Have the Republicans figured out why they lost yet?

[KingOrfeo]

Look, Pubs, I'll give the game away. This is why you lost in November 2012 -- it comes down to two reasons, which will continue to apply whether the economy gets better or worse:

1. The GOP has become a lot more RW than it used to be. Not conservative, but RW, which is much more radical and less cautionary. E.g., no conservative would ever shout "End The Fed!" or "Drown it in a bathtub!" or "Molon Labe!" There was a time when both major parties had their liberal and conservative wings, but that changed with the general party-realignment of the 1960s and '70s, which was coincident with movement "conservatism" falsely-so-called taking over the GOP. That takeover is now all but complete; liberal "Rockefeller Republicans" are a thing of the past, and moderate-conservative "Main Street Republicans" are struggling with RWs for the soul of the party and not struggling very hard. The GOP still has internal divisions -- in fact, they appear to be growing worse -- but, apart from the Main Street/RW divide, the divisions are now between different flavors of RWs -- bizcons and neocons and paleocons and theocons and libertarians agree on some points, but their fundamental world-views are all very different. Nevertheless, all would agree in dismissing Reagan or Goldwater as RINOs if they were running for office today.

2. Becoming more RW has increased your zeal but decreased your appeal. You have a very zealous, turnoutable base now, or perhaps a better word would be desperate -- as desperate as the 19th Century Plains Indians who danced the "Ghost Dance" in the hope it would make everything again as it was before the palefaces came. But, all politically interested people run the risk of misjudging their own political viewpoint to be much more popular than it is, because they tend to hang out with like-minded people. "How could X have won?! Nobody I know voted for him!" In fact, the American people are not nearly as RW or even as conservative as they would need to be for a majority of them to support your party in its present formation. See the Pew Political Typology 2011. "Staunch Conservatives" make up only 9% of the general population, "Main Street Republicans" 11%. Add in all of the "Libertarians" and the "Disaffecteds" and you're still only up to 40% -- and you have almost no appeal to anybody else but those groups.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Sure. The GOP offers voters Democrat Lite.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

No...

 

[KingOrfeo]

Sure. The GOP offers voters Democrat Lite.

No, the Dems offer GOP-Lite; the Pubs offer the hard stuff. The hard stuff will kill you.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Squibbs]

^^^Looks like it's bedtime for Bozo

 

[KingOrfeo]

Total bull, it was twice as conservative when it nominated and elected Ronaldus Magnus.

Only if by "twice" you mean "half."

Reagan Would Fail "Purity Test" Proposed for GOP

John Nichols on November 24, 2009 - 2:19 PM ET

The most rigidly conservatives members of the Republican National Committee are circulating a proposal to establish a purity test for the party's candidates.

If adopted, the party would withhold money from any contender who disagreed with conservative principles on more than two of 10 essential issues identified by the right-wingers.

"The problem is that conservatives have lost trust in the Republican Party that we will govern as conservatives," argues James Bopp Jr., an RNC member from Indiana who has spearheaded the purity-test push. "I think that loss of trust is warranted to a certain extent because of the fact that we in the final several years of the Bush administration were supporting increased government, earmarks and, ultimately, bailouts."

Earlier this year, Bopp and his compatriots pressured RNC chair Michael Steele to declare President Obama to be a "socialist." The conservative crusaders were rebuffed then, but if they win approval for their purity test at the committee's winter meeting in January, the party will officially express: "Republican solidarity in opposition to Obama's socialist agenda is necessary to preserve the security of our country, our economic and political freedoms, and our way of life."

With Orwellian irony, Bopp and his buddies have labeled their proposal: "Reagan's Unity Principle for Support of Candidates."The relevant portion of the resolution reads:

WHEREAS, the Republican National Committee shares President Ronald Reagan's belief that the Republican Party should espouse conservative principles and public policies and welcome persons of diverse views; and


WHEREAS, the Republican National Committee desires to implement President Reagan's Unity Principle for Support of Candidates; and

WHEREAS, in addition to supporting candidates, the Republican National Committee provides financial support for Republican state and local parties for party building and federal election activities, which benefits all candidates and is not affected by this resolution; and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee identifies ten (10) key public policy positions for the 2010 election cycle, which the Republican National Committee expects its public officials and candidates to support:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill;

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

(4) We support workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing, denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership; and be further

RESOLVED, that a candidate who disagrees with three or more of the above stated public policy positions of the Republican National Committee, as identified by the voting record, public statements and/or signed questionnaire of the candidate, shall not be eligible for financial support and endorsement by the Republican National Committee; and be further

RESOLVED, that upon the approval of this resolution the Republican National Committee shall deliver a copy of this resolution to each of Republican members of Congress, all Republican candidates for Congress, as they become known, and to each Republican state and territorial party office.

Fair enough.

So here's a question: Applying the standard established in the resolution – review of the candidate's official record, public statements and answers to questions – would Ronald Reagan pass the purity test?

Let's see:

(1) Deficit spending soared during Reagan's presidency. Strike one.

(2) As governor of California, Reagan oversaw the development of Medi-Cal, the nation's largest Medicaid program – expanding it to cover long-term care and developed massive new managed care systems. Strike two.

(3) As governor of California, Reagan Reagan established the Air Resources Board to battle California's smog problems and supported aggressive government intervention where the market had failed to protect the environment. As president, Reagan signed more wilderness protections laws – which restrict private-sector exploitation of natural resources – than any president in history. Strike three.

(4) Reagan was a former union president who campaigned against the Taft-Hartley Act and other restrictions of the right of unions to organize. Strike four.

5) Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which granted amnesty to most undocumented workers who could prove they had been in the country continuously for the previous five years. After he finished his presidency, Reagan continues to speak out forcefully for immigration rights. Strike five.

(6) After the 1983 bombing of a Marine barracks in Beirut, Reagan was urged by some to surge more troops into the region. Instead, he ordered the Marines to begin withdrawal from Lebanon. Strike six.

(7) Reagan acknowledged that during his presidency the U.S. sold weapons to Iran. Strike seven.

(8) Reagan was the first president to invite an openly gay couple to spend the night in the White House and he famously argued that gays and lesbians should not be discriminated against in a 1978 television advertising campaign. Strike eight.

(9) Shortly after his inauguration as governor of California, Reagan signed into law the most liberal abortion statute of its day". Strike nine.

(10) Here's Reagan, in 1991, on gun control: "I support the Brady Bill, and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay." Strike ten.

Of course it is true that Reagan, like John Kerry, was for some ideas before he was against them.

Reasonable people might debate the proper point at which to try and pin Reagan down.

But no reasonable person can suggest that Ronald Reagan would have met the eight out ten test the RNC right-wingers seek to apply – especially on hot-button issues such as gun control, gay rights and immigration

Indeed, one of the favorites of the RNC's extreme conservatives, Florida U.S. Senate candidate Marco Rubio, recently declared that Reagan was wrong to support amnesty for undocumented immigrants.

And it is probably worth noting that, when Reagan was seeking the Republican nomination in 1980, conservatives Phil Crane and John Connolly suggested that "the Gipper" was an amiable fellow but just not pure enough. Crane positioned himself that year as as a pure conservative alternative to Reagan.

Crane, the purist, won 1.8 percent of the vote in the New Hampshire Republican primary and exited stage right.

 

[jeninflorida]

because obummer told people that welfare is cool

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Its helpful to recall that many Democrats fled to the GOP after Carter's term; none wanted to be associated with Mister Pussy. And theyre reverting to their real loyalties today.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Its helpful to recall that many Democrats fled to the GOP after Carter's term; none wanted to be associated with Mister Pussy. And theyre reverting to their real loyalties today.

It's helpful to recall that many Democrats -- white Southern and Western conservatives/racists -- fled to the GOP before and during Carter's term, stayed there, and are now the party's most reliable base. Unless and until they exit and go third-party, as vetteman is constantly demanding -- and not because he wants to be rid of them, but because he wants to go with them.

 

[jeninflorida]

Its helpful to recall that many Democrats fled to the GOP after Carter's term; none wanted to be associated with Mister Pussy. And theyre reverting to their real loyalties today.

and just about All American's know obama is a pile of shit. okay, 75% of American's. the 25% are those like Merc, SeanR and his lover SeanH. oh can't forget about Sargent pepper wanna be

 

[Dazzle1]

Look, Pubs, I'll give the game away. This is why you lost in November 2012 -- it comes down to two reasons, which will continue to apply whether the economy gets better or worse:

1. The GOP has become a lot more RW than it used to be. Not conservative, but RW, which is much more radical and less cautionary. E.g., no conservative would ever shout "End The Fed!" or "Drown it in a bathtub!" or "Molon Labe!" There was a time when both major parties had their liberal and conservative wings, but that changed with the general party-realignment of the 1960s and '70s, which was coincident with movement "conservatism" falsely-so-called taking over the GOP. That takeover is now all but complete; liberal "Rockefeller Republicans" are a thing of the past, and moderate-conservative "Main Street Republicans" are struggling with RWs for the soul of the party and not struggling very hard. The GOP still has internal divisions -- in fact, they appear to be growing worse -- but, apart from the Main Street/RW divide, the divisions are now between different flavors of RWs -- bizcons and neocons and paleocons and theocons and libertarians agree on some points, but their fundamental world-views are all very different. Nevertheless, all would agree in dismissing Reagan or Goldwater as RINOs if they were running for office today.

2. Becoming more RW has increased your zeal but decreased your appeal. You have a very zealous, turnoutable base now, or perhaps a better word would be desperate -- as desperate as the 19th Century Plains Indians who danced the "Ghost Dance" in the hope it would make everything again as it was before the palefaces came. But, all politically interested people run the risk of misjudging their own political viewpoint to be much more popular than it is, because they tend to hang out with like-minded people. "How could X have won?! Nobody I know voted for him!" In fact, the American people are not nearly as RW or even as conservative as they would need to be for a majority of them to support your party in its present formation. See the Pew Political Typology 2011. "Staunch Conservatives" make up only 9% of the general population, "Main Street Republicans" 11%. Add in all of the "Libertarians" and the "Disaffecteds" and you're still only up to 40% -- and you have almost no appeal to anybody else but those groups.

How about the dumbing down of the voter including people who think the Republican party has become more RW

 

[cj200267]

Look, Pubs, I'll give the game away. This is why you lost in November 2012 -- it comes down to two reasons, which will continue to apply whether the economy gets better or worse:

1. The GOP has become a lot more RW than it used to be. Not conservative, but RW, which is much more radical and less cautionary. E.g., no conservative would ever shout "End The Fed!" or "Drown it in a bathtub!" or "Molon Labe!" There was a time when both major parties had their liberal and conservative wings, but that changed with the general party-realignment of the 1960s and '70s, which was coincident with movement "conservatism" falsely-so-called taking over the GOP. That takeover is now all but complete; liberal "Rockefeller Republicans" are a thing of the past, and moderate-conservative "Main Street Republicans" are struggling with RWs for the soul of the party and not struggling very hard. The GOP still has internal divisions -- in fact, they appear to be growing worse -- but, apart from the Main Street/RW divide, the divisions are now between different flavors of RWs -- bizcons and neocons and paleocons and theocons and libertarians agree on some points, but their fundamental world-views are all very different. Nevertheless, all would agree in dismissing Reagan or Goldwater as RINOs if they were running for office today.

2. Becoming more RW has increased your zeal but decreased your appeal. You have a very zealous, turnoutable base now, or perhaps a better word would be desperate -- as desperate as the 19th Century Plains Indians who danced the "Ghost Dance" in the hope it would make everything again as it was before the palefaces came. But, all politically interested people run the risk of misjudging their own political viewpoint to be much more popular than it is, because they tend to hang out with like-minded people. "How could X have won?! Nobody I know voted for him!" In fact, the American people are not nearly as RW or even as conservative as they would need to be for a majority of them to support your party in its present formation. See the Pew Political Typology 2011. "Staunch Conservatives" make up only 9% of the general population, "Main Street Republicans" 11%. Add in all of the "Libertarians" and the "Disaffecteds" and you're still only up to 40% -- and you have almost no appeal to anybody else but those groups.

I thought it was because they don't offer to give away free stuff and advocate personal responsibility?

 

[Sean Renaud]

I thought it was because they don't offer to give away free stuff and advocate personal responsibility?

You'd be wrong.

Besides if they want to win they might wan to think about giving away free stuff and starting to preach that we're in this together because we are.

 

[cj200267]

You'd be wrong.

Besides if they want to win they might wan to think about giving away free stuff and starting to preach that we're in this together because we are.

You can't be suggesting that the democrats are taking the "we're all in this together" approach, are you?

 

[Sean Renaud]

You can't be suggesting that the democrats are taking the "we're all in this together" approach, are you?

Yes. That's what they have done quite successfully.

 

[sethp]

No...the republicans haven't figured it out yet. They are still alienating Latin American voters, and women, and environmentalists, and homosexuals, and Californians and those who want privacy and don't want the NSA sticking their noses up our asses. They are still blaming Obama for everything. Their only hope next election is that people have Obama and by proxy, Clinton fatigue and that the Republicans don't get a bunch of Right wing , bible thumping corporate whores to run next time. Just saying. I think Christie could win. He's conservative without being right wing. People like that.

 

[cj200267]

Yes. That's what they have done quite successfully.

Yeah, like when Biden tells the audience at the NAACP that the republicans will put them back in chains. Or like when the other politician said Nikki Haley should go back to wherever she came from. Yeah, the democrats are such a fun-loving, we're all in this together, group of people.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Yeah, like when Biden tells the audience at the NAACP that the republicans will put them back in chains. Or like when the other politician said Nikki Haley should go back to wherever she came from. Yeah, the democrats are such a fun-loving, we're all in this together, group of people.

Yeah, I loved it when the Democrats held a weekend conference on how to maximize their (dwindling) appeal to minorities and women on a former slave plantation. That was gold, Jerry!

 

[Sean Renaud]

No...the republicans haven't figured it out yet. They are still alienating Latin American voters, and women, and environmentalists, and homosexuals, and Californians and those who want privacy and don't want the NSA sticking their noses up our asses. They are still blaming Obama for everything. Their only hope next election is that people have Obama and by proxy, Clinton fatigue and that the Republicans don't get a bunch of Right wing , bible thumping corporate whores to run next time. Just saying. I think Christie could win. He's conservative without being right wing. People like that.

I don't think Christie can get through his own party. He'd be a contender if he could but I don't think he can.

Yeah, like when Biden tells the audience at the NAACP that the republicans will put them back in chains. Or like when the other politician said Nikki Haley should go back to wherever she came from. Yeah, the democrats are such a fun-loving, we're all in this together, group of people.

Yup. That doesn't change the Dems being a fun loving, we're all in this together group of people. Pointing out that the Republicans right now are a hair shy of cartoon evil doesn't change that fact.

 

[unregistered]

 

[LadyVer]

Yeah, I loved it when the Democrats held a weekend conference on how to maximize their (dwindling) appeal to minorities and women on a former slave plantation. That was gold, Jerry!

Good one. 2016: Clinton/Davis ticket

 

[jeninflorida]

No...the republicans haven't figured it out yet. They are still alienating Latin American voters, and women, and environmentalists, and homosexuals, and Californians and those who want privacy and don't want the NSA sticking their noses up our asses. They are still blaming Obama for everything. Their only hope next election is that people have Obama and by proxy, Clinton fatigue and that the Republicans don't get a bunch of Right wing , bible thumping corporate whores to run next time. Just saying. I think Christie could win. He's conservative without being right wing. People like that.

yes, because we must REWARD people that break the law


got it!


gotta love the welfare class like you buddy sad, you are so sad pathetic loser

 

[jeninflorida]

remember, the problem with you dumbasses and your ignorant dream about the obama Amerikka.....


well, you always run out of workers.

just look at how many fools in here Chose NOT to work? why is that SeanR, Merc, Sargent pepper?

we know why seanH doesn't work, he's a junkie loser. thank god he's in the UK as that little bitch boy wouldn't last long in America

 

[KingOrfeo]

Good one. 2016: Clinton/Davis ticket

Whoa! One step at a time! You're still looking at the ultimate glass ceiling -- you can't break it with a penis-free ticket!