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.
If GOP members were smart, they would go to the room wherein Palin is waiting and leave the GOPe to themselves.
Senators don't win, unless their opponent is also a Senator. The American public generally prefers former/current VPs and Governors.
Unfortunately, Palin’s fate in politics was probably sealed by all of the Romney-ites in the McCain campaign and in the GOP generally who stabbed her in the back during and in the period following the 2008 campaign. Imagine a different world in which they protected her from/prepared her for the likes of Katie Couric, stood strongly behind her throughout the campaign, and then helped her fight the onslaught of bogus lawsuits that forced her from the Governor’s office in 2009.
She was on track to be a lock on reelection as Governor, and from there she would’ve had a proper platform from which to mount a campaign for the nomination. With Palin as our candidate, no way we would’ve suffered the flat turnout and lack of support from the white working class voters who basically sunk Romney in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, etc., and who knows what kinds of dynamics might have been unleashed with respect to the gender gap, likability, celebrity, etc.
Maybe she would’ve picked up fewer independents, but I don’t even know about that. Prior to her the MSM smear job that was done on her, she was known for her appeal to independents.
I was mad at her for not running, choosing to engage in reality-show media-mongering, but ultimately, without support from anyone in the Party, you aren’t getting the nomination, or even any kind of positive reception. Ask Ron Paul about that.
Anyways, the GOP is just stupid. How they can imagine that the proper response to getting wiped out by a demographic shift to lower-income Hispanic voters by radically expanding the numbers of lower-income Hispanic voters just completely eludes me?
Time for the GOP-e to ramp up the “we’re conservative” schtick again before throwing legit conservatives under the bus at the earliest convenience. Cut these weasels off.
“Read about the signers of the Declaration of Independence and what it cost them and their families.”
There was a great deal more at stake for the signers of the Declaration.
I’m just pointing out that you need state-wide caliber candidates for state wide races. That means polished, skilled politicians who don’t stick their foot in their mouth about rape. What can win a house district is rarely good enough to win a statewide Senate race - for that you generally need significantly better candidates (especially as a Republican).
Guys like Akin and Mourdock not only cost us 2 Senate seats, their dumb comments hurt Republicans across the board by feeding into the left’s narrative that Republicans don’t understand women’s issues.
Not only is her voice NOT a problem (except to RINOs and socialists), but I’m more interested in SUBSTANCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why did she quit?
She’s done more for the conservative cause than any 10 RINOs.
The exception is Harding, who beat the governor of his own state of Ohio in 1920. But then, in 1920 a dogcatcher running as a Republican would have defeated any Democrat after the aftermath of the Wilson Administration and the bitter aftermath of WWI.As to “current VPs,” a VP is not an executive position but the political heir of the president. Consequently the election of a sitting VP is essentially a third election victory for the sitting POTUS - and you will see a lot of prestige attached to that sitting president - examples are Washington (distorted by the fact that the 12th Amendment wasn’t in place when John Adams became the first VP), Andrew Jackson, and Ronald Reagan. You could sorta throw FDR in there, in that he explicitly won a third term in his own name.
Consequently the VP slot isn’t really a great launching point for a run for the presidency, if you don’t actually inherit the office. Nixon, of course, won the presidency in ’68 after leaving the VP office in ’61. Not sure how many other no-sitting VPs won election to the presidency. Note that Nixon defeated a sitting VP in ’68 . . .
She quit her job as governor to protect her family from financial and emotion ruin brought on by the media. On rare occasions, a politician will put their family first.
Sarah chose her family over her elected position.
That may be wrong in your world, but not mine. I love my family more than any elected position I could ever hold.
Does your family know you hold them in such little regard? Just asking...
“Reince” Prebus should RESIGN and nominate her as his replacement
THEN SHE SHOULD MOBILIZE THE GOP TO PROVE HOW OBAMA STOLE THE ELECTION WITH VOTE FRAUD
(What do they do between elections anyway? Pat themselves on the back for their LATEST FAILURE?)
She quit her job as governor to protect her family from financial and emotional ruin which the media gleefully brought on her. On rare occasions, a politician will put their family first. I see no reason to condemn her for that.
Serious question: Who will be leading the charge to start a Conservative Party? I will certainly be on board. I will never identify myself with the Republican Party ever again. Ever!
Many men have given up everything rather then give in to blackmail and intimation.
She acted as a woman would, putting her family first, a man would have never yielded.
I could never see Reagan being run out of office!
The principal was the same, not giving in to intimation and threats.
She QUIT her job to keep her family from going broke and to protect them.
That’s all well and good, but I don’t think the article is even suggesting we run her for President. This is more about, hey, the woman has some good ideas, maybe we should listen to her instead of treating her as a non-person in the GOP.
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.