,/img>
Posted on 11/10/2012 3:32:51 PM PST by neverdem
With the loss of the 2012 election, there is much talk of how the Republican Party must do some soul-searching. How will the GOP wage successful campaigns when demographic and cultural changes favor the opposition? Increasingly, the answer is that the party's party is over, that it must move into the future or be relegated to the past. "Dispense with the social issues!" we're counseled. "Don't trouble over abortion or faux marriage and instead just focus on fiscal matters."
Yet this appeal is the result of critics expressing what makes them uncomfortable, as opposed to actually observing the facts on the ground. How do I know? It's simple: the minority voters everyone is so desperate to woo are more socially conservative than are whites.
--snip--
Of course, some assume that traditionalist social positions are the problem because the GOP's touting them hasn't won over minorities. After all, such matters involve deeply held principle, right?
But this gets at the problem: the people in question find fiscal liberalism -- otherwise known as getting free stuff -- even more compelling (a few different kinds of prejudice factor into their preferences as well).
So you want to keep the GOP relevant? Here's a proposition. Let's woo that sought-after Hispanic voting block by offering the whole loaf: social conservatism and quasi-socialist policies...
--snip--
This America would be browner and bluer, but also likely less accepting of homosexuality and abortion. It would be too poor to finance the big social programs you want; however, while Big Brother might have to recede, he could be replaced by Big Daddy: society may well be more patriarchal. And if there's a huge influx of Muslims? Ha!.
Oh, you feminists will wail and gnash your teeth -- insofar as you're still around. But few of you will remain, given...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Adapt or die. With this last election we can no longer afford to run on traditional values, if we want the Democrats out of office. McCain got more votes than Romney! That statement should say it all.
That statement should say it all.
“Dispense with the social issues!” we’re counseled. “Don’t trouble over abortion or faux marriage and instead just focus on fiscal matters.”
Yeah we should continue to talk about the 47% and when we’re in Ohio we should talk about how bad the auto bailout was. /sarc
Yup. We need to field more pro-choice anti-gun Mormons. Huntsman 2016!
I think we’re going to be confused for the next 4 years until someone figures out how to apply conservative principles to the poor areas and actually try to reach out to them. You can’t say “oh they have a safety net. Middle class more important.” when times are bad.
Believe it or not, voters actually like fiscal conservatism. They don’t like the debts, don’t like the spending, and don’t like taxes. At this point, however, they’re not strongly convinced the GOP is serious about cuts and budgetary reforms.
And why should they be? It was fiscal conservatism that lead to the 2010 election sweep, and the GOP failed to deliver on what they were primarily voted in for.
Running on social values is the deluded fantasy. And it’s precisely what’s killing the GOP with younger voters in particular. I’m around people in their 20s and 30s quite a bit, and this is what I consistently hear from them they find alienating about the current GOP platform.
My fear is the old adage about the rest of the country following California. It is a thoroughly corrupt, tyrannical, one party state.
Leftists control or dominate the three branches of the federal government, the media, our schools, popular culture, the military . . .
There is very little remaining that is unsoiled by the Left. They will attempt to do as they have in California, exterminate all opposition.
We have passed the tipping point. There are more takers than givers. They will always vote for the most generous Santa. That will go on until, as a practical matter, the government can no longer print or borrow to fund the takers. Some variety of tyranny is next. History shows it is inevitable.
Believe it or not, voters actually like fiscal conservatism. They don’t like the debts, don’t like the spending, and don’t like taxes. At this point, however, they’re not strongly convinced the GOP is serious about cuts and budgetary reforms.
And why should they be? It was fiscal conservatism that lead to the 2010 election sweep, and the GOP failed to deliver on what they were primarily voted in for.
Running on social values is the deluded fantasy. And it’s precisely what’s killing the GOP with younger voters in particular. I’m around people in their 20s and 30s quite a bit, and this is what I consistently hear from them regarding what they find alienating about the current GOP platform.
Compassionate conservatism is the only answer. Nobody is saying stop fighting social issues. Do it at state level. And, stop saying stupid things about rape and abortion. That is all.
COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.
ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It’s 7.8%.
COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?
ABBOTT: No, that’s 14.7%.
COSTELLO: You just said 7.8%.
ABBOTT: 7.8% Unemployed.
COSTELLO: Right 7.8% out of work.
ABBOTT: No, that’s 14.7%.
COSTELLO: Okay, so it’s 14.7% unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, that’s 7.8%.
COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 7.8% or14.7%?
ABBOTT: 7.8% are unemployed. 14.7% are out of work.
COSTELLO: IF you are out of work you are unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, Obama said you can’t count the “Out of Work” as the unemployed.
You have to look for work to be unemployed.
COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!!
ABBOTT: No, you miss his point.
COSTELLO: What point?
ABBOTT: Someone who doesn’t look for work can’t be counted with those who
look for work. It wouldn’t be fair.
COSTELLO: To whom?
ABBOTT: The unemployed.
COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.
ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work. Those who are out
of work gave up looking and if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks
of the unemployed.
COSTELLO: So if you’re off the unemployment roles that would count as less
unemployment?
ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!
COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don’t look for work?
ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That’s how Obama gets it to 7.8%. Otherwise
it would be 14.7%. He doesn’t want you to read about 14.7% unemployment.
COSTELLO: That would be tough on his reelection.
ABBOTT: Absolutely.
COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two ways to
bring down the unemployment number?
ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.
COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?
ABBOTT: Correct.
COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?
ABBOTT: Bingo.
COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier
of the two is to have Obama’s supporters stop looking for work.
ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like the Obama Economy Czar.
COSTELLO: I don’t even know what the hell I just said!
ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like Obama.
Bingo.
This.
The GOP could become much more appealing to many more people by being proponents of states rights, particularly when it comes to addressing social issues.
And they’d actually be more Constitutionally consistent. Win-win.
,/img>
Pat Caddell was a guest on a radio show last evening, and he was going absolutely ape-sh!t over the election results because of what he recognized as a thoroughly incompetent job by the Romney campaign.
He cited a remarkable statistic from some exit polling data, in which self-described "conservatives" outnumbered self-described "liberals" by a very wide margin. Remember -- these were people who had voted in the election, not just members of the general public.
Caddell's point was that Romney's loss can be mainly attributed to millions of people who went into the voting booths as "conservatives" and voted for Obama! That, he said, is the mark of a miserable sales job and a fatally flawed "brand" for Romney and the Republican Party.
There's nothing wrong with running a conservative candidate, folks. Most voters prefer it!
In the new Arizona District 9 House race, Vernon Parker lost to Kyrsten Sinema, self-described “Prada socialist” who also is lesbian. Libertarian got about 7% of the vote....well beyond Sinema’s margin of victory in a 46% -45% race. Why? Parker tried to appeal to all sides and appear moderate. He was for MORE Pell grants, more pork barrel spending projects favored by business. but he also fully adopted the Republican platform of tax cuts for all, military buildup, etc. and thereby lost the “smaller government/balanced budget vote.”
The new Republican line of more spending and less taxes is obviously sounding old to voters these days and maybe if Republicans want more spending they must raise taxes to pay for it in the eyes of most voters.
But I think that increased military spending combined with tax cuts and cuts to Medicare and SS is a LOSING platform these days. People obviously don’t want to cut Medicare and SS cuts against more tax cuts and more miltary spending...which sounds to many people as if some people want other people to “sacrifice”, but not us.
Romney ran as a Ryan impersonator and Obama’s lies sounded more credible than “the math doesn’t add up” Republican platform, especially with SNL and Colbert and Maher and John Stewart and MSNBC and CNN and all the networks beating up on us.
Bill Clinton had an excuse to campaign against us this time, despite Obama’s bad record on deficits, because we did not have a believeable deficit reduction plan.
The Republicans want everyone to have a chance to succeed .
The Democrats can’t let everyone succeed .
Who would clean their toilets and mop their floors?
This is an interesting article. I agree with the author’s point that life is going to get very interesting for “lifestyle liberals” when their support of radical Islam reaches its sudden but inevitable conclusion.
As Mark Steyn pointed out, a social conservative can quietly live under the radar as Sharia blossoms (unless he’s too publically professing Christianity), but promiscuous women and open homosexuals are going to be uncomfortable.
Why don’t the RINOs just switch over to the Demon-crat party and “adapt”...
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.