“We have extraordinarily real and deep problems. We’re at a serious point, not a trivial point.”
But others are coming to the conclusion that the problem goes deeper than that, to the party’s philosophy and policies, which are getting further out of step with the nation…
“We have extraordinarily real and deep problems,” former House speaker and 2012 presidential contender Newt Gingrich said in an interview. “We’re at a serious point, not a trivial point.”…
Many say the party will not start winning again until it starts looking for who to bring in, rather than who to exclude.
“The party needs to fundamentally retool our thinking. And to me, the biggest problem we have is our dismal primaries, and the litmus testing that goes on there, and all the money and all the groups that are there to divide Republicans from Republicans,” said Joe Straus, speaker of the Texas House of Representatives.
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
Well there may be a point there. DemoLite with a nice sprinkling of bend-overness is probably contributing to the GOP decline.
Bishop on December 16, 2012 at 10:02 AM
Or is it the nation which is getting further and further away from that which is right and proper?
OldEnglish on December 16, 2012 at 10:06 AM
step one, eliminate the media from the debates, step two eliminate pledges, step three, trust the primary voters.
rob verdi on December 16, 2012 at 10:17 AM
isn’t he the one that gets elected speaker by cutting deals with democrats and moderate republicans? i’m pretty certain I don’t want to take that guys advice on anything.
bannor on December 16, 2012 at 10:17 AM
Step one needs to be eliminating open primaries. Only registered Republicans should be allowed to vote for the Republican candidate.
RoadRunner on December 16, 2012 at 10:20 AM
Proof that unfettered illegal immigration has worked. For the communists.
BobMbx on December 16, 2012 at 10:22 AM
“extraordinarily real and deep”? That doesn’t sound like Newt at all. Wonder what’s up.
DarkCurrent on December 16, 2012 at 10:26 AM
The Republican leadership / candidates don’t seem to understand the value of freedom, liberty and small government anymore.
And those that have some grasp of it seem afraid to argue for it – that it makes them meanies or something for not want big, bloated, inefficient, ineffecting government programs.
LilyBart on December 16, 2012 at 10:31 AM
Another wrong “conclusion”. The electorate has lost much of it’s sensibilities. It’s not that the Republicans are on the wrong path. It’s the nation itself that has gone to pot.
HotAirian on December 16, 2012 at 10:31 AM
Stop having Iowa and NH be the first states. They are not red states and should not have first say in who gets weeded out. By the time we hit SC there were only four of the original candidates left.
Night Owl on December 16, 2012 at 10:37 AM
If the nation has gone to pot (literally and figuratively) and the nation has lost its sensibilities, then the party IS out of step. So be it.
rhombus on December 16, 2012 at 10:58 AM
In the post New Deal landscape, Republicans have largely been successful with two things: 1) tax reform, and; 2) being champions of government spending that is different from Democrat’s chosen government spending.
The GOP has not been successful at reducing the size of the federal government, or reducing its ever-expanding jurisdiction over our lives. Indeed, I’d say that, post New Deal, there has generally been a consensus between the two parties — government spending is a good thing and the only thing elections are really about is where government spending will expand.
Now, the GOP has a significant number of people who are challenging the “always spending” philosophy that has permeated the country after FDR. Real challenges to government spending are not appreciated by the elite (whether in the Democratic party or in the GOP). There may be a practical reason for this — the people generally don’t seem to support proposals to actually cut spending. Whether that will yet change before the house of cards collapses remains to be seen.
Revenant on December 16, 2012 at 11:07 AM
Translation: amnesty for illegal aliens, and drop the “social issues.”
Wethal on December 16, 2012 at 11:07 AM
That pretty much says it for me.
Back when the GOP stood for limited government and strong defense they made strong gains. When the GOP primaries and debates didn’t try to be week after week Miss America contest with all 50 represented on stage they made strong gains. When the GOP didn’t cop an “it’s his turn” or “he’s owed it” attitude they made strong gains.
That’s needed and a cure for knocking strong allies representative of those Conservative values. Face it. Trash talking Palin helped and helps Obama who was reacting to her time after time back in 2010 before the establishment weaklings diluted such 2010 momentum with such exciting career politicians as Boehner and McConnell.
The past several meetings of Boehner and Zero are consistently unimpressive. The weak grin, the tan from another planet, the fearful eyes which suggest “please don’t release the photos.” Anyone who is speaker needs to look like they’ve got something to say, believe what they’re going to say, and then say it, forcefully. Not just sit there and grin sheepishly while Zero pats his shoulder like a child.
viking01 on December 16, 2012 at 11:11 AM
They do have a problem. They never run anybody that excites their own party’s base.
Go figure.
trigon on December 16, 2012 at 11:12 AM
So true the Party’s philosophy is becoming more and more liberal while the nation remians conservative. the only way to solve the problem is for the leadership of the party to return to conservatism. In other words no more Mitt and McCain liberals as the party’s standard bearers.
unseen on December 16, 2012 at 11:14 AM
If the message of freedom and individual responsibility doesn’t garner votes, then it’s not a problem with freedom or individual responsibility. It’s a problem with our culture that no longer values those things.
ButterflyDragon on December 16, 2012 at 11:27 AM
If elections are the only real measure, then America leans left now. We need to pull them back, but there is no use denying it.
Irritable Pundit on December 16, 2012 at 11:28 AM
Instead of being the party of big government, just like the liberals, why don’t we try and embrace our roots of federalism, non-intervention, fiscal responsibility and individual liberty.
MoreLiberty on December 16, 2012 at 11:30 AM
Certainly…because the GOP ought to irrevocably complete the process of alienating independent persona non grata who are attracted to conservatism by the likes of Bill Buckley, Barry Goldwater and Thomas Jefferson.
Fatwa Arbuckle on December 16, 2012 at 11:32 AM
And the effort to tell others no continues
MoreLiberty on December 16, 2012 at 11:35 AM
hmmm Let’s look at this deeper. The last six elections you say? That would be 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006 and 2004 If he is talking about national elections. So 2004 The GOP won the majority. 2006 2008 and 2012 they lost 2010 they won a landslide. So on the face the GOP pollster is an idiot that can’t get his facts straight. but if you look deeper what ade 2004 and 2010 different than 2006 2008 and 2012? In 2004 we were in a hot war with a POTUS who was running as a “compassionate conservative”. IMO if we were not at war and if 2001 had not happened Bush would have been a one term president. So let’s keep 2004 in mind but not use it as a starting point. Let’s look at 2006 the GOPe had turned out and out liberal with their free spending ways. they lost big in the elections. 2008 We ran a known liberal who fought Bush on his tax cuts who was a thorn in the side of conservatives on such things as illegal immigration and the GOPe lost. the only time it was seen that it was close was win McCain brought Palin a real conservativ eonboard to save his sinking ship but the holes were too big for even her to plug. Then in 2010 something amazing happened the GOP won not just a majority but a landslide not seen in generations. this is the important datapoint. what was different in 2010 then in 2006 and 2008 and 2000 and 2004? 2010 the GOP ran as a conservative party promising to clean out Dc to stop the liberal programs like Obamacare to block Obama’s insane plans to traqnsform the nation into a marxist state and the GOP won in a landslide. So in 2012 one would thing the GOPe would use that template to run for election. But a funny think happened. The gOPe decided instead of running a 2010 platform they would return to the Bush/McCain liberal template and guess what they lost. Imagine that. Now people wonder what went wrong. IMO I think they know it they just would rather lose then win as a conservative for some odd reason. Maybe the pay is better a a liberal minority than a conservative majority.
unseen on December 16, 2012 at 11:39 AM
how does that occurr in a primary for your party’s nomination. If you don’t want to join the party why would you be allowed to pick the nominee? Nothing says those independent that are atrracted to conservatism can’t vote in the general election.
unseen on December 16, 2012 at 11:41 AM
Yup…the RNC decided their best strategy for defeating Obamacare would be to nominate the Godfather of Obamacare.
Fatwa Arbuckle on December 16, 2012 at 11:43 AM
Which is why – living in GA where I figured Mitt didn’t need my vote – I pulled the lever for Johnson. (Who, IMHO, was treated shamefully by the GOP in the debates. And for the record, I am categorically not a Ronulan.)
Fatwa Arbuckle on December 16, 2012 at 11:47 AM
hogwash. You had two choices in last election the liberal or the other liberal. Limiting the choices and then trying to read tea leaves based on a limited choice election is useless. America’s choice in 2012 was left or left. So guess what they picked left. Doesn’t mean anything. the last five elections where AMerica had a choice between right and left 1980, 1984, 1988, 1994 and 2010 America picked Right by landslide numbers. And in 2000 and 2004 when it was conservativ elite vs liberalism they picked conservative lite over liberalsim by as nose. Everytime america is given the oppurtunity to vote for conservatism or liberalsim they vote conservatism. And everytime the nation is given the choice between liberalism and liberalism lite they pick liberalism.
unseen on December 16, 2012 at 11:48 AM
Um, because I’d like the candidate who best represents my interests to have a shot at winning the general election.
Fatwa Arbuckle on December 16, 2012 at 11:49 AM
freedom and individual responsibility wasn’t on the ballot in 2012. Liberalism and who betters manage it were.
unseen on December 16, 2012 at 11:51 AM
um then join the party and vote in the primary.
unseen on December 16, 2012 at 11:52 AM
All you have to do is look at Scott Brown.
When he ran against a well known Democrat,Martha Coakley he was the vote that would stop Obamacare.
Remember…?
It was the people’s seat and not the Kennedy’s.
He crushed her.
Then when he ran again as Mr. Reach Across the Aisle who votes 50% with the Democrats he got slaughtered against a woman who
wasis a known fraud and a liar.He betrayed the people who gave him that seat and they punished him by withholding their votes and their money.
NeoKong on December 16, 2012 at 11:53 AM
very true
unseen on December 16, 2012 at 11:56 AM
Why would I want to join a party which, based on results, is clearly disinterested in small government, individual liberty and leaving me the hell alone to live my life so long as I am not damaging the person or property of others or being a burden on the public purse?
Fatwa Arbuckle on December 16, 2012 at 11:59 AM
You make no sense. If you don’t want to even take the time to fill out the card to become a member of the party why the hell should politicians from that party give a crap what you think. they do care about the primary voters within their party. Once nominated they might care about your views but more likley they will care about what the majority feel so they get elected. If your interests happen to align with the majority then don’t worry about joining the party. if however you want to change the party so it nominates more small government individual liberaty candidates then the primary is the best place to do so and limiting who votes within that primary to party members who care enough to join a politcal party will help u more then opening up the primary to all people. Some who support the other party and when they have an incumbant can vote for the most liberal in your party instead of changing parties they simply cast a vote for the liberal guy running as a REP.
unseen on December 16, 2012 at 12:11 PM
For refusing to support parties which pay no heed to the Constitution or the principles upon which this nation was founded?
Because if they nominate candidates who represent my interests, I’ll vote for them.
Fatwa Arbuckle on December 16, 2012 at 12:21 PM
There’s something wrong with a system that mandates joining a party (or joining anything for that matter) to participate in selecting a candidate. Why should a person have to join the party if, for example, they thought that Jeb Bush would be good candidate. Not every independent is going to think Hillary will make a great president, but they’re not going register as republicans just to choose her challenger.
They want to remain independents, but are disenfranchised from the primary process.
RINOs are people too on December 16, 2012 at 12:23 PM
rogerb on December 16, 2012 at 12:29 PM