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.
BFD! 3 examples 2 governors! Wow!
Palin and the State of Alaska had to deal with 8 times as many in 2 years! You really are pathetic, Palinhater.
Yes, every governor gets sued over political issues.
Like you said, for most governors its not a BFD.... which is why the other governors don’t quit like she did. Look at Scott Walker, multiple lawsuits AND a recall election. Did he quit? No he stood up, fought and won.
That is the kind of leadership I want from a presidential candidate.
Totally different situation, Palinhater. You are either ignorant or purposely acting stupid. Which is it?
Palin is a commentator. Unless she ever becomes more than that, this whole discussion is useless.
Some people love Ann Coulter, some don’t. Some like Karl Rove, some don’t. Some like Sean Hannity. Some don’t.
Same with Sarah Palin.
So explain your obsession.
Some people love Ann Coulter, some don’t. Some like Karl Rove, some don’t. Some like Sean Hannity. Some don’t.
Were any of those three elected to political office....EVER?
Look, you are the one who, on this thread, claimed that she resigned “because of all of the frivolous lawsuits.”
I simply pointed out that they were not “lawsuits” They were “ethics complaints” that were all resolved favorably before she resigned. Sure a few more popped up over the next few years.... just like every other governor has gotten. But like you said, BFD.
You said that her legal bills were bankrupting her. I simply pointed out that her $600,000 in legal bills were dwarfed by her income from her multi million dollar book deal and her $100,000 speaking fee. Do the math.... a few weekends of speeches and her legal fees are gone.
Then you said that the Republican Party did nothing to help her. I simply pointed out that they paid her $250,000 for her legal bills in exchange for her help in the 2010 election.
She is a commentator. Period.
We can continue this conversation if she ever decides to do more than that. Now she is a sometimes commentator on Fox News. Some people like her, others don’t. NBD.
Otherwise, its just a waste of internet ink.
There were lawsuits and frivolous et6hics complaints. eight times as many in two years as your two e4xamples. I posted a link. Why are you acting like such a moron, or isn't it an act?
You said that her legal bills were bankrupting her
Where did I state that?
Then you said that the Republican Party did nothing to help her.
They didn't. The national GOP paid her to raise funds for them. She helped the national GOP.
She is a commentator. Period
You're a faux conservative and moron...period.
Look, she was dealt a poor hand. And she played it very badly if she ever wanted to become president.
If she ever does get the fire in the belly to run for president, I will wait to let her make her own case for it. She will be asked many, many times to explain why she quit. It will be interesting to see how she handles herself.
I agree that Sarah Palin is not the demon some people make her out to be. But she is certainly not the political savior that others make her out to be.
She seems to be happy and prosperous doing what she is doing now and I wish her well.
Why do you care? Why did the McCain and Romney camps trash her? http://townhall.com/tipsheet/amandacarpenter/2008/10/28/romney_supporters_trashing_palin
You're a faux conservative just like them.
Would he be a good president? I think so. Could he overcome his stereotype and actually win? I sincerely doubt it.
And you are wrong, misleading or off base about everything.
LOL!
No, her fanatic, deceived followers are pathetic.
No way Cruz wins without the TeaParty.
Now, while Palin's support was important to Cruz's win, the fact is that she has also supported some very bad candidates as well, such as McCain and Luger.
“Ted Cruz says Sarah Palin’s endorsement was ‘game-changing’ in his Senate win”
“”Sarah Palin might have been sitting out this year’s Republican National Convention, but that does not mean that she has been forgotten by the party faithful in Tampa.
Especially not by Ted Cruz, who credits her endorsement with helping him beat Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst in the race for the Texas GOP Senate nomination.
While speaking with POLITICO’s Mike Allen this morning, the Texas Republican Senate nominee called Palin’s endorsement “game-changing.”
“If you look at the senate races across the country this cycle and last cycle, Governor Palin has had a game changing impact one after the other,” explained Cruz.
Palin endorsed Cruz, a Tea Party favorite who shares her philosophy of liberty and limited government, just days before a wide-open May 29 primary, helping to propel Cruz into a strong second place showing. The Cruz surge provided momentum for his runoff battle with Dewhurst.
“Fighters like Ted Cruz can lead the charge for us,” former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin said in July when she came to Texas to campaign with Cruz, calling him a “a proven, common-sense constitutional conservative.”
The Tea Party favorite admitted that many have referred to his victory as “improbable.” He told Allen that the reason why Palin’s endorsement has had such an enormous impact is because voters consider her a true barometer of conservatism.
“In a Republican primary, everyone claims to be conservative and voters are pretty cynical. They are tired of these candidates that sounds great on the stump. They say they are going to cut spending, they get into the office and they become spineless jellyfish,” Cruz said. “I think conservatives trust Sarah Palin that if she says this guy is a conservative, that he is a real deal.”””
Did you not make this statement? "She supported a number of RINO candidates against TeaParty supported candidates" What was your inference?
Who has been deceived, pathetic emoter? Paultards?
I see one as bad as the other.
Who has been deceived, pathetic emoter?
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.