Skip to comments.The Way Forward [Republicans Do Not Need to Radically Change]
Posted on 11/12/2012 7:32:20 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
They lose and immediately the chorus begins. Republicans must change or die. A rump party of white America, it must adapt to evolving demographics or forever be the minority.
The only part of this that is even partially true regards Hispanics. They should be a natural Republican constituency: striving immigrant community, religious, Catholic, family-oriented and socially conservative (on abortion, for example).
The principal reason they go Democratic is the issue of illegal immigrants. In securing the Republican nomination, Mitt Romney made the strategic error of (unnecessarily) going to the right of Rick Perry. Romney could never successfully tack back.
For the party in general, however, the problem is hardly structural. It requires but a single policy change: Border fence plus amnesty. Yes, amnesty. Use the word. Shock and awe full legal normalization (just short of citizenship) in return for full border enforcement.
(Excerpt) Read more at m.washingtonpost.com ...
" More Ford 76 than Reagan 80, Romney is a transitional figure, both generationally and ideologically. Behind him, the party has an extraordinarily strong bench. In Congress Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Kelly Ayotte, (the incoming) Ted Cruz and others. And the governors Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker, Nikki Haley, plus former governor Jeb Bush and the soon-retiring Mitch Daniels. (Chris Christie is currently in rehab.)
They were all either a little too young or just not personally prepared to run in 2012. No longer. There may not be a Reagan among them, but this generation of rising leaders is philosophically rooted and politically fluent in the new constitutional conservatism."
Conservatives DO have a future...we can definitely win again, let us NOT give up!
Hey Kraut! STFU. You are part of the problem.
Patently false. If the GOP acts on this misconception it will be the final nail in their coffin.
“The principal reason they go Democratic is the issue of illegal immigrants...”
Wrong. Exit polls showed that the majority of Hispanics voted for Obama to get freebies for the Takers, paid for by the Makers. They were no better than the Blacks in voting for free stuff.
Krauthammer must know this, so why is he trying to mislead his readers?
Republicans must change or die.
Give me Liberty or give me Death.
Republican party must become more Conservative or it deserves to die.
Somebody has to represent the working Americans.
blah blah blah...
Something just occurred to me. No matter who is POTUS the next 4 years will be hell. Maybe the GOP is thinking that this is a blessing in disguise. I do think Romney could have done a pretty good job getting our economy going...but the underlying finances will be extremely tough.
No, they only need to keep following the strategy that led to their stunning victories in 2008 and 2012.
True, and they need ignore Krauthammer and others who think amnesty schemes will win future Latino votes for Republicans.
>>Border fence plus amnesty. Yes, amnesty. Use the word. Shock and awe full legal normalization (just short of citizenship) in return for full border enforcement.
Been there, done that. Exactly the same deal as in 1986. The rats got their amnesty and then cut all the additional funding for border enforcement.
This is BS. The National Review editorial on why Hispanics vote Democrat has it right. This is why I’m not watching Fox anymore.
New immigrants come from corrupt, Socialist countries. They want stuff. They have no experience with the American work ethic benefiting people in a meaningful way. In my experience, the majority stay in enclaves and will take what we are willing to give, without giving in return. Tuesday’s vote bears all this out.
Republicans need to be for US jobs.
Stop importing from China, and build things here.
The problem with K’s recommendations is that the downside risk of amnesty is fatal to the Repub party. It is an option that should only be chosen if the outcome is better than 90 percent assured to increase Republican vote counts. One must consider not only the possible upside but also the possible downside and the upside appears highly uncertain if not unlikely. Past evidence does not support amnesty as a positive for Repubs. From where I sit, it seems the Repub decision makers, and K, are paying a lot of attention to demographic change numbers but insufficient attention to the risk numbers associated with amnesty.
Where is the research that shows amnesty 1) will increase Repub vote counts more than Dem vote counts and not 2) lose more votes among Repub voters than among Dem voters. Without those two numbers, at a minimum, pursuit of amnesty is playing with a radioactive level of danger. Just consider the damage to the other elements of Repub party attractiveness that would result from the reduced support for rule of law, jobs for average Americans, and increased government spending, and increased social costs.
Do you think the Repubs have analyzed these critical factors? I don’t see the evidence.
Krauthammer and some others seem to have studied a math that only includes addition. They believe that amnesty for illegals can have only one effect: an increase in Latino votes for Republicans.
If they’d learned a math that also includes subtraction, they might know that amnesty for illegals can also have another effect: a decrease in votes from conservatives who oppose amnesty, and do not believe illegal behavior should be rewarded again (as in 1986), and all the other negative, future results of amnesty for illegals.
The Republicans have agreed to more and more amnesty for decades. Reagan agreed to the first big amnesty, in return for the promise that the Democrats wouldn’t ask for any more.
Oh, yeah, trust a Democrat!
The Republicans agree to amnesty, again and again, and the Democrats get more reliable votes in response. How’s that work out, Krauthammer?
2016 will be Rick Santorum’s turn. And more of the rape & abortion talk. And we will lose again.
I agree with you. Where is the evidence that Hispanic voters are voting FOR Dems because of illegal immigration? Why does the Dem party have an illegal immigration position known and favorable to Hispanics? Put yourself in the position of a Hispanic voter. What would motivate your vote? Promoting the illegal immigration of people you don’t know? Making jobs harder to get and letting criminals into the country and into your neighborhood? Really? That’s not what I would think and not what I hear. Maybe those Hispanic voters are voting for something else—how about finding out before making policy changes that have extremely high risk for very costly, negative outcomes.
First, "the only part that is even partially true" undoes his thesis that the party need not change. K is wrong. The RNC isn't a rump party of white America. It is a rump party of rich white Americans, the country club set, and I am not even sure the white part of this is the important part. They are the rump party of the crony capitalist part of America, the other dependency class.
The election results showed that Krauthammer is a total joke. He apparently wants to keep proving that point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.