There are two over-arching components in the process the national GOP moving forward after the events of November 4th:
1) Internal improvements: on that topic, I have publicly endorsed the "Rebuild the Party" plan put forward by some of my fellow comparative youngsters, in leadership positions of the conservative online world. Republicans raised the bar with GOTV in 2004. Democrats have done likewise in 2008 through integrated use of technology in campaign operations. That deficit must not be allowed to fester.
2) External improvements: much to be said on this topic; for now, I like what Michael Steele is saying in his quest for RNC Chair.
Related thought: that position he seeks will require scads of TV time. As such, the GOP would offer a fresher image for the future if the person taking on those man-about-the-airwaves duties doesn't speak with even a hint of a Southern accent.
Maybe that's not fair, but it's true.
Posted by Eric Earling at November 12, 2008 06:12 PM | Email ThisYou are part right. The Republicans don't need to re-build the party, they need to recreate the party.
Low taxes and limited government, with maximum personal freedoms have been out the window. Sinc Jorge W. Boosh took over, it has been about increasing government, and government intrusion, into the lives of the sheeples.
We need a TOTAL makeover, and dedicated folks, similar to when the RRR's (Reasonable, rational, republicans) took the Snoco party back from the right-wing whackos.
New, younger blood would be good, as long as the Geezer can play too. There was a meeting at Lynnwood city hall last week, where there was a room conflict with the group I was with, and the local R's. A gent shouted at me, are you with the Republicans, and I replied I used to be, but am ashamed to admit it now.
Attention sheeples: Be heard, or Be herd.
Geezer OUT!
www.hatemalepost.blogspot.com
www.thespinmeister.blogspot.com
Are these top on your list also?
Posted by: Lysander on November 12, 2008 06:41 PMSecond... MINORITY OUTREACH.
Hopefully, Steele will fix that.
Posted by: Hinton on November 12, 2008 07:23 PMI'm not necessarily saying I agree that Michael Steele isn't a good choice; I don't know. I'm just sayin'.
Posted by: Paula on November 12, 2008 08:22 PMPoliticians always have to sell the future...they cannot just bailout the past.
The business side of the Republicans should be calling for a New Capitalism...not just capitulating with the Democrats on quasi-socialism and bailout of the DOW sectors.
More than ever, our economy is being built from the ground up with nanotechnology, fuel cells, hydrogen, web semantics and new markup languages, bloggers covering every aspect of tradition news, functional programming and AJAX/COMET protocols.
These are areas that require major investment. The New Capitalism would eschew bailouts, take a conservative view of Government regulation, yet at the same time recognize that Government spending could be shifted into these sectors and away from pork barrels like agricultural subsidies.
Posted by: John Bailo on November 12, 2008 08:54 PMThe Rep. presidential candidates were successful in '80 and 2000 with candidates who were southern social conservatives who were able to communicate and make connection with the voters - one of which happened to be an economic conservative, both with strong military background
The Rep. presidental candidates were unsuccessful in '96 and this year because they didn't communicate their social conservative values with the voter, instead trying to rely on communicating economic conservative values - they just happened to be social conservatives.
We lost congress because we were neither social conservative or economic conservatives - and we lost it to Democrats who communicated with their voters that they were socially conservative (the irony).
Folks, it is very obvious to me, in order to win elections you have to win the hearts and minds of the voters. The republicans will NEVER win an election by just running on economic conservatism. They will win if they adequately communicate their social conservatism, while in office demonstrating their economic conservatism.
Romney, Jindal, etc. will only further tear the conservative coalition apart. We need a figurehead who communicates well, their social conservative ideology - who just happens to be economically conservative. We will LOSE everytime if our figurehead communicates well their economic conservativeness, while just happens to be a social conservative.
Posted by: Doug on November 12, 2008 09:41 PMEverything I've read about Jindal describes him with exceptional social conservative bona fides. If you think even he isn't enough of a social conservative, then you have a very narrow view of what is and what is not an acceptable nominee for the GOP.
P.S. Reagan was not a "southern social conservative."
Posted by: Eric Earling on November 12, 2008 09:55 PMMichael Steele is easily my favorite candidate for RNC Chair. He's smart, can think on his feet, has a firm grip on reality, and gave one of the best speeches at the (R) national convention; that contained what is probably the best soundbite from that event: ''Drill baby drill''. Would have gotten to meet him in person if he hadn't got pulled away for a TV interview.
WRT Bobby Jindal:
I'm with Eric all the way on this one; and am astounded that anyone would try and propose Jindal is not ''conservative enough''. Good grief:
He another really smart guy; a Governor with a proven track record as an effective reformer and chief executive; and is just the kind of candidate for national office (R)s should be looking for. That doesn't mean there are not other good prospects, but if Jindal doesn't make a consensus ''top 5'' list for 2012 there's something wrong.
McCain was weak on the social (and economic) issues and Palin was a weird mix of strident and inarticulate.
Reaching out to Ron Paul should probably not be at the top of the list...
Posted by: DomWalk on November 12, 2008 10:54 PMHere ya go: Stop giving them increasing amounts of government cash, get out of the way and encourge them to work hard at building their own future; whatever it may be. Why is this hard to understand? We don't have to re-invent the wheel every other generation, do we? Why does he tie this into tax policy? Why are potential Republican Chair candidates trying to figure out ways "help" people who should be learning to take care of themselves? Self sufficiency is one of the hallmarks of conservative principles, lest we forget.
"Our challenge lies not in beating Democrats, but in uniting around a message that solidifies our ranks and attracts new people to our cause. We have to listen to what Americans are telling us about their hopes, desires and needs, and then translate that message into proposals for meaningful action squarely grounded on the values we Republicans have always stood for."
First part sounds like a used car salesman - beat those Democrats, otherwise they'll beat you - the last part sounds like. . . Barack Obama.
Posted by: RP on November 12, 2008 11:14 PMHilton:
" First, ignore Ron Paul and hope he goes away. Second... MINORITY OUTREACH. "
We will add you 'R',
to those Posted by The Geezer at November 12, 2008
" RRR's Reasonable, rational, republicans "
and it will be the Republican 'Party' of Rob McKenna, Michael Young and Lori Sotelo - ' Reasonable, rational and racist republicans '.
Except for the 'reasonable, rational' bit.
Posted by: Brian Thomas on November 13, 2008 08:11 AMMy point about Jindal and the Republicans is that if we put our economic conservative issues first and out front, we lose and always have lost. We win when we run on morally strong character.
I have no doubts that some of our candidates would happen to enforce socially conservative views while running on economic conservative ideals, but my point is that they cannot win if that is how they run.
Even though a Jindal might be someone that is acceptable to all Republicans, he is not the type that can be successful at bringing about victory for Republicans.
Now there's a Dream Ticket!
Posted by: John Bailo on November 13, 2008 09:42 AMSteele, Gingrich, Thompson. All excellent choices, so why not let them run it as an Executive Committee?
Steele would be an excellent "face" of the Party. (Executive Director)
Gingrich is a great strategist and policy wonk (remember Contract with America?) Make him Executive Director of Policy and Platform.
Thompson is a new "Great Communicator" (read Executive Communications Director & Spokesman).
Together as a Committee they'd put great energy, life and respectability into the Party again.
Posted by: John425 on November 13, 2008 10:19 AM
" For those fixated on "minority outreach" and burnishing their own "anti-racist" credentials, I would remind you that California used to be a Republican state. RIP. "
And now it is a liberal Democrat state with a liberal 'Republican' governor with a large illegal immigrant and anchor baby population.
And your point?
Posted by: Brian Thomas on November 13, 2008 02:22 PM
" Rebuild the party? How about a "Long Night of the Knives" for all the neo-cons and neo-libs and other fifth-columnists that infest the Party? "
" for all the neo-cons .... and other fifth-columnists that infest the Party "?
Tomas:
"Neo-con" is a code word on the Left, and on the Right, for Jew.
Are you anti-Semitic or do you just blame Israel (read Jews) for the United States being in the Middle East?
Do you think our support of Israel (read Jews) is the reason for conflict in the Middle East and if we didn't support Israel (read Jews) there would be no conflict of the Arab/Muslim culture with that of the United States?
Posted by: Brian Thomas on November 13, 2008 02:40 PMAs far as all the illegal immigrants: run 'em out. Close the borders. Pretty easy. They're criminals, and we can pull the plug on "anchor citizenship."
" The time for gentlemanliness and civility is past. Gloves need to come off, time to call a commie a commie and let it rip. "
When it comes to the leadership of the Republican 'Party', whether it is the RNC, the WSRP or the KCGOP, it is time for the rest of you to learn to call a Liberal a Liberal, a Socialist a Socialist and a Fascist a Fascist.
You can start by reading "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg. Pay particular attention to Woodrow Wilson.
Remember, Fascism is a methodology and Socialism is a ideology. Although people rationalize both, the trains run on time and the poor are fed and housed, it was the layering of the methodology of Fascism over the ideology of Socialism that gave rise to the Third Reich.
In the agenda of the current leaders of the 'Republican' Party, the difference between accommodation, bi-partisanship, and appeasement with the Left is almost an issue of semantics.
Posted by: Brian Thomas on November 13, 2008 05:48 PMChief of Staff Rahm Emanuel for president-elect Barack Obama reveals plans for mandatory induction for all young adults into a civilian "force."
Emanuel said the planned requiring service "will give people a sense of what it means to be an American."
"Somewhere between the age of 18 to 25 you will do three months of training. You can do it at some point in your college time," he said. "There can be nothing wrong with all Americans having a joint, similar experience of what we call civil defense training or civil service."
"Rather than figure out if whether you take a train ride or a barrack. ... Think of it this way, it will be a common experience."
Obama, meanwhile, also has yet to clarify what he meant during his July "Call to Service" speech in Colorado Springs in which he insisted the U.S. "cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set" and needs a "civilian national security force."
Posted by: Brian Thomas on November 13, 2008 06:07 PMIf the GOP wants my vote, they're going to have to rebuild conservatism, not Republican right-liberalism.