53 posts tagged “republicans”

This is exactly what I am talking about with regard to the Republican leadership.  And the finger pointing has begun.  Too bad he is not looking in the mirror.

"McCain, who is proponent of campaign finance reform that weakened party organizations and basically put George Soros in the driver's seat," DeMint said. "His proposal for amnesty for illegals. His support of global warming, cap-and-trade programs that will put another burden on our economy. And of course, his embrace of the bailout right before the election was probably the nail in our coffin this last election. And he has been an opponent of drilling in ANWR, at a time when energy is so important. It really didn't fit the label, but he was our package."

Bush and Stevens, he said, had corrupted the party brand by expanding the size of government and engaging in wasteful government spending. Had Republicans not strayed from their core beliefs in recent years, DeMint argued, the election results might have been different.

"Americans do prefer a traditional conservative government," he said. "They just did not believe Republicans were going to give it to them."

While I share a few points with DeMint (campaign finance, immigration), a majority of them I do not.  And that is the problem with the Republicans.  They think they need to go back to the right to get those independents that essentially voted for a liberal ticket in Obama.  When in reality they fail to see that the nation is moving to the center -- away from the right.

"Americans do prefer a traditional conservative government."  Yet Obama and Biden (and the bigger Congressional majority) are the ones who are going to give it to them?  Come on...  Wake up...

This is why the Republicans are not going to recapture any majorities or the White House any time soon.  Until they realize that there best shot this go around was McCain -- who in my mind was the closest Republican candidate to the center and again I will remind DeMint who the party chose for the ticket over a more traditional conservative in Romney (who conincidently DeMint endorsed).  Romney would have lost just as bad, if not worse than McCain...

Bottom line:  Fresh blood.  More centrist ideas on social issues.  Core conservatism on economic issues.  That is where the party needs to go.

People want reasonable politicians.  But hey if you think that banning openly gay individuals and single mothers from teaching in public schools is reasonable, then by all means listen to DeMint.  Because he knows what the problem is with the Republicans.

Kyle-Anne Shiver talks about how Palin gave McCain a chance during this past election.

When Rasmussen conducted detailed exit polling among Republicans, they found that a full 69% of respondents thought Sarah Palin helped — not hurt — McCain. Governor Palin has not garnered the status as America’s most highly regarded, most popular governor for nothing.

She goes on to talk about Palin being a "natural Patton" because of her fighting nature.

My support for Palin in the beginning, from what little I knew about her, was rooted in seeing new blood and a person who took on corruption within the GOP.  And I thought that fit with McCain's maverick style.  I liked McCain because he wasn't your typical Republican and I thought maybe Republicans, by the very fact they nominated him, realized the political shift that had to happen for the right.

According to Rasmussen, as Kyle-Anne points out, about 2/3 of GOP voters thought Palin helped.  And it looks like that Palin, as of present, looks to have the hearts of Republicans:

When asked to choose among some of the GOP’s top names for their choice for the party’s 2012 presidential nominee, 64% say Palin. The next closest contenders are two former governors and unsuccessful challengers for the presidential nomination this year -- Mike Huckabee of Arkansas with 12% support and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts with 11%.

But in the end this is all moot in my opinion.  So what if Republicans like Palin -- what only matters is if independents liked her.  And what this election has showed is that independents didn't agree that Palin was right for the country.

So for 2012 -- if Palin wants to go for it -- fine.  But 2012 is going to be a sacrificial lamb in my opinion because Obama is going to win.  I just don't see those who voted for him this round going for Palin in four years when that option was essentially there this round.  Plus, I don't see Obama having any major goofs.

In the end, though, I think Palin had her shot and that is that.  But I hope that the Republicans continue to strive to find candidates that are favorable to younger voters and that are more center in their views.  And I say this because I agree with the premise of this article from the American Prospect:

The scope of Barack Obama's sweeping victory hasn't yet registered in much of the media. Conservatives and Republicans have responded to defeat with one constant refrain: they can take solace in the fact that America is a "center right" nation. That reality means defeat is only temporary, its causes largely transitory. The losses this time are attributed to Bush's many failures, from Iraq to the economy (the explanation varies from faction to faction).

But election 2008 was not simply a testament to the remarkable candidacy of Barack Obama, nor a product of Bush's catastrophic presidency. Rather, the results suggest that this may not simply be a change election but a sea-change election. An extended election-night survey undertaken by Democracy Corps and the Campaign for America's Future suggests that we may be witness to the emergence of a new progressive majority, that contrary to conservatives' claims, America is now a center-left nation.

If the Republicans want to stick their heads in the sand and ignore this election, they do it at their own peril.  This country is evolving and the politics are moving center, not right.  But I hope there enough people out there that have to understand that taxing more and spending more are not the answer.  And this economic crisis is not helped by the level of government debt we currently have...

And that is what the Republicans have to do -- shed the religious right agenda and push more of the common sense economic ideas.  Which means tax less and SPEND less.  They need to become the Republicans of old who fought for liberty and privacy.  Smaller government.  Not Big Brother.  Become more libertarian -- not authoritarian.

But the reality is that the Republicans can't shed the religious right agenda.  And Generation Y will have more numbers next time and it has been shown the politics of that generation are not conservative.

It is simple evolution for the Republicans.  Adapt or become extinct.  Oh wait, they don't believe in evolution...

Much is said of the Democratic Kool-Aid.  Well, I would like to coin the term:  Republican Bug Juice.  And for those non-military types in the audience, bug juice is a timeless reference to the fruit punch served to sailors.

The talk on the right is about regrouping following the election and focusing on taking back Congress and the White House in 2010 and 2012. 

Well, drink up Republicans.  Because it ain't happening.  This isn't a light switch you can flip with the electorate and magically win back 30+ seats in the House, 10+ seats in the Senate, or 1600 Penn Ave.  The Bush years will remain in the collective conscience for some time and frankly I just don't see Obama making big mistakes in office that will outrage America.

So Obama is here to stay and I predict 8 years.  The media will try to make this Camelot and guess what -- America will agree.  Why will they agree?  Because they are hungry for it.

And for those in the middle that sided with McCain this past election, I can see them coming over to the Obama camp next election if he proves he can lead and that he has what it takes.  So 7 million this round.  Try more next time...

So break out the stale fruit punch.  Because the Republicans are going to need it to water their new grassroots movement.

But the Republicans will learn that there are no quick fixes here and small gains will have to suffice as the big victory in the years to come.

Are we being attracted to the rocks?  Is there a shipwreck ahead?  I don't know.

I have always thought that for McCain to win he had to gamble.  The allure of Palin is striking.  Her buck the establishment mentality and her gender made me think she could win over independents.

Now that more information is coming out (her answers in interviews, etc.), does this mean I will taking a harder look?  Yeah.  I think it does.  Does it mean I will not vote for McCain.  Not necessarily.  Foremost I am voting for President and I still think McCain is the best man for the job.

Had to chuckle on this one.

This morning, Republicans tell me that a worker at Invesco Field in Denver saved thousands of unused flags from the Democratic National Convention that were headed for the garbage. Guerrilla campaigning. They will use these flags at their own event today in Colorado Springs with John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Ouch.  Don't you know that flags mean more planted in lawns then in landfills?  <wink>

While the Democrats continue to battle it out for the nomination, the Republicans have all but put their eggs in McCain's basket -- even to the chagrin of some conservatives.

Going out on a limb.  But McCain has a shot at beating Obama.  In fact it is more than a shot.

It will be interesting who he will pick to be his running mate.  I have for one always thought that Sarah Palin would be a running mate that conservatives and independents would be interested in seeing on a national ticket.  And for the same reasons that people are attracted to Obama.

Looking at Obama, people want "fresh blood" and are tired of the Clinton and Bush dynasties.  This is fine.  But personally, I think Obama is the not the right person.  He may show the world that there is hope and a new future.  Show me a politician that hasn't said those things.  His manner and style are what is attracting people, but in the way of substance -- I am sorry -- it is still the same left liberal talk that will push this country even farther toward big government.

McCain gets a bad rap for being angry.  For getting spirited.  To me I see a silver lining.  People get fired up for their beliefs in politics.  I want to see somebody take on Congress (one that has the lowest approval ratings in history).  Congress isn't doing what the American people want them to do.  McCain understands the system and he is willing to take on the system.  His rhetoric of taking on pork barrel spending is the message that he is going to take on Washington's dirty little secret.

But dox^2, were supposed to work together to make the country a better place!  Yeah.  Tell that to Bush.  He rode into Washington on that "I will reach across the aisle" horse.  Too bad Washington politics doesn't have a stable for those sorts of steeds.

Obama seems to spout the same rhetoric -- of bipartisanship, of compromise.  I say it is all a myth.  For today's Democrats and Republicans, politics doesn't end at the water's edge -- and it doesn't end 20,000 leagues under the sea.  Politicians will say what you want to hear.  And that doesn't necessarily translate when in office.  I want to hear a candidate tell me like it is -- that is why I like McCain.

And that is why I also like Palin.  She is a rising star in the Republican party and most people haven't heard of her.  She isn't a Clinton.  She isn't a Bush.  She has taken on *Republican* corruption in her state of Alaska.  She is a governor.  She can be the ace in the hole for the Republican party if she is on the ticket as a VP with McCain.

McCain and Palin both have *records* of taking on the system and I think that will translate well to the masses.  And I don't think Obama's message that he is going to bring a new hope/credibility to Washington has to only be a Democratic message -- I think it can be a Republican message as well.  If this election is going to be won/lost with the independents, the Republicans better start showing that their nominees will not be like Bush.

To me having McCain on the ticket is a start, but his VP candidate could buoy/sink his national hopes.  People like Obama because before he went to the Senate he was a relative newcomer to national politics and people like that.  I think it is time the Republicans called up somebody from the minors to become a big league MVP.

And that home run pinch hitter is Sarah Palin.

Talk radio doesn't like McCain and the fact that conservatives vote for him is a slap to their faces.  But why are Republicans voting for McCain if he is so evil and so far from conservative issues?  Are they not listening to the radio pundits?

They say that the Romney is the candidate that closely resembles Reagan out of the whole bunch.  Oh, really?

That is what was said of Bush when he ran in 2000.  And honestly, I think enough of the base doesn't want another Bush.  And Romney out of the bunch, to me, most resembles Bush.  That is what hurts him in my opinion.

They say that senators make lousy Presidents and governors have better management skills.  Oh, really?

Need I remind you that Bill Clinton and George Bush were governors.  But Kennedy was a senator.  Lincoln was a senator.  This one size fits all deal is such nonsense.

These molds that talk radio tries to put these candidates into is just bull crap.  There are lousy governors and there are good senators.  There are good governors and there are crappy senators.  I won't use that as a prerequisite.  And the way McCain is winning these states, I don't think the masses agree either.

Bush, a former governor, has done more to screw up a bunch of issues, including the management of the war in Iraq to make me think that overall governors don't necessarily make good presidents.  And don't get me started on Bill Clinton.

So what of McCain?

I think what most rings with the base with regards to McCain is his push about curbing spending and earmarks.  I mean Bush never saw a spending bill he didn't like.  The Republicans have turned into Democrats over the last twenty years or so...  And not to sound retarded -- I think the straight talk that McCain tries to personify resonates with voters who have had enough with the smirky smiles of politicians and political rhetoric.  And I am sorry -- but Romney has that smirky politician smile.

And if the case is being made now that McCain and even Giuliani (who may be looking for a VP nod) are liberal Republicans and that the party is making a shift away from "true" conservatism...  I make the case that shift has been taking place *since* Reagan.  This shift is not a recent event...

Now, overall, I don't think Romney is a bad guy -- I would be happy to vote for him if he was the nominee.  But I do think he would govern just like Bush.

So as I have always been a Rudy guy -- I am going to back McCain. 

I think McCain has the best shot competing with Clinton or Obama.  And a McCain-Giuliani ticket is a dream ticket in my opinion.   And just because they may have some liberal beliefs on issues doesn't mean the bottom of the conservative bucket is going to fall out.  I for one would rather see McCain than Clinton and if McCain can match up -- trust me -- the sky is not going to fall.

And one last thing.  Romney is running on this I will change Washington because I am an outsider rhetoric.  Yeah, well, Bush ran on that too and I didn't see him unite Jack with sh*t.  Bush ran on this I am an outsider and I united the Texas legislator (Republicans and Democrats) and I can do it in Washington.  Well, just because Romney touts his successes in Massachusetts doesn't mean he will be successful in Washington.  In my mind, Romney is a Bush clone in a lot of ways and I don't see him changing anything in Washington.  Romney just seems like too much of nice guy.

Same old promise and it would be the same old outcome.

I would rather have a feisty older senator taking on Congress than a nice guy.  And we had a wimpy guy taking on the Democrats for 8 years.

Some may say that McCain is too close to the Democrats and that he would be agreeing with them on some issues.  This may be true on a few issues.  But overall, when Republicans have just as much earmark spending as the Democrats -- I think McCain will do more to reduce the size of government than any of the other *electable* candidates.

Michael Barone has an interesting post regarding the surge in Republican party identification:

Republicans were running just under parity from January 2004 to January 2006. Democrats jumped to a 4-point lead in July 2006 and maintained it or ramped it up as high as 7 points from July 2006 to November 2007. Then we're back to near-parity in December 2007.

Yes, it's just one month. It may not be sustained. Indeed, the dynamics of the presidential campaign could change these numbers a lot. But party identification ordinarily doesn't change very much, so small changes are different. Rasmussen's numbers in retrospect forecast the Republican defeat in November 2006.

He observes, "It is startling to note that the Democrats have lost two thirds of the partisan advantage since taking control of Congress." Could this be some kind of turnaround?

Who knows how this is going to play out?  We could be back to where we were in terms of party identification and the 50/50 split we saw in the 2000 election. 

It is kind of like the prediction of a big football game right now.  There is analysis of offense, defense, special teams, and intangibles.

Right now, it is the intangibles that are creating such a mess with the prediction of what is going to happen.  Who cares how Congress has disappointed the masses?  You have this wave of emotion surrounding Obama.  And this election is going to be won by how the independents vote.

As of yet, I just don't see that emotion on the Republican side. 

Intangible advantage:  Democrats.  But I am looking for some right of center Beamerball... it can be a game changer!

The Iraq turnaround can only help the candidates who stood firm in not abandoning the Iraqis.  So watching the Democrats trying to walk the line on this will be so interesting.

As violence declines in Baghdad, the leading Democratic presidential candidates are undertaking a new and challenging balancing act on Iraq: acknowledging that success, trying to shift the focus to the lack of political progress there, and highlighting more domestic concerns like health care and the economy.

In reality though, I think that this balancing act will be obvious and will hurt the Democrats in the 2008 election.  Their foreign policy decisions of cut and run will be something they will have to constantly defend if Republicans can successfully use it to their advantage.

An Iraq that is slowly becoming less violent and a more prosperous ally in the Middle East is probably the biggest enemy to the Democratic presidential nominee as well as liberal Democrats in Congress up for reelection.

This just goes to show you that even though Republicans tout themselves as an inclusive party, for some of those on the religious right it is just too much to fathom a pro-choice candidate.

A powerful group of conservative Christian leaders decided Saturday at a private meeting in Salt Lake City to consider supporting a third-party candidate for president if a pro-choice nominee like Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination.

[...]

Dobson, who is one of the nation's most outspoken Christian leaders, has previously announced that he does not support Giuliani, Arizona Sen. John McCain or former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson as nominees for the Republican Party.

So by my calculations -- only Romney (Huckabee is a longshot for the nomination) would have their support.  And he used to be pro-choice!

Splitting the conservative vote with a third party candidate will only ensure that Clinton will get into office and last time I checked... she wasn't anti-abortion.  Remember 1992 and that Ross Perot thing?  That is how the last Clinton got into office.

The President has nothing to do with abortion other than who they nominate for the Supreme Court.  And the last time I checked the way the Senate is locked up (basically) 50/50 with a 60 vote filibuster -- the odds of an anti-abortion judge getting onto the court is nil.  Repeat nil.  Thus, the current law of the land will stand.  Sorry...  But a non-vote for the Republican will be a vote for Clinton and she will surely send a pro-choice nominee to the Hill.

There are greater fishes to fry right now in the world.  Iraq and the war on terrorism are the number one issue on the table and if we let those issues go to hell in a hand basket because you don't want a pro-choice judge to get nominated to the Supreme Court...  well then... No wonder I am an atheist. 

This logic astounds me...  Just look at the reality of the situation...