Posted on 05/07/2009 12:03:33 PM PDT by calcowgirl
For those writing Republican centrism’s obituary after Arlen Specter’s party switch, holster your quills.
In fact, if the next few weeks go well for the GOP, it might pave the way for a whole new chapter in the left flank of the right-leaning party.
The month of May will be huge, recruiting-wise, for Senate Republicans, with decisions expected from several big-name candidates, including Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, Rep. Mark Kirk (Ill.) and possibly Rep. Mike Castle (Del.).
All would instantly be formidable — with Crist and Castle favored at the outset — and all are noted centrists. They would not only give Republicans a chance to win again, but give Republican centrists a chance to be a force again.
Kirk and Castle routinely rank among the top handful of GOP centrists in the House, and Crist and Ridge are already drawing heat from some conservatives for their decidedly middle-of-the-road records as governors.
But those aren’t the only potential GOP candidates with centrist credentials. Two possibilities in New York — former Gov. George Pataki and Rep. Pete King — are also strong examples, as would be former Sen. John Sununu in New Hampshire if he runs. Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina is strongly indicating that she’ll run in California, and Rep. Jim Gerlach is considering running in Pennsylvania.
Indeed, it seems almost every Republican recruit who will have any chance of winning this cycle will be a centrist.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Yes, your addition makes the comment more complete.
38? Where did you get that number? There are four states, FL MO NH and OH that have GOP Senators that are retiring that could all easily go Dem in 2010. There are three others NC, LA and KY that certainly aren't GOP foregone conclusions. While KY is more likely to stay red than NC, remember that NC actually went for Obama and Sen. Vitter has his prostitute problems in LA - a state that already has one Dem Senator.
Your 38 seats could very likely be just 33 or 32 seats on November 3, 2010. 32 Senators have the operational relevancy of tits on a steer.
If Mike Castle is the best these RINOs can come up with for the future of the GOP, you might as well pack it in now and save yourselves the trouble and money.
A typical RINO who is anti-gun, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual legislation and he’s been bought and paid for by BofA. Thanks, but no thanks.
This is where you derail. I am not referring to people who "parrot Reagan's talking points", (btw, he did not have "talking pts") I am referring to people who sincerely and strongly believe in those same ideals that RR did. You see the difference? I want not 'ideologically pure' but rather genuineness in a politician. Though there are several core principles that must be adhered to.
I'll respond for the big monkey: there are none.
You cited NYC and San Francisco as examples. Reagan lost to Carter in SF in 1980, getting only 32% of the vote, while carrying 53% of the vote statewide. Hence, your examples were silly.
That’s why I chose my words carefully.
In 2006 and 2008 the democrats fielded candidates that were chosen because they could win because THE POINT OF AN ELECTION IS TO WIN YOU MORON. We are discussing electoral strategy here. Emanuel went out and found candidates that could take out incumbent repubs. They were not liberal democrats. Think the party cared? No because THE POINT OF AN ELECTION IS TO WIN YOU MORON and be able to control the committees and legislative agenda.
Again, based on the strategy of the two parties the past 2 cycles who is ahead and able to shove their agenda down everyone else’s throat?
It's a figure of speech. Clearly there are people that think the reason that conservatives don't govern in California or New York is because the GOP in those respective states don't support conservative candidates.
Political parties don't shape the will of the people, they conform to it.
As for the talking points, there's plenty of polling data recently that shows the clear majority of Americans aren't that caught up in the top marginal rate, capital gains nor the size of government. Look, the man who just tripled our national debt over the next 10 years enjoys approval ratings in the mid-60's. If that's not a warning sign that your message is falling on deaf ears, I'm not sure what will get your attention.
Republicans, and conservatives should be talking about jobs, inflation, the cost of energy and the cost of health care - nothing more. The words "taxes" nor "spending" should come out of their mouths because no one cares.
So does that mean we need to collect some right wing idealogues and get them out there talking about a womans right to cheeeuuuuoooothe?
Nonsense.
A state that currently has elected Boxer and Feinstein is most likely not going to elect a Jindal.
Don't deny the reality of the current situation.
I'm not sure why you think my citing the most liberal bastions in the country as examples of liberalism is silly.
Maybe. Maybe not. There are three democrat initiatives that are either stalled, or are dead on arrival because of moderate Dems - Global Warming, Gun Control and Health Care. It's push back from Dems, not from Republicans that's giving Waxman, Pelosi and Reid problems right now. And, a lot of those same moderate Dems are who voted Waxman, Pelosi and Reid into power.
No, what you stated was more accurately called a "lie."
Political parties don't shape the will of the people, they conform to it.
The GOP seems to be tone-deaf to the people.
As for the talking points, there's plenty of polling data ...
That's a cop out. You can't support your assertions. Just admit it or list the Reagan talking points that you think don't resonate.
Republicans, and conservatives should be talking about jobs, inflation, the cost of energy and the cost of health care - nothing more. The words "taxes" nor "spending" should come out of their mouths because no one cares.
Spending is exactly what I care about. Limited government is the cure. "Government is not the solution" is the exact talking point that is needed in Washington.
Kool-aid? Moi? Sounds like a classic case of projection.
As to the rest of your drivel... I do not identify with a party that has “(R) next to named candidate” as the only requirement for support. Our current party leadership would embrace Hillary! if she put an (R) by her name!
You advocate going with the candidate who can win over the candidate who actually shares your ideology... how’d that work out for you in CA?
Once again, I would remind you (and all the other RINO-boosters) that supporting the GOP candidate who polls the best gives the MSM the power to pick your candidate. For the sake of our country, KNOCK IT OFF!
Politicians are there to get elected and keep coming back. Here in VA the Repub challenger for Gov is being crucified in ads for not supporting the stimulus bill even though it was the right thing to do. The citizens don’t care about all of the details. Their guy wasn’t protecting their state and as such will have people not vote for him.
Please tell me how you would get a Repub elected (assume that is your job) in a left leaning or centrist state.
You're right insomuch that Reagan did not have talking points. He was far too eloquent a speaker, painting broad and imaginative pictures about his "shining city on a hill" to rely on talking points. But, it's the conservative party leaders of today that get stuck trying to harness Reagan's magic by "parroting" short and simple phrases that they believe describe Reagan. Sean Hannity has never met a talking point he didn't love, as an example.
Whomever inherits the mantle of Reagan, will be somebody (will HAVE to be somebody) that has Reagan's ability to capture the attention of the many without alienating the most. That won't be the person who parrots, like a broken record, "lower taxes", "less spending" yada yada yada. It will be someone who can't paint a compelling vision about what there better America can and should look like.
Look sweetie. I won't call you a moron if you don't call me a liar. If you're not bright enough to understand the point I made, take it out on someone who cares.
As for the limited government, again, do a little homework. There's been plenty of polling data released the last three weeks that says CLEARLY, most Americans aren't that worried about the size of the growing government. Start with some Google - it might set you free.
Cap and trade not working out so well for him. There are other items that they are not pressing on in order not to have these guys lose seats and remove the party from power.
Castle would be better than either of the current Delaware Senators, and it’s unlikely you’ll get a more conservative person to even think about RUNNING for the office.
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.