Posted on 11/15/2012 10:48:44 AM PST by Bratch
But this is the “party of stupid” we’re talking about, so I won’t hold my breath.
In the wake of the disastrous 2012 election results, there has been a lot of discussion on the right regarding the GOP’s apparent “message” problem. Much of the conversations has focused on immigration issues as a way to bring in new voters. Recently, Charles Krauthammer wrote:
I’ve always been of the “enforcement first” school, with the subsequent promise of legalization. I still think it’s the better policy. But many Hispanics fear that there will be nothing beyond enforcement. So, promise amnesty right up front. Secure the border with guaranteed legalization to follow on the day the four border-state governors affirm that illegal immigration has slowed to a trickle.
Imagine Marco Rubio advancing such a policy on the road to 2016. It would transform the landscape. He’d win the Hispanic vote. Yes, win it. A problem fixable with a single policy initiative is not structural. It is solvable.
It’s going to take much more than that to solve the current issues the GOP has with voters. You can’t pander to one racial demographic and think that will solve all of your problems. The predicament that they find themselves in goes much deeper than a single issue, and it’s based primarily on trust. According to an election night survey released by Breitbart News, Judicial Watch, and Public Opinion Strategies:
Voters’ responses suggest that the American public agrees with conservative policies–but does not trust the Republican Party to implement them.
For example, voters dislike big government, with 71% agreeing (and 49% strongly agreeing) that: “The larger the size of government the more opportunities it creates for possible corruption.” In addition, 85% of voters said they were concerned about corruption in Washington, and 53% described themselves as “very concerned.”
Yet voters do not trust Republicans more than Democrats to deal with corruption. Only 34% said Republicans would do a better job of cleaning up corruption; 37% said Democrats would. That is an indictment of the permanent political class, regardless of party. And despite the President’s talk of cleaning up Washington, his party is not viewed as better able to do so.
So, the Democrats share much of the same issue with voters regarding corruption, but they’re able to squeak enough votes each cycle because they have more credibility on other matters. Here’s a thought. How about for starters, the GOP stop selling out their principles and try to gain some trust back with that 71% who dislike big government? And how does either party address the 85% of voters who are concerned about corruption in Washington, when both of them are compromised in that area? Considering all of the money wasted in Washington on cronies and corruption, these concerns by the vast majority are extremely legitimate.
As I watched the debate go back and forth on the GOP’s message problem after the election, an article written by Anand Giridharadas back in 2011 titled “Some of Sarah Palin’s Ideas Cross the Political Divide” came to mind. In it, he wrote:
[S]omething curious happened when Ms. Palin strode onto the stage last weekend at a Tea Party event in Indianola, Iowa…
She made three interlocking points. First, that the United States is now governed by a “permanent political class,” drawn from both parties, that is increasingly cut off from the concerns of regular people. Second, that these Republicans and Democrats have allied with big business to mutual advantage to create what she called “corporate crony capitalism.” Third, that the real political divide in the United States may no longer be between friends and foes of Big Government, but between friends and foes of vast, remote, unaccountable institutions (both public and private).
In supporting her first point, about the permanent political class, she attacked both parties’ tendency to talk of spending cuts while spending more and more; to stoke public anxiety about a credit downgrade, but take a vacation anyway; to arrive in Washington of modest means and then somehow ride the gravy train to fabulous wealth. She observed that 7 of the 10 wealthiest counties in the United States happen to be suburbs of the nation’s capital.
Her second point, about money in politics, helped to explain the first. The permanent class stays in power because it positions itself between two deep troughs: the money spent by the government and the money spent by big companies to secure decisions from government that help them make more money.
“Do you want to know why nothing ever really gets done?” she said, referring to politicians. “It’s because there’s nothing in it for them. They’ve got a lot of mouths to feed — a lot of corporate lobbyists and a lot of special interests that are counting on them to keep the good times and the money rolling along.”
Because her party has agitated for the wholesale deregulation of money in politics and the unshackling of lobbyists, these will be heard in some quarters as sacrilegious words.
Ms. Palin’s third point was more striking still: in contrast to the sweeping paeans to capitalism and the free market delivered by the Republican presidential candidates whose ranks she has yet to join, she sought to make a distinction between good capitalists and bad ones. The good ones, in her telling, are those small businesses that take risks
and sink and swim in the churning market; the bad ones are well-connected megacorporations that live off bailouts, dodge taxes and profit terrifically while creating no jobs...“This is not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and of risk,” she said of the crony variety. She added: “It’s the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest — to the little guys. It’s a slap in the face to our small business owners — the true entrepreneurs, the job creators accounting for 70 percent of the jobs in America.”
Keep in mind that Sarah Palin was told to “leave the room” by none other than Charles Krauthammer, back in 2009. Yet now he tells the Republican Party that in order for it to save it’s hide, they must reward lawbreakers and anoint a man as leader who has engaged in illegally soliciting foreign donations, just as President Obama has also done.
That is not the answer. The answer for the GOP is to clean up its own act and address the real concerns of the majority of Americans, regardless of political affiliation. They can start by not shunning the members of their own party who have the credibility to speak on such matters. Reform in Washington is a winning message and has the potential to bring in voters from nearly every racial, gender, and economic demographic in the country. It isn’t too late for the Republican Party to jump on board, but time is ticking. American voters need a true opposition party to the big-government, tax and spend, corruption plagued Democrats. The GOP establishment would do themselves and the country a favor by allowing people into the room who can credibly push for reform, and by ceasing their own practices of big-government corruption.
Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
It would seem that is exactly what you Palin kool-aid drinkers are doing!
4. Chris Christie for New Jersey Governor (Special Election)
8. Carly Fiorina for U.S. Senate in California Before Palin's endorsement, Fiornia had a very tough primary battle with Chuck DeVore, a Tea Party-backed California Assemblyman
14. John McCain for U.S. Senate in Arizona
25. Kelly Ayotte for U.S. Senate in New Hampshire
You can also add in her support of Richard Lugar in his primary battle, which he thankfully lost.
Ooooooo, four out of how many? What about all of the Palin Tea Party endorsed candidates, pathetic Palinhater??
I would think that should the lower 48 states actually get past just talk about secession Sarah Palin could or should stand up NOT for the GOP but instead be the voice for the Alaska Independent Party and work with severing Alaska ties with Washington DC.
To be more precise, I will change the word 'wash' with 'mixed'.
I don't hate Palin, she is irrelevant.
No Palinhater, she had a responsibility to the state, the treasury and her family. She used common sense, something sorely lacking in the political arena today.
Clearly, you and her other hysterical supporters are willing to justify quitting and surrender if you find it in your own best interests.
Your consistent lies, half truths and posts certainly indicate your obsession with her. Who was it that nominated Palin for sainthood? LOL!
The people of the state who would have to keep footing the bill for the time and money wasted fighting frivolous ethics complaints and lawsuits. Aren't you embarrassed by your ignorance? Or are you just too dumb?
Possibly to an hysterical misogynist like you.
Well, when you run out of arguments, all you have left is ad hominem.
She supported a number of RINO candidates against TeaParty supported candidates.
Those are facts.
They balance out the view of her as some great political leader, she isn't.
She is, I will admit, good at rallies.
Which is no small thing, because at this point, the only way to win is to bring out OUR base.
Didn’t say it wasn’t, she is good cheerleader.
Lawsuit settled: Isthmus, AP will get emails, Walker must pay legal costs
03/16/2011
Train-maker Talgo sues Gov. Walker, Wisconsin
By Patrick Marley of the Journal Sentinel
Nov. 5, 201
Governor Rick Snyder sued by ACLU and the Oakland County Democratic Party
January 6, 2012
Fact... Rick Snyder did not quit and neither did Scott Walker.
You keep lying, Palin didn’t merely help, Cruz credits her with his victory.
You keep going back to McCain as you continue your war against the conservative wing of the GOP and Palin.
Palin did not create McCain, and the 2008 presidential candidate was not going to lose his 25 year Senate seat in the 2010 election.
Old post, but true.
If the vice presidential candidate for John McCain and the the biggest GOP superstar since Reagan had not supported McCain for reelection for his Senate seat, then it would have meant the destruction of her image, and of the GOP image and it would have been the non stop political story of 2009 and 2010, the division between the ticket of the previous year would have made the Republicans appear broken and shattered and would even have led to a widespread reevaluation of the importance of a Democrat victory in 2008, because it would make the GOP ticket look like it had been a sham, it would have damaged and have prevented this incredible change in public opinion towards the entire republican brand that Palin has helped reshape during the last 17 months.
Palin would have looked cheap and shallow to the general public for turning on the man that 59,000,000 of them voted for, she would easily be painted as a radical and unstable person and a bitter, small timer to the general public.
There is a lot more going on with the national image of the republican/conservative movement here than what we McCain haters see in the Arizona Senate race, the general public does not share all of our perceptions and in depth view of the race between McCain and Hayworth. They would see the Presidential and the vice Presidential candidates of the Republican party at each others throats, clearly signaling that Obama and the Democrats represented stability and calm.
Palin’s image would have never survived, and the entire national, conservative movement would be weaker in reality and in the public’s eye.
No, you emote, pathetic Palinhater. You're an embarrassment.
Unfortunately for you Palinhaters your "facts" are miniscule in the bigger picture. Are you a Reaganhater also?
Palin also made a lengthier argument for Hatch on her SarahPAC site early this morning:
" Orrin Hatch is part of the one percent. No, not that one percent you’ve heard about. He’s part of the one percent of national politicians who I think should be reelected. Orrin Hatch is a life-long conservative whose dedication and devotion to the conservative cause and to his beloved and beautiful state of Utah is well documented. Orrin was a Utah state campaign chairman for a fledgling and failing presidential candidate deemed “too conservative” and “unelectable” by the media. Ironically, that candidate was the man who restored our country to be a “shining city on a hill” – Ronald Reagan.
When asked about Orrin Hatch, President Reagan once said: “If every member of the Senate were like Orrin Hatch, we’d be arguing over how to deal with a federal surplus, and that’s why I like to think of Orrin as ‘Mr. Balanced Budget.’ The United States has been strong enough to deter aggression and maintain the peace, in no small degree due to the efforts of Orrin Hatch. He has been a champion of those who fight for freedom.”
As President Reagan said, Orrin is “Mr. Balanced Budget.” Long before the issue of debt was on the forefront of Americans’ minds, Orrin Hatch knew our government would face insolvency if we did not get our budget under control. He sponsored or co-sponsored a Balanced Budget Amendment 17 times, and he voted in favor of a Balanced Budget Amendment at least 9 other times. We know he will use his seniority and influence to dissuade politicians from continuing to raise the debt ceiling without any plan to balance the budget and end these dangerously unsustainable deficits.
Orrin Hatch voted against Obamacare and has pledged to repeal it. While we’re on the topic of Obamacare, which is currently before the Supreme Court, keep in mind that the Supreme Court would not look the way it does today if it were not for Orrin Hatch fighting for conservative nominees on the bench – from Clarence Thomas to John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Unlike other Republican Senators who are up for reelection this year, Orrin voted against both of President Obama’s nominees, Kagan and Sotomayor. And unlike some others, Orrin has gone out of his way to embrace the Tea Party movement."
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.