolina Supreme Court declared: “Christianity is a part of the common law of the land, with liberty of conscience to all. It has always been so recognized… it is the foundation of those morals and manners upon which our society is formed; it is their basis. Remove this and they would fall.” In 1892 the United States Supreme Court ruled — “Our laws and institutions must necessarily be based upon the teachings of the Redeemer of Mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.” Once again the Supreme Court in 1952 declared: “We are a religious people whose institutions all presuppose a Supreme Being …” So, you can deny it csdeven, but these quotations are representative of many which support the facts that this is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic — based entirely upon Christian principles -– with no separation of church and state. American government and legal system were formed and based on God’s law and the Bible.
So you’re saying that Mike dragged his Christian faith into the race as a tool? Really, that’s so unfair. He was Governor of Arkansas for 10 years and acted no different in office there. I guess I’m using my faith as a tool too, huh? I mean, it’s my life so I guess I’m just faking it. I must not really believe Jesus Christ when He said to follow Him. I guess I don’t believe that there is a real heaven and a literal hell where people will go to after they die. I don’t know what planet you’re living on csdeven, but Christians shouldn’t be shy about their faith. The fact that so many Christian politicians are silent about the Jesus Christ is the problem — that’s the problem! To me, your accusations are just not something a true Christian would say or think.
This tells us that Christians should pay legitimate taxes to the government. It says nothing about seperation of church and state. And by the way, it’s primarily non-believers, atheists, humanists, evolutionist, who use the separation argument. These are the same folks who want nothing to do with God and are trying everything to get rid of Him. Think about that long and hard before you decide which side you’re going to fight for.
Speak for yourself.
Please don’t lecture us about being hypocritical or about being a good example for those we hope to turn to Christ. Jesus Himself said, “Beware of false prophets (Matthew 7:15), yet time and time again, you defend that con man Joseph Smith. It is interesting to watch how people like you will spend much time and effort scrutinizing somebody like Mike Huckabee and accuse him of being a phony Christian, yet won’t spend 2 seconds scrutinizing how stupid it is to believe Joey Smith put a magic rock into a hat, put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and then proceeded to write the sequel to the Holy Bible! YES, folks. They truly strain at a gnat and swallow a camel (Matthew 23:24).
apacalyps on November 8, 2008 at 4:41 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4