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 Next »
I believe the Constitutional position is that our rights are not given by man, but the Creator, and that government can’t interfere with our practice of religion.
That’s it. After that, there is no role for religion in government. We, the people, get to do as we choose.
Which is as it should be.
I want leaders in government who will protect that right. I don’t want my leaders to be of the same beliefs I do. It doesn’t matter to me. Nor should it matter to you, as long as you get to practice your faith in the manner you choose.
But it seems to matter to some evangelicals what a person’s faith is. That is a brand problem big-time for the GOP, as some people have pointed out. And frankly, it’s a lousy Christian witness to non-Christians, and that seems quite counter to the objective of an evangeical, does it not?
Celebrate freedom of religion. Practice as you choose. Elect and support people who would protect that freedom. But that might mean that they are not of the same faith as you, be it Muslim, Hindu, or Ashtrayistic.
It bothers me a great deal that a great executive, like Romney, because of his personal faith, suffered at the hand of evangelical bigotry. And yes, that’s what it was for some.
If evangelicals are concerned about bigotry toward them, then they need to correct it within their own ranks, because that’s where it started.
beatcanvas on November 6, 2008 at 3:00 PM
What are you talking about? Mainly the increase in Calvinist theologans and doctrines? If so we’re in agreement.
Your last sentence “Government regulation and tax & transfer is NOT a method of implementing, nor a substitute for, Christian charity” is one I completely agree with.
Whoever is a christian and believes otherwise is a fool putting their faith in government instead of God.
Marine_Bio on November 6, 2008 at 3:00 PM
I speak only out of Christian love for my fellow Christians. Christians need to do a better job outreaching to younger voters who did not grow up in the Christian tradition and who see it as weird, alien, and backward.
Outlander on November 6, 2008 at 3:01 PM
I can understand a certain amount of resentment and a feeling of betrayal but a witch hunt against anyone and everyone not a strict ideological purist will not serve the party and movement well.
I say that but its hard to believe in. I want to throw all the bums out.
/gaah!
Texas74 on November 6, 2008 at 3:01 PM
Many HA folks have freaked about the mention of God, but even atheists that wish to be free have to place the grantor of rights at a level above humanity or humans will always devise ways to determine which humans do not merit those rights. Who cares what your concept of God is in this formulation? You could be a pagan, you could suspect that at the birth of matter and space and energy that intelligence was in the mix, and that it plays a role, no matter, our rights are sacred, as are our lives, and we must honor that and bestow our gratitude and our obeisance to right ideas and principles that deny base men the power to redefine what is human and good.
Yes, there will be fratricides (Romney) and egotists (cough*Huckabee) but traditional religion and even paganism and the eastern religions are at their foundation a distillation of the wisdom of the centuries and millenia, of what produces happiness or misery, what appeals to the human heart as justice or repels it as injustice, what works to promote peace and prosperity and what doesn’t. We need those principles distilled from the reality of human existence, of the longing for a just world and the recognition of the existence of evil. Abandoning religion is foolish. Not practicing, not “believing” is entirely acceptable, but rejecting and mocking and demonizing puts you in the camp of the progressives, whether you recognize it or not.
Once you reduce human patterns of living, and human nature, to mere human choices that can be redone in infinite variety by wiser men, then you have gulags and re-education camps and fools offering endless and complete change without direction or wisdom which is guaranteed to undermine every good principle and foundation of a sound society.
Stop hating religion. Recognize that rejecting faith and the idea of transcendent truth destroys the very foundation on which your liberties lie; you can’t destroy the foundation and hope to preserve the edifice.
Recognize that playing musical chairs with policy proposals and “better” leaders is itself merely “rebranding.”
Discover and defend first principles. From these, wise policy proceeds. Without these, policy follows whim and is little more than pandering ala the Progressives.
Reagan sold ideas, he promoted first principles and demonstrated their rightness and educated those of us lost in the relativist wilderness. It can be done again, and we can be part of that, it must never stop, or we are doomed.
Tradition!
Maquis on November 6, 2008 at 3:02 PM
I think the GOP needs to clearly define its goals first (for the House & Senate of today and 2010, and the presidential race of 2012) and THEN select people who can accomplish them.
runner on November 6, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Ok Grue, I think the feathers will be settling now.
Marine_Bio on November 6, 2008 at 3:06 PM
Here! Here!
Marine_Bio on November 6, 2008 at 3:08 PM
How about the 10 for 2010
tomas on November 6, 2008 at 3:09 PM
For those who are hyping the name of Eric Cantor, check out what Michelle has up on the Roy Blunt stepping down story.
Texas74 on November 6, 2008 at 3:10 PM
McCain garnered 53% of the votes by white women and 43% of the female vote overall. That doesn’t seem like a big problem to me.
The challenge is in capturing a bigger share of the black and Latino vote.
Y-not on November 6, 2008 at 3:13 PM
John Bohner is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
People remember more about his going on junkets compliments of K street lobbiests and his passion for golf, at every chance he gets, then any of his accomplishments. Just name me one thing he is remembered for. He is not a great speaker and dosen’t come across well on TV.
Jeff Flake walks the walk and he sure can talk the talk. He is enthusiastic and looks the part of a young dynamic leader and thats what we need now. Remember change is the price tag of success and obama rode that to victory, now we must.
amex on November 6, 2008 at 3:16 PM
Sadly, and I wish it wasnt so, but there is a lot of truth to that. I don’t know what to do about that one, because I believe it also applies to the greater population as well.
I never liked Huck, found him to be very SHALLOW, and liked Mitt. I even voted for Mitt in the primary, because VA had theirs before he dropped out.
I don’t think Mitt or Huck are the way out of the desert though.
Marine_Bio on November 6, 2008 at 3:18 PM
Yes and quickly and esspecially in the fast growing areas of west and south-west (NV, CO, AZ, TX).
clemycali on November 6, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Sadly, there is truth in that one. I don’t know what to do about it, because the bigotry there isn’t just found in the evangelicals but also in the greater population.
Sigh. I actually like Mitt. However, his brand isn’t going to be what resonates down the road, a return to basic priciples will.
Marine_Bio on November 6, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Sorry guys, somehow there was a lag in the 3:18 post showing up, so I replicated the intent of the post.
Marine_Bio on November 6, 2008 at 3:24 PM
I think that the Christian’s involvement in politics is more defensive than anything else. Our parental rights are being severely eroded by secularists. One of the reasons that prop. 8 passed is because parents are losing the right to opt out of lessons that they find offensive. The schools are saying that they have the sole responsibility to teach children and they get to choose what they teach. Christians do not want to turn their children over to immoral, God-hating teachers and curriculum. So we fight this attack on our parental rights and religious freedoms politically.
Rose on November 6, 2008 at 3:31 PM
Conservative leadership for a conservative Republican party. That is the path to success. If we insist on being wishy washy moderates we will always just be Democrat Light and that is a losing strategy.
Hawthorne on November 6, 2008 at 3:31 PM
Marine_Bio on November 6, 2008 at 3:22 PM
__Agreed. As a Christian, some thought it odd that I voted for Romney, and complained that Huck didn’t drop out earlier to give Mitt a fighting chance. I was very unhappy with Huck’s history, and especially his supposed Christian inspired mercy. Our judicial system punishments are entirely too weak as it is without pardoning people in droves.
__As for the core issue at hand. I believe that we need to have a simple statement of core beliefs, and effectively communicate those principles to the people. If we talk too much about polls, and constituencies, and who we need to bring in or kick out, we’ll miss the point. That is the way of the current party. It is the way of compromise. It is the way of weakness and failure. Stick to the core principles, and see who flocks to us, and who runs away. Leave those decisions up to the individuals.
aelhues on November 6, 2008 at 3:32 PM
That’s good in theory, but when Democrat politicians ruin their respective districts, the fools that elected them flee to the places not destroyed by the rotting touch of atheism and liberalism… and then procede to vote for the same human garbage that ruined the places they just fled (See: Europeans, Mexicans, Canadians, etc.).
Idiots don’t move to liberal places to be with their kind, they move to conservative places and bring their socialist idiocies with them (See: RINOs, McCain, wise_man).
TMK on November 6, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Well said Rose, and entirely understandable. The only problem with what you are saying is that Republicans have tended to nationalize some of the moral platform planks. That is not a good strategy in terms of protecting the Constitution. Many of these issues properly belong at the state level.
Currently, abortion is the only issue that is federal because of Rowe v. Wade. The left has succeeded in misrepresenting attacks on Rowe v. Wade as attacks on abortion rights. That is a bad strategy for the Republicans overall. The debate should instead be framed as returning the decision to the states where it belongs.
Hawthorne on November 6, 2008 at 3:37 PM
What you have are a few people up top in the GOP establishment taking the Republican party in a direction everyday conservatives don’t want. And if they get what they want their will be little difference between the right and left. The further left the GOP goes (even this “go center” garbage) the less conservatives will follow.
apacalyps on November 6, 2008 at 3:41 PM
First they need to go back to Conservative roots and then they need to grow a pair.
Wussys, every last one of them.
kareyk on November 6, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Christians will not vote against their self interests (again parental rights and freedom of religion). We will vote for the party and more specifically for the candidate who will support our rights. And we will do this at the state and federal level. As for the platform, if the platform is silent on an issue that’s fine, but if the platform is against our freedoms than we will not support it.
Rose on November 6, 2008 at 3:51 PM
I don’t think anyone care but the DOw lost 450pts and still dropping but lets wait and see if this is really Obama’s fault. the right are blind to this. Ed and Allah and Ace can not see the goldmine in this.. Oh well. No biggy historic market postelections always come around.
unseen on November 6, 2008 at 3:52 PM
unseen on November 6, 2008 at 3:52 PM
I hope you are correct- so far I have lost my ass.
kareyk on November 6, 2008 at 3:55 PM
Funny, I was walking through the manufacturing floor at my company and a worker stop me and asked me how I fill about Obama winning. I say no matter what my taxes will go up. She answered back “don’t worry Obama is like god he will take care of us”. I’m not sure but I think she was drinking or smoking something. Some how these morons think Obama will make miracles or something. I can see it coming is going to be hell for conservatives the next four or more years listening to these idiots. God help us.
A friend sends me this link about socialism at work in Sweden.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wg9D4uHjCXI&eurl=http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/
pukara61 on November 6, 2008 at 3:57 PM
hope you are correct- so far I have lost my ass.
kareyk on November 6, 2008 at 3:55 PM
I’m up about 205 in the last 2 days. bought SDS on tues close. sold it wed close. bought at the open again to today and just sold it again.
Anyone that thinks socialism is good for the market does not under socialism nor capitalism.
unseen on November 6, 2008 at 3:58 PM
ooops should be 20% not 205
unseen on November 6, 2008 at 3:58 PM
unseen on November 6, 2008 at 3:58 PM
I don’t short-trade. I don’t know enough about it. But good for you! It is the time to buy-everything.
kareyk on November 6, 2008 at 4:00 PM
And make no mistake about this- they will attempt to destroy any conservative that gets in their way. John McCain’s lousy campaign should be a cautionary tale. He lost because he failed to ignite the base. They held their noses and voted for him, sure enough, but they didn’t do any of that other stuff necessary to create an organized grassroots political machine.
We need to rid the party of “moderates.”
highhopes on November 6, 2008 at 4:08 PM
kareyk on November 6, 2008 at 4:00 PM
I don’t like to give advice. The market moves to quickly anymore for advice to be worth more than nothing. However I do know this socialism and capitalism do not mix. the market is a capitalistic instrument. We just elected a socialist government. You do the math on that and the answer is not pretty.
unseen on November 6, 2008 at 4:13 PM
To the contrary, the expectations are so high, it will be fun bursting one hope & change bubble after another. There is absolutely no way that he is going to live up to all the hype and promises. After four years he won’t be the shining star anymore.
People forget this but JFK was an awful President. His foreign policy was a fiasco and he had alienated Southerners by his nazi-like tactics to end segregation. He was in Dallas in November 1963 because he needed Southern Democrats and he had LBJ along to help get that support. It is highly likely that JFK would have been a one-term dismal failure had fate not intervened to provide a utterly false mythology about the man and his actions.
highhopes on November 6, 2008 at 4:14 PM
Answer to leadership question is simple. The folks who stood up to conservative values should be in leadership, and those with the skills to hold the GOP 100% in line are whips. The only successful route is based on what is going on right now. People did not swarm to the dems, voters who supported Bush and felt fooled stayed home. The dem coalition will begin fraying soon enough, and those that stand in front of the goodie wagon yelling stop will be rewarded in 2010. 2009 is a Bush budget, so there is potentially only one year of crap to fight. I guarantee if republicans hold the line like they did on SCHIP and driling, they will gain seats in the midterm.
Vashta.Nerada on November 6, 2008 at 4:14 PM
That should be ‘for’ of course.
Vashta.Nerada on November 6, 2008 at 4:15 PM
No we need to find a way to unite religeous and economic conservatives both.
The xyz generation decieded that the dont have to work anymore that the government will give them everything they want. They are about to come face to face with cold hard brutality of real life.
the GOP has been sending out too many mixed messages. McCain was too weak on economics and Palin too battered by the constant media attacks. This caused the message to break down.
Right now we need a stronger than ever economic message. We have to offer the alternative to what the dems are pitching.
The social conservative message does well in bad times. When 1979 hit with the Iran hostage situation and economic crisis and the attack on 9/11 the Conservative rekigeous message gave a lot of hope to people. If things continue to turn sour in this country we probably will see social conservatism be a great asset again. Its not the loadstone that too many are falsely making out.
We build the conomic message and keep to our conservative message and that gives us a strong base to build from.If we can fix what’s wrong MECHANICALLY with our party we will win again. We have a strong message that reached out to millions we just need a better way to convert more people to that message. With the Schools and Media in the left’s pockets our message is being ridiculed and attacked daily with almost no counter balance to it.
William Amos on November 6, 2008 at 4:19 PM
Who did they replace? hastert retiring? boehner and blunt have been top dogs throughout the miserable and embarrassing 6 years of republican control of the three branches.
peacenprosperity on November 6, 2008 at 4:26 PM
This post confirms my suspicians, Ed. You’re not a conservative, you’re a moderate at best. Always want to be nice to those “good Americans who have a different idea of how things should be done” and now you don’t want to upset the cart. Don’t do anything rash. If we were on the titanic you’d probably want to sleep on the decision to man the life boats. boehner is a career washington pol and he should have been booted in 2006 if not earlier. Let’s see what the democrats do with control of all three branches, I bet they don’t whine about the opposition keeping them from getting anything accomplished like boehner did.
peacenprosperity on November 6, 2008 at 4:32 PM
Huckabee was the wrong guy. I like him personally, and he is an excellent public speaker, but he performed horribly as governor of Arkansas. A small clique of people, drawn mainly from the pews of his church but also including representitives of Wal-Mart and Tyson Foods money, were his pool for appointees to public office, and they were both haughty and inept, a bad combination imho. I had personal experience in dealing with his judicial appointments and I can honestly say that the judges he appointed ranged from inexperienced and arrogant to wildly racist affirmative-action selections. I respect him personally, but he would be a disaster as president. Knowing both, I would rather have Hillary, which is saying plenty in light of my great enthusiasm for Sarah Palin! :O
Venusian Visitor on November 6, 2008 at 4:34 PM
I call BS…No way did a letter get through the mailroom unopened since the anthrax thing happened.
angelat0763 on November 6, 2008 at 4:39 PM
The basic problem for Republicans is that they’ve forgotten Conservatism is not policy idea it is a fundamental unwavering belief that, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, “… all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
If Republicans expect to have any chance of winning in the 2010 mid-term elections, much less the 2012 Presidential election, they have to rediscover those fundamental principles and return to being the party that embodies those principles through policies that promote fiscal responsibility, a smaller less intrusive government, etc.
jasetaro on November 6, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Boehner needs to go. A pattern emerged a long time ago where House Republicans feign opposition on some important issue, the base gets its hopes up a bit, then the House Republicans roll over. The pork-laden bail-out was the latest example.
The behavior of the parties left people with no real sense of choice. Sorry, no term limits; it’s an insider game of the permanent ruling class. A lot of ignorant loons voted for The One, but I suspect a lot of otherwise sensible people were made crazy by the last eight years of the Bush Dynasty, corrupt Republicans in Congress, and the Pravda media. Watching the bail-out spectacle was like looking into the mouth of madness.
Recriminations are flying and I’ve done my share, but it was members of the ruling class who had the power to honor or dishonor the principles on which they gained power. The ruling class blew it. They thumbed their noses at decent people one time too many and their treatment of Sarah Palin is emblematic of the attitude. Very sad.
Feedie on November 6, 2008 at 4:50 PM
I don’t know what they should do or who they should pick, but the Republicans need to stop losing entire demographic groups to Democrats. There is no way they can win national elections if they continue to do that.
Terrye on November 6, 2008 at 4:55 PM
Great point.
I’m asking friends/family who voted Obama to calculate 10% of their stock investments/retirement funds and to see what their vote cost them IMMEDIATELY. In the long run it will be worse.
You can’t make this shite up…..Let’s roll.
ex-Democrat on November 6, 2008 at 4:55 PM
I was voting against Obama, for Palin – What has the GOP done to themselves? What have we allowed the GOP to do? We let our guard down and allowed the Republicans to abandon their values. We must get the so called moderates out of the Republican Party! Conservatives need a better more united movement!
lanesmerge on November 6, 2008 at 4:56 PM
I mean they need to find a way to attract minorities and women. I am a woman and I voted for Republicans, but a lot of other women did not.
Terrye on November 6, 2008 at 4:56 PM
unseen:
Yeah, Wall Street is not exactly showing confidence in hope and change, but I hear that people who work on Wall Street gave Obama a lot of money. Go figure.
Terrye on November 6, 2008 at 4:58 PM
I couldn’t believe that McCain didn’t vote against the bailout with all the pork in it….there he is campaigning on “maverick” and “cutting earmarks” and right before our eyes he votes for that thing.
I kept fighting against Obama, but I felt that vote in my gut.
Let’s roll.
ex-Democrat on November 6, 2008 at 4:58 PM
I note in the exit polling 58% of voters were opposed to the bailout. Had McCain voted against it, things might have been different Tuesday. But, then again, McCain is not a conservative, so who am I kidding?
Vashta.Nerada on November 6, 2008 at 5:02 PM
Wow, great points. Hadn’t even thought about that and didn’t know about the exit poll.
Feedie on November 6, 2008 at 5:32 PM
It was again reported today that Obama wants the government to give bailout money to the auto industry that would in turn use it in support of the Unions and their pension funds. Two of the basic tenants of Marxism are government control of manufacturing and distribution. Is there any doubt that the intent is for the leftist unions to gain more and more control of the auto industry . . . the Marxist revolution is on the march?
Do the mindless masses we called voters in this sick country have any idea what they have done to us? We have been completely sold out and this is going to be much worse than anyone had expected.
rplat on November 6, 2008 at 5:32 PM
I agree if he had voted against the bailout, come up with a plan similar to Newts and pledged to appoint someone to get to the bottom of what happened he could have possibly won. I also think Bush continually going on TV every day talking about it didn’t help him either.
Most Republicans voted for the Hope of a Sarah in the future and against the Change Obama was promising not FOR McCain.
ldbgcoleman on November 6, 2008 at 5:44 PM
PS I f Bohner wants to keep his job he should imediately put a team together and figure out what Republicans stand for fast. I don’t see alot of common ground with Obama or his plans.
ldbgcoleman on November 6, 2008 at 5:46 PM
McCain-Palin did not do that poorly with women. They captured 53% of the votes from white women and 43% of the votes from women overall.
Our next candidate needs to do a better job capturing a reasonable share of the black and Latino vote… and our supposed “base” needs to turn out better. Heck, even one quarter of the white Evangelicals voted for Obama.
Y-not on November 6, 2008 at 5:47 PM
(serious)I think the party should be head up by Alfonzo Rachel.(/serious)
- The Cat
P.S. Palin/Rachel 2012
MirCat on November 6, 2008 at 5:49 PM
I doubt the smarty pants with all the money on Wall Street understand what they bought, either.
For now, I will remain a little more optimistic. This is a very big country with many things different than where this has been tried before.
Feedie on November 6, 2008 at 5:52 PM
Off with their heads.
DeMint, Shadegg, Flake, Pence, Coburn, Jindall, Pawlenty, Steele.
There are leaders out there, time for them to step forward.
ac1 on November 6, 2008 at 6:06 PM
I, for one, have a lot more faith in the American people than some of you do. Sure, this next four years is going to be one long, hard lesson in why Socialism and Chicago Machine politics have no place in the White House. But – we’ll get through it. We, after all, have seen for ourselves that the Emperor is really nekkid. His loyal fan base still sees him through rose colored glasses, and when the truth finally gets through to them, it’s gonna be a BIG blow.
uncivilized on November 6, 2008 at 6:06 PM
Another thing: if you want to make a change, take some of that money you were going to waste on consumer goods for a while, and invest it in the good candidates we have. Money is going to be needed to take back 30 odd seats in the house and six in the senate. Might as well start now.
Vashta.Nerada on November 6, 2008 at 6:22 PM
If they do not pick “leaders” who know how to FIGHT as if they cared, and use their opponents’ follies against them with righteous glee, and rip them to shreds when they deserve it, the R’s will LOSE LOSE LOSE.
And deserve to.
This is not croquet, it’s alligator wrestling.
If you don’t enjoy it, move aside.
profitsbeard on November 6, 2008 at 6:47 PM
The Republican Party has to absolutely go back to its Limited Government and Fiscal Responsibility roots, or it will lose the rest of the Western states too.
Many people out here in placed like Montana and Idaho, even if they are not socially conservative, are not leftists either. They do not want to be told how to live, nor do they seem government programs as the answer for everything.
However they see the Republicans as being just as complicit in big government and big spending, and more likely to want to tell them how to live.
A tent will never be big enough to contain both those who want to put social morals into law, and also those who want limited government. If the Republican party chooses to go towards the social conservative by means of government route, it will lose the rest of the west. Everyone here will just assume then that both Dems and Republicans are for big government, but at least the Dems will not tell them how to live.
But its not just going to be enough to champion smaller government. Right now, the Republican Party has no credibility with words alone. They will have to look back at 94, when they had specific policies they would propose if elected.
They will have to say “Not only are we for small government, but here is exactly how we plan go to about it. And by the way, its not our job to tell you how to live, but the Democrats are the ones who are going down that route”
firepilot on November 6, 2008 at 7:13 PM
Good and charismatic leaders who can clearly articulate conservative principles are certainly required but we need a lot ore than that to win elections, including:
1. Strong ground organizations in every state: Obama and the Dems have built a far superior infrastructure and they will continue to build on it. If we don’t evolve they will beat us even if we are up by 20% in the polls and the majority of the public likes our message.
2.The means and will to actually fight for the party and it’s constituency:Republican have let the left define them and have rained silent when democrats have slander them and our country.
3.Higher influence and relevance in education: Liberals control all institutions of education and have successfully dumbed down the majority of the population.
4. A revamped platform that goes beyond naming our principles but provides sellable solutions:In particular in the areas of education, health care, retirement and ownership.
5. An effective communication strategy:We cannot continue to let the liberals in the MSM and the Democrats manipulate and shape the majority of the information the public sees. This was one of the biggest failures of Bush and the republicans. Most of the republican “scandals” in the last 8 years would never have been Democrat scandals. There were some issues with the way we conducted the war but it should not have been the losing issue that it became due to poor communication.
Our leaders will need to do more than articulate our principles, they will have to be able to organize for electoral victory, inspire grassroot organizations, be shapers of public opinion and defend the truth against attack from within and without.
neuquenguy on November 6, 2008 at 7:15 PM
Almost exactly right but I fixed it so now it’s exactly right.
peacenprosperity on November 6, 2008 at 7:33 PM
All the blustering aside, what conservatives need to do is re-assert what the traditional beliefs are and run on them. It’s really that simple. These beliefs can be applied to any subject that comes up. As long as you stick to your core beliefs you gain credibility, people believe you are sincere. When opposing these leftists in a center-right country you can’t lose…IF you act and speak according to your beliefs as a conservative rather than some sort of bastardized centrist just trying to win an election and/or retain power.
Spiritk9 on November 6, 2008 at 7:35 PM
“RedState is pleased to announce it is engaging in a special project: Operation Leper.
We’re tracking down all the people from the McCain campaign now whispering smears against Governor Palin to Carl Cameron and others. Michelle Malkin has the details.
We intend to constantly remind the base about these people, monitor who they are working for, and, when 2012 rolls around, see which candidates hire them. Naturally then, you’ll see us go to war against those candidates.
It is our expressed intention to make these few people political lepers.”
LOL. Ya’ll be nice to Sarah now.
You betcha, wink, wink.
getalife on November 6, 2008 at 7:43 PM
Cut Ed some slack. He’s from a state where the inmates are so damned stupid and ignorant that Al Franken could well be headed to the US Senate and John McCain is considered a right-wing extremist.
highhopes on November 6, 2008 at 7:45 PM
We need a return to First Principles.
We need leadership.
We need a Conservative online activist infrastructure that will crush the Kos Kids, MoveOn, Obama, etc. that can raise piles of money for good Conservative candidates.
We need an online media that is both sophisticated and appealing to unseat HuffPo and that rag Politico.
We need to attack Obama mostly on his wrong headed positions while also, subtly, attacking his character. We also need to shout, scream and storm the left the same way they shouted, screamed and stormed our shores over the last eight years. MAKE. THEM. MISERABLE.
We need to appeal to the “creative class” of web designers, software and IT professionals, etc. etc. so that we can utilize their skills and talents to advance our Conservative ideals.
We need to create online activist communities and netoworking sites so that all of us — and certainly everyone here at HA — can be able to stay in touch and mobilize our combined efforts during election cycles and off cycles.
Bottom line: We have to get to work folks and build a thriving Conservative juggernaught and put the keys of the kingdom back into the hands of the grassroots.
Punchenko on November 6, 2008 at 7:46 PM
Oh, and we also need an RNC Chairman who understands buidling a thriving Conservative coalition — all three legs of the stool — who also understands the need to build an online activist base. We need a Howard Dean, folks. We need someone beholden to the base that will both excite us and utilize new technologies to build our movement.
Punchenko on November 6, 2008 at 7:49 PM
First, the McCain people are showing all the class you would expect from a candidate who threw an eight-year-long temper tantrum because he didn’t get the nomination in 2000. 2008 in McCainland was all about revenge on the social cons and evangelicals who turned up their noses at McCain. Palin was added to the ticket when even the incompetent campaign came to realize that they couldn’t completely shut the “Jesus Freaks” out of the mix. Small wonder then that in defeat they are at it once again attacking the GOP base.
If McCain had won, they would have been doing precisely the same thing from the White House. In that sense only it is a good thing that Obama won. There have been too many traitors in the Bush White House (McClellan, Powell, Armitage, Danforth, etc.) We really didn’t need another four years of these bastards.
highhopes on November 6, 2008 at 7:51 PM
Your promoting moral relativism to the wrong person. American conservatism is American conservatism whether you are living in Texas or San Francisco.
I miss Brian, whose commitment to conservatism I never doubted once.
peacenprosperity on November 6, 2008 at 7:52 PM
First job then, get the God damned (literally) idiots who think they are above religion to drop their hostility of evangelical Christians.
highhopes on November 6, 2008 at 7:53 PM
A toast to you, good sir! Cheers! *clink*
Punchenko on November 6, 2008 at 7:53 PM
Um, I’m not promoting moral relativism at all, although I can understand how you would jump to that conclusion. My only point is that I’ve been in Ed’s situation to both extremes- In California where my conservatism was utterly drowned out by liberals and in Alabama where my Reagan conservatism was scarily liberal compared to many of my neighbors. I would simply suggest that it is tough to keep your conservative ideological grounding while living in an extreme state like Minn., Wisc., or Iowa. They claim to be hotbeds of Midwestern values while, in reality, they are nests of FDR socialism.
highhopes on November 6, 2008 at 7:59 PM
Those of us who are not religious, are not opposed to Evangelicals being a part of the tent. However, we are opposed to Evangelism being part of the politics.
Limited Government means exactly that, limited government. Economically AND socially. I dont want to governments grubby hands on anyones guns and income, nor do I want the government coming after anyones alcohol and porn either.
firepilot on November 6, 2008 at 8:02 PM
That’s right.
Exactly! See, we agree on stuff. Now, if I could only get you to change your view on Huckabee… oh, well, Mike’ll keep trying on that one.
apacalyps on November 6, 2008 at 8:06 PM
There. Fixed it. Thank you. Have a wonderful evening
(smiles).
apacalyps on November 6, 2008 at 8:10 PM
Fair enough, and a good reason to repeat it: Boehner must go.
That is the Republicans’ biggest mistake. Centrists or moderates, as they are characterized, are placed into a deceptive category. These are people involved with their own lives and don’t follow politics very much. Often, they are tricked into voting for the exact opposite of the way they live their lives.
Successful people live conservative lives. The task of the Republican Party is to communicate successfully with these part-timers of politics and appeal to them to vote in a way that preserves their successful lives and liberties.
Feedie on November 6, 2008 at 8:14 PM
TWWWEEETTT! 10 Yard Penalty for gross generalizations. You may not hate evangelicals but there are many of your brethren who would not share your view. HA is about as good a mix of “conservatives” as you can find and the hatred of Evangelical Christians is a staple whenever Allah gets bored and wants to stir up a food fight. Ed’s got a Catholic agenda which isn’t the same thing. All “evangelical” means is good news. I honestly don’t understand why you non-religious folks are so afraid of those of us who are more open in our faith.
Are you honestly suggesting that evangelical conservatives agenda is based on the concept that government will take away your booze and smut? I hope this is another gross generalization (in which case you lose an additional 10 yards) and not some skewed view of what it means to be an evangelical conservative. Probably by listening to the hate as opposed to understanding the concept of protecting traditional values and morality.
highhopes on November 6, 2008 at 8:15 PM
Mike’s a great TV show host. Funny and personable. It’s just that Clinton-like track record that I object to. His heart may be in the right place but his solutions wouldn’t be out of place in a Democrat administration.
highhopes on November 6, 2008 at 8:18 PM
Look, this isn’t intended to redirect the thread down the religion discussion again. Read what was stated earlier in the thread for that.
I weighed in on this earlier, but my focus was not as clear since I was at work.
There is a commonly held misconception that the general, non-christian American public holds. That is that all of these liberties are available to all in the absence of those in office being christian.
The very blood of our ancestors that was shed to support the ideas of our founding fathers to keep religion off the legislative, executive, and judicial agenda. There is an insanity of clinging to separation of church and state comes from a piece from Thomas Jefferson, not our founding documents. It was never intended to be something the elected officials were to avoid as the moral fiber of their judgment. That is the role of Christianity in our government. The removal of it has seen an erosion of religious liberties in the court systems.
No other religion has the tolerance afforded to others that Christianity does, in particular the evangelical thoughts that became the dominant theology and doctrines in the USA. (Don’t go down the Crusades rabbit hole, that isn’t the same Christianity I’m talking about.)
Evangelicals are the ones who have taken the task to bring as many as possible to understanding in Christ. You still have the choice to ignore it, or follow your own path.
If you reject the very faith of the founding fathers from government, you reject the moral backing that you’re depending upon to guarantee your rights. That being that all men are created equal, and have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, granted by a creator god.
The only exception is Judaism – because it is belief in the same God, with the variance coming in belief of who Jesus was.
Islam believes all knowledge is contained in the quran. There isn’t the tolerance there for whatever you want you want to do. Sharia Law!
I could discuss several others, Buddhism, Hinduism, but the fact remains that all you have to do is look at other nations persecution of those not following the accepted religion. Atheism results in not much difference, the god is then the state, and persecution happens, just google Christmas lights China and Christians if you don’t believe me.
Unless that looks good. If not, then don’t hassle the evangelicals.
Marine_Bio on November 6, 2008 at 8:29 PM
neuquenguy on November 6, 2008 at 7:15 PM
You are so correct in what you are saying. Some of the things that make my head explode is the Republicans in power who do not point out what the Dems are doing. They try, but do not follow up. The Fannie/Freddie fisasco was noticed by Bush several times. There was the obligatory story in the WaPo, but no follow-up. McCain tried a couple of times with legislation to fix the mess. When all those Dems tried to tell us that everything was fine the silly Repubs did nothing. Those Dems at Fannie and Freddie were using it as their personal piggy banks and almost brought down the world’s financial markets. We still aren’t sure that that isn’t going to happen. McCain had a chance to articulate what went wrong after the bailout that he voted for, but he just couldn’t bring himself to do it. Afraid of his collegues in the Senate? I don’t know, but it lost him the election and my retirement funds. The President-elect is someone to be feared and reviled. Republicans are our only line of defence against this thug and I think they are way too nice to fight for us. They think he will end up ruling closer to the center. Indeed he will not. It is a huge mistake to think that he will be anything but ruthless. Are our leaders in the House and Senate ready for this? I don’t think they are. I don’t think they have a clue. The insanity of the Left is a force that is difficult to phathom. Most folks are not ready for this fight especially the ones we just elected.
BetseyRoss on November 6, 2008 at 8:30 PM
The worst of the GOP is represented by two factions: The Fat Cats and the McCain camp.
Put Palin on top. Or put people loyal to her on top.
Palin is the only reason why McCain got close. The folks bashing her are the ones who need to whip out the ginsu knives.
Spartacus on November 6, 2008 at 8:36 PM
LOL! Apacalyps, I appreciate your faith but I think your view of Huckabee qualifies as a logismos! ;)
Venusian Visitor on November 6, 2008 at 8:39 PM
Not sure if anyone has posted this yet, but it is unbelievable. Chris Matthews from today….. http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=214673
We all knew this, but he doesn’t even try to hide it now.
kriscoleman on November 6, 2008 at 8:46 PM
I do not agree with McCain having a role as a conduit between the Democrats and Republicans. Wake up GOP! The absolute trashing he received from a man of paper thin qualifications shows out of touch and dislike he really is among Republicans.
I have said so before in this blog that if McCain is a natural leader he would have had a shot at the presidency when he was much younger. The fact that he was the best candidate, at the ripe old age of 72, the party could offer speaks volumes about how bad the situation is in the party.
No one seems to have a pair. They all let the Democrats pummel them during the fiasco. Even Bush stayed silent as Democrats heaped blamed on his policies. Bush is an idiot.
Birdseye on November 6, 2008 at 9:04 PM
And see,… I have no clue how you come to that conclusion. I just,… it’s.. it’s… just beyond me. Mike is a true conservative all the way. I don’t understand how you don’t see that. I mean, what? You REally think I’m going to support a liberal? Me?! An Independent, Tempermental, Fundamental, right-wing, radical, chicken-eatin, Baptist…. lol … anyways, whatever. All I can hope for is that over time Mike somehow convinces you otherwise. I think that’s a reasonable request for reasonable people. Thank you.
apacalyps on November 6, 2008 at 9:08 PM
Care to share the other things? :-0
McCain never had a clear coherent message. He just kept muttering variations on the idea that he was more qualified and a POW. In truth, that really should have been enough but it wasn’t and he didn’t change his strategy. What was most interesting to me was that, unlike 2004, the vets groups did not rally around McCain the way they did GWB against Kerry. They didn’t rally around Obama either but you would think a former POW would have a far more vocal endorsement from fellow vets than what McCain got. I suspect his eight-year temper tantrum because he wasn’t nominated in 2000 cost him support in this election.
All pretense of being a centrist evaporated when he named Chicago thug Emanuel as his Chief of Staff. I hope the GOP leaders have realized this and are figuring out how to establish an underground resistance to any Dem initiative.
They are not because they still cling, dare I say bitterly, to the idea that anything that calls themselves a Democrat has the best interests of the nation at heart. The GOP is waging a debate while the Dems are intent on exterminating dissent by any means necessary.
highhopes on November 6, 2008 at 9:18 PM
Sorry, Huck is a bit liberal. I mean he was a far superior choice to McCain, but less than Mitt who was even less than Fred.
In general though, the field we had to choose from was not very good. We need to go back to basics.
Marine_Bio on November 6, 2008 at 9:20 PM
Forgive me, I did not read through all the comments in this thread. What I am aware of is the leadership in the House and Senate is one thing; the leadership in the GOP is another. We must retake the GOP leadership which is trying to destroy conservatism in favor of the blue-blood conservative elitism (in my state that would be Kay Bailey Hutchison) who are moderate conservatives in lieu of true conservatives. Their goal is to kill conservatism (i.e., the attacks on Sarah Palin since election night) in any way they can. This from our own party! The current GOP leadership needs to GO and we need to be the grass roots to nip this in the bud!
Neocon Peg on November 6, 2008 at 9:21 PM
I keep thinking that it has been, and ultimately will be held by many to have been, irresponsible for either candidate to ponificate on how to fix the economy even as it was in process of crashing down. Expert economists couldn’t even get a handle on it before the next shoe dropped, so who were these clowns to promote solutions? The world’s economy may be unrecognizable the day Obama is sworn in, so how relevant are election day panderings unless either candidate is ready take their ideas to the floor of the Senate and get something done now?
Democratic campaigns, when surveying the battlefield, tend to fragment the electorate into groups in order to conquer each one with a pointed package of promises. I like to think that Republicans, upon surveying the battlefield, look for issues that affect everyone as Americans, and champion policies of benefit to everyone in order to win support. If our strategy becomes as the Democrats, worrying how to attract this demographic or that, we will become Democrat Light; that is, like the Democrats but not as effective in obtaining and holding power. That’s not our game.
If the next few years prove even as trying as some predict, and misery visits households on an even footing, then we will become a more united nation through obsessing on daily survival instead the relevant minutae of racial and gender-based politics. Republicans need to be ready with a thoughtful and even-handed set of solutions that resonate with the majority because they apply to the majority.
As long as people’s memmory of McCain’s desire to bail out homeowners and “fix the economy” is short lived, Republicans will be seen as the alternative when folks have had enough. There need only be a shift in support of a few percentage points to get a Republican back in the oval office.
shuzilla on November 6, 2008 at 9:23 PM
Absolutely reasonable. Just don’t hold your breath that I will become a convert after I recall the way he governed. Mike will have to put on one hell of a sales pitch for me to change my underlying opinions but, like McCain, I’d vote for him over the alternative if it came down to that kind of a choice. I suspect, however, the Christ-haters would down Huckabee in the voting before it ever came to that.
highhopes on November 6, 2008 at 9:23 PM
The GOP needs to be more progressive and less conservative if it wants to succeed. They need to reach out to growing demographics that will be the majority of Americans in 40 years: Hispanics, African-Americans, and young people.
Focus on the middle class and education like President-Elect Obama is doing. GOP must drop its stubborn ways of looking at the world through old-fashioned lenses and start looking at our diversity as our strength. That is the key to electoral success.
username on November 6, 2008 at 9:24 PM
I totally agree with that, but we are fighting an uphill battle against the secular indoctrination that is rampant in our schools. It isn’t enough for the secularists that there is a separation of church and state, they want to completely demonize all religions and faiths.
We all know that in the last days, the wheat shall be separated from the chaff. Tuesday’s election of a socialist is another step toward the fulfilling of Gods plan.
Think about it….here we have a guy who has been hailed as the messiah. He has run on the concept of Christian charity. He also promoted national healing.
All three of those traits are on the surface, Christian practices and beliefs. So, what’s the problem? 1st, the glory goes to God. Second, Christian charity is based on the personal choice to be charitable and not to be forced to be charitable. Gods healing doesn’t require a democratic process to accomplish. Those are just a few examples that come to mind immediately.
Ergo I deduce that Barak Obama has presented himself as an angle of light and in reality he is most likely a harbinger of, if he isn’t himself, the anti-Christ.
csdeven on November 6, 2008 at 9:24 PM
You mean paying attention to the base instead of rigging the primaries to ensure “the liberal one” got the GOP nomination?
highhopes on November 6, 2008 at 9:25 PM
Exactly, with a few notable exceptions. (i.e. Marcy Kapture of Ohio) This reach across the aisle crap has different meanings to the parties.
Repbulican reach across the aisle – lets work together to find a compromise.
Democratic reach across the aisle – If you don’t give me what I want, my way, you can go screw yourself. I’ll find a few who are stupid enough to do it. (In the senate it goes something like this…Here, Johnny Johnny. Come see good ole Harry, I’ve got a proposition for ya. )
Marine_Bio on November 6, 2008 at 9:25 PM
Mike has time to convince me, but if he ever repeats that “Christian Leader” line again, I will crucify him.
csdeven on November 6, 2008 at 9:26 PM
TROLL ALERT!
highhopes on November 6, 2008 at 9:26 PM
Absolutely.
Marine_Bio on November 6, 2008 at 9:26 PM
Either a troll or complete IDIOT.
Marine_Bio on November 6, 2008 at 9:28 PM
I think you need to look a bit deeper into the psyche of Americans and what values they have held that made us where we are today.
1st, human rights. This has been a constant battle for the country. But to our credit, we learn and become better.
2nd, conservative values. The idea that hard work is rewarded and the government doesn’t get in the way of our opportunities. Charity starts at home and not in the halls of congress.
3rd, Peace thorough strength. This nation is the city on the hill and our weapons stay in stasis until they are needed.
Even though the groups you mentioned are at the time desiring socialism, eventually they will learn to appreciate the values I have delineated above. A conservative party needs to continue to be the standard bearer for those values for the day that each individual casts off the shackles of laziness. Pandering to liberal ideals is the wrong way to encourage conservative principles.
A good friend of mine told me once…..
All of us are born with a liberal heart, but thankfully many of us were also born with a brain and understand how the world really works.
csdeven on November 6, 2008 at 9:34 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »