Fair and thoughtful analysis from Michael Barone:
The debate among Republicans is whether to go after downscale or upscale voters. Those who argue for going downscale usually have a 2012 candidate in mind: Sarah Palin. She has an undoubted appeal to such voters and revved up part of the Republican base -- cultural conservatives, and rural and small-town voters -- throughout the campaign. Despite the scorn the media heaped on her, she has excellent political instincts and seems capable of developing the knowledge base that would make her a credible presidential candidate in the future. [emphasis added]But my examination of the exit poll results and county-by-county election returns has led me to conclude tentatively that going upscale is the right move. As David Frum has pointed out, we're going to have more well-educated and millennial-generation voters in the future and fewer less-educated and Baby Boomers (among whom McCain ran even).
Bigger picture, this has nothing to do with who the 2012 standard bearer should be. We are so far advanced of that process - remember how many twists and turns the last primary cycle took? - that individual speculation is nonsensical (more here).
The party, however, has to have a long-term vision of what demographic targets are most important to expanding the GOP coalition post-2008. Barone's point is well-taken that the folks that were most enthused by Palin are an essential core of the party. They must continue to be so. Yet, the party must grow - both in Washington state and nationally - to build its numbers in legislative bodies and to have hope of winning executive positions.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 01, 2009 12:51 PM | Email ThisI think we make a mistake when we try to borrow a page from Democrats and seek to form a "coalition".
We don't need to attract people who are not conservatives. We need to educate people so that they become conservatives. There is a huge difference.
Becoming wimpy moderates that seem to say, "well, we might actually think abortion is ok, we're not really against gay marriage, and we do need to do something about climate change", just isn't my cup of tea at all.
We can stand behind pretend Republicans like McCain, and Schwarzenegger, or we can stand behind real conservatives such as Palin, and Jindal. Seems like an obvious choice to me.
Aside from calling opposition to gay marriage "homophobic", (which it isn't), the overwhelming majority of Americans have rejected gay marriage time after time.
Opposition to gay marriage is a conservative principle and most Americans agree, as we saw last fall in California.
You won't, of course, because your sort never does.
And until you do file one and get it passed, you really should STFU about what people want or don't want... 'cause right now, you people are as right about that as you were about Congress or Obama ending the war... or ending rendition.
Posted by: Hinton on February 1, 2009 01:56 PMI guess I am hanging out in different circles but I have not heard the debate being framed between upscale and downscale circles. Perhaps that is what our party leadership is debating but to me that is offensive. People are people and whether they make more or less than the average american, the method that you go about recruiting them to help your cause should not vary. Nor would I say the people that like Palin are downscale from people that dislike her (like me).
The debate that is worth having is whether we continue down the big government GOP path that you and your favorite Pols have promoted, or whether we turn torward a libertarian small government GOP that Ron Paul and Peter Schiff support.
That debate will at least be worthy even if the small government size loses. At least then we are not creating an us vs them atmostphere across america.
That's exactly how I don't want conservatives to start thinking.
Liberals have "minority outreach" programs, otherwise known as pandering. Marginalizing people into interest groups is what liberals do.
Conservatives should never do that. Our principles embrace everyone. We don't categorize people into little boxes the way liberals do.
Many on the Republican side fail to recognize just how much influence the popularization of liberalism has had on their own thinking.
Conservatives don't form "coalitions". Socialist do. It's one of their favorite words. Yet here we are talking about a "GOP coalition". Help me, Mr, Wizard!
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 1, 2009 02:51 PMHis graciousness and thoughtful arguments in the face of others with a different opinion should prove really successful in building a majority at the polling place.
Posted by: BA on February 1, 2009 04:51 PMSmart voters did not elect Obama. It was the brainwashed masses that saw a suit and heard what they wanted to hear. Not to mention the media heaping praises on him left and right.
The FIRST thing the GOP needs to do is find a candidate that can talk their way out of a paper bag. It is real obvious that personality is what wins elections. It is very apparent it is not about issues.
And for the record I'm one of those people that think Gov. Palin should run in 2012. Frankly she should have been the top of the ticket this time. The GOP should have drafted her from the beginning.
Posted by: Vince on February 1, 2009 05:03 PM1)Stop the neoconservative/hawkish foreign policy and urge something called "bilateral diplomacy" without preconditions. 2)Present candidates that can talk about the issues and the nuances of those issues (Obama could at least do so, McCain could not even come close). 3)Stop expecting that GOP candidates can win by marketing themselves as "bi-partisan" and "a good listner" and foolishly running an issues-neutral campaign. 4)Stop trying to cram religion down people's throat (note: this does not mean you cannot be pro-life or anti-gay marriage, you can do so for secular reasons). The government should not establish religion, that's not representative of limited government or freedom. 5)Keep opposing big government packages like the recent federal stimulus bill, too bad the GOP did not do this during the George W. Bush era.
Someone please get my plan to Michael Steele, Luke Esser and all of the county GOP chairs.
It's an emergency!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Brian on February 1, 2009 06:16 PM1)Stop the neoconservative/hawkish foreign policy and urge something called "bilateral diplomacy" without preconditions. 2)Present candidates that can talk about the issues and the nuances of those issues (Obama could at least do so, McCain could not even come close). 3)Stop expecting that GOP candidates can win by marketing themselves as "bi-partisan" and "a good listner" and foolishly running an issues-neutral campaign. 4)Stop trying to cram religion down people's throat (note: this does not mean you cannot be pro-life or anti-gay marriage, you can do so for secular reasons). The government should not establish religion, that's not representative of limited government or freedom. 5)Keep opposing big government packages like the recent federal stimulus bill, too bad the GOP did not do this during the George W. Bush era.
Someone please get my plan to Michael Steele, Luke Esser and all of the county GOP chairs.
It's an emergency!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Brian on February 1, 2009 06:17 PMAnd I agree 110%. And the best example is how immigrants come to America and jump feet first into the opportunities available. BTW, Mark Levins new book is filled with profound conservative ideas.
Posted by: chardonnay on February 1, 2009 07:07 PMDon't dredge up some right wing religious zealot as an example. Give me an example of a Republican. I know you can't.
This is what kills us. The entirely unfounded notion, festered happily by the left that conservatives "want to cram religion down our throats". It is pure nonsense, but Brian's comments indicate how much traction it has.
Brian,
To number 1 BS! Appeasement doesn't work. Diplomacy only works when the other party is not a psychotic.
To number 2 Articulate candidates are always a good idea. Unlike the Democrats, I'd like a candidate who actually believes what he articulates.
3. Yes!
4. Let's be even more, to use one of the liberals' favorite words, pro-active. The left crams their religious values down our throats- call them on it.
5. Agreed
Oh yeah, get out of bed with the religious right, too. Associating with them ain't helping things.
The left wants everyone in America to believe this lie. And a lot of people do. Some among us seem to believe it as well. Lies can be very powerful, and the left knows it.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 1, 2009 07:50 PMBTW, I didn't mean "in bed" literally. It's just that the Republicans are too close to some rather strict religious figures and belief systems that happen to be Christian. Heck, even Pagans get to practice their religion in this country. If Republicans want to get elected back into office, drop the kissy-face support of the evangelical movement and move towards the middle when it comes to religion. I, for one, am sick of this constant religious war that's going on in this country. Lots of other folks are, too.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on February 1, 2009 08:02 PMAnd you wonder why I get mad.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 1, 2009 08:08 PMNow, get over it and move towards unseating the Dems in 2010 and beyond. I's say selecting Michael Steel and the Head GOP-er is a good start, but it's only a start.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on February 1, 2009 08:16 PMPlease explain in plain english what in the world you mean by that comment.
Bottom line, you are accepting the foolish notion that Republicans want to "cram religion down peoples's throats". There exists no evidence for that ridiculous fabrication of the left. If you have any such evidence I suggest you exhibit it.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 1, 2009 08:31 PMWe must explain what we believe, and why we believe it. We must stop being ashamed that we believe in conservative principles.
Liberals have put us in this position. We need to stand up for our principles. It isn't always easy, but it is the right thing to do.
ABC News’ Jonathan Karl reports: When House Republicans planned their annual winter retreat, they extended an invitation to Alaska Gov. Sara Palin, hoping the party’s 2008 vice presidential nominee would give a morale-building speech to the more than 130 Republican members of Congress gathered this weekend in Hot Springs, Va.
Retreat organizers tell ABC News that Palin politely declined, giving a perfectly understandable reason. According to the Congressional Institute, which hosted the conference, Palin said she simply could not make it to the retreat because pressing state business made it impossible for her to leave Alaska this weekend.
So where is Palin this weekend? She’s in Washington, D.C., attending the super-elite Alfalfa Dinner.
“She lied to us,” said a Republican at the retreat.
Asked why Palin told the Republicans she could not leave Alaska this weekend, Palin spokesman Bill McAllister offered this non-responsive answer:
“My understanding is that the governor has not scheduled any partisan events on her current trip to D.C.,” McAllister told ABC News.
_________________________________________
This kind of Obama-lite kills the deal for me.
I will never support her... ever. Lying is unacceptable when the left does it... and it's equally unappceptable when the right does it... even more so, since we're SUPPOSED to stand for something.
Posted by: Hinton on February 1, 2009 10:51 PMRepublican used to stand for good government and less government interference - after Bush, those no longer apply. Bush rejected California's state rights for better gas mileage eand less air polution - he also rejected the EPAs own scientists.
Republicans now stand for:
Record budget deficits
Obstructionism and incompetence (their "alternative" tax cut bill actually raised taxes on 26 million Americans)
Rejection of science (The EPA, the Interior and the FDA regularly ignored their won scientists)
Illegal wiretapping (what happenend to less government interference?)
Torture (so much for values!)
Government interference in the bedroom (homophobia and anti-birth control)
But if you want a recent example, how about the religious right, Bill O'Reilly lovin, let's make war on anyone that says "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" crowd that made a showing in Olympia. They were all angry that the Freedom From Religion Foundation had put up a sign next to the Manger scene at the State Capitol. If you are going to allow a pro-religious scene (the Manger), then why not allow an anti-religious display as well? What's the fuss? If it were up to me, I would not have allowed either at the State Capitol, it's an inappropriate place for advocacy of any type.
Or how about when Huckabee and McCain were eager to get an endorsement from John Hagee?
By the way Bill, I'm a fellow Republican. I am tired of losing elections. We can be pro-life and anti-gay marriage for secular reasons, but let's let people have their own religious and non-religious beliefs.
Posted by: Brian on February 2, 2009 07:46 AMThen you say in your most recent post, "let's let people have their own religious and non-religious beliefs."
Again Brian, you are dredging up this myth of the left that Republicans want to force religion on people. There is simply no evidence of this, and I believe that you know it.
If you are a Republican Brian, you should understand that getting an endorsement fron Hagee does not mean the candidate wishes to establish a theocracy.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Republicans advocate anything other than freedom of religion.
Leftists want something else entirely. No religion. That's why they wage war on Christmas every year. It always fascinates me that the left picks on Christianity while leaving a far more intolerant religion alone.
I understand that the idea of the "big tent" might be appealing to some. However, by its definition that means that conservative principles must be compromised.
Conservatives I know can explain conservatism, and understand why they are conservatives. Liberals on the other hand are confused about what they believe. They're Democrats because they "hate Republicans". The left thrives on ignorance, and the massive amount of brainwashing people receive from schools and the media.
If we are to rebuild the Republican Party the first thing we should do is stand by our principles. Do we believe "global warming" is a hoax? Of course it is but our last Presidential Candidate fell for it. If he had stood up for conservative principles and told the public that "global warming" was a hoax and that we ought to start drilling for our own oil he'd have won the election. If he had explained why we believe abortion is murder, and why we oppose gay marriage he'd have won in a landslide.
We will never win elections if we worry about appeasing leftists. They are never going to vote for Republicans. We need to explain why leftists are wrong. The last Republican to do that was a fellow named Reagan.
If we become a party that obsesses about which way the wind happens to be blowing instead of standing for what we believe, we are history.
I for one do not see what the fascination is with Palin. She is a "mean girl" who couldn't think her way out of a paper bag. The true Palin is the vindictive and power-monger, and is just opposite of what Republicans need.
Now, Jindal, if he is ready to make the leap in 2012 does provide an interesting candidate and contrast. My guess is he won't decide until after the 2010 elections. At that time, he will be able to better see the lay of the land, like whether the economy is still tanking, who is going out early for the 2012 contest, other than the already Rush-appointed nominee of Palin. In the meantime, I would expect Jindal to continue to build up good-will, as opposed to Palin, who is not building up good-will, even amongst Republicans.
Posted by: tc on February 2, 2009 09:45 AMExtra points given here for being accurate.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 2, 2009 10:08 AMA reasonably serious discussion about the direction of the Republican Party suddenly turns into having to defend the ridiculous notion that Republicans want to "cram religion down people's throats"
In #37 we get, "Rush-appointed nominee of Palin".
Complete nonsense.
It does bring up something that is right on topic here however. Honesty.
Liberals have no shame whatsoever when it comes to lying. For example, they will often call talk radio, or post on this blog claiming that they are Republicans. You'd think they would be smart enough to avoid leftist talking points such as "cramming religion down our throats" or injecting smirky commments about O'Reilly, and Limbaugh, but they can't help themselves. These people would be lousy at poker.
Republicans, and conservatives in general would never consider such behavior.
We find ourselves discussing how to attract people who lie as a way of life. Why in the world would we want to do that? These people have already found a home. It's called the Democratic Party.
We should be the party of principles, the party of family values, the party that believes killing unborn children is wrong, the party of optimism, the party that doesn't find it necessary to lie to people and wouldn't think of it.
Democrats nominate deliberate tax cheats to cabinet positions. The left doesn't care. Joe the Plumber owed back taxes and the media blew a gasket. There isn't anything fair about the way these people play.
One thing we do know is who these people are and how they think. We are not going to win them over. We shouldn't want to.
We are going to lose if we try to become cheap imitations of the Democrats. I don't want any part of that. If we stand behind honest principles we will win over a country that is hungry for them.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 2, 2009 11:20 AMPalin was so poor at lying that she contradicted herself. Go back and run the tapes, you will see. One day it is one story, the next day it is a different story. Even after the campaign, she was still "making it up" when it comes to the whole clothes fiasco. She returned them, no wait, the RNC was collecting them at her home, no wait again, those were different items, no wait, what I stated second.
How about the Turkey incident? She stated that she didn't know what was going on behind her, yet the tape shows the reporter asking her if she wanted to do the interview in front of the cutting off of heads. She turns around looks at what they were doing and states that it would be fine. Then, when the issue blows up, she comes out with a statement that she didn't know what was going on. The tape doesn't lie. You can tell in the interviews. She was clueless and tried to BS the answer. She was terrible at the BS. Then, she tried to claim recently that she didn't state what she stated to Gibson or Couric, yet it is plain as day on tape.
This doesn't even touch the more questionable facts that she made up about her life story. This is simple the video evidence.
Posted by: tc on February 2, 2009 01:10 PMI'll just wait and see how things play out for a couple of years. Palin could be an also-ran or she could be a star. Too early in the game.
Posted by: swatter on February 2, 2009 01:27 PMHow many gafs did the VP make and how lies. Your party is now the party of TAX cheats and buddy, that's no lie.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on February 2, 2009 01:30 PMYou didn't come up with a single thing Palin "lied" about relating to the issues. Instead you came up with nonsense about her wardrobe and something you call the "Turkey incident" that I doubt anyone has heard of. Pathetic, but exactly what I expected. Not exactly the long list of lies you alluded to.
You hate Palin for the same reason the left leaning media did. She is a woman. She is pro-life. She has run a business. She has raised a family. She is a Republican. Palin makes leftists go nuts and demonstrate what a bunch of nasty crybabies they really are. It's one of things I like best about her.
The last thing the left wants is a charismatic conservative woman. The very thought of her keeps them up at night.
They are still working overtime trying to make sure she does not have a national political future.
Palin reminds me of Reagan. She smiles. She's pleasant. She is comfortable in her own skin. She's honest. She believes in conservative principles. She's intelligent.
Sarah Palin is the best representative of true conservatism we have at the moment. She is not concerned about appealing to the "climate change" crowd, and we shouldn't be either as we look towards the future.
Best of all? She isn't a "moderate".
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 2, 2009 03:55 PMDoes one need to be religious to be a Republican, or can one just be devoted to limited government and fiscal responsibility?
Bill, you stated "That's why they wage war on Christmas every year." That's theocon talk. "Wage war", people just want separation of church and state and are you OK with "Happy Holidays"? Put overtly religious displays on private property, not on government property. That should not be too much to ask.
Bill, for the second time, I am a Republican. You do not have to be religious in order to be a Republican. You only need be devoted to limited government and fiscal responsibility, and related to those things, devoted to the Washington State (read Article I, Section 11) and U.S. Constitutions (read Article VI and Amendment I).
Regarding PALIN, I lost respect for her after I found out that she greatly exaggerated her record on earmarks, see the following Seattle Times articles:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008154532_webpalin02m.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008176778_palin13.html
She fibbed on earmarks and she knows nothing about foreign policy. When you need a tutoring session from Henry Kissinger, then we know there are problems. I have no intention of supporting Palin in 2012. Furthermore, our party needs to stop whining about how the media treated Palin. Her interviews and debate performance were disasters. She is not a strong candidate.
Posted by: Brian on February 2, 2009 04:31 PM
I guess I have to take you at your word that you are a Republican. It's a rare Republican that is so adept at spewing leftist talking points.
I'm just sayin'.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 2, 2009 04:46 PMI don't think Republicans per se want to cram religion down everyone's throats, but the religious right does want to cram religion (specifically Christianity-flavored Protestantism) down everyone's throats. It wold serve the Republican Party well to not be assoicated with these modern day crusaders.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on February 2, 2009 10:36 PMMore to the point of this topic, what values would you like to see our party embrace as we head into the future?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 3, 2009 08:29 AMBut remember to pay yours, because it's "patriotic" as Joe Biden proclaimed (I leave it to the reader to determine where that leaves tax cheats throughout the upper eschelons of the Slavery Party).
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 3, 2009 11:59 AMLiberals are monstrous hypocrites. Whether it's Gore flying in his private jets and riding around in limos. Obama, Clinton, and Gore opposing school vouchers while sending their kids off to elitist private schools. Or the growing list of Democrats who think paying taxes is just for the "little people" apparently.
Try to tell people the nature of those who make up the left and you get blasted. But we really don't have to make this stuff up.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 3, 2009 12:17 PMSure, Snohomich County's GOP plank contains a reference to God and Country. So does our national pledge, and so does our money! A belief in God (which one?) is so offensive.
But we'll ignore outright FRAUD, and sweep away issues like the newly appointed #2 at Justice, David Ogdens. The one who defends Playboy, Hustler, the ACLU, and opposes porn filters on library computers. Even advocated child pornography. What happened to the "it's for the CHILDREN" mantra?
Nosiree, that talk about God and Nation (what's next, bitterly clinging to your guns?) is EVIL and corrupting. Child porn and tax evasion are perfectly fine.
Now line up and drink your Kool-Aid!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 3, 2009 01:18 PMSuddenly here's someone talking about Republicans "cramming religion down people's throats".
If anything it tells you what a fabulous marketing job the left has done. There simply is no evidence that any Republican desires to push religious faith on anyone.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 3, 2009 01:29 PMIf anyone has a problem with politicians and leaders referring to God, then they need to just leave this Country that was founded on the concept of unalienable Rights from our Creator!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 3, 2009 05:29 PMI liked Ollie North's response to this: He read the preamble where is says "...to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...". Then Ollie said, "Where do blessings come from?". The guy was completely caught off guard and didn't know how to answer. It was great!
Posted by: Bill H on February 3, 2009 06:19 PM