Home › Blogs › Rev. John's blog ›

The Future of the GOP?

Submitted by Rev. John on Wed, 11/12/2008 - 20:27

"If we're going to be the majority, we're going to have to see we need to grow the party. We cannot compete in the Northeast, the West; we're losing seats in the Great Lakes region. We have a large deficit with women, Hispanics, African Americans -- people with modest financial circumstances. That is not a formula for a majority." - Gov. Tim Pawlenty

In light of the latest Fred Thompson rumors, and how he may be considering running for RNC Chair, there seems to be three schools of though as to what's more important for the future of the Republican party: a return to traditional conservatism, an expansion of the party’s base, or an infusion of new policy ideas. If you're like me and think expanding the base is the most important, I want you to read the above quote and join me in an excercise.

Below, you'll find four pictures of four leaders in the Republican Party. Tell me which one says "expand the base" the least...

A. B.
C. D.

 

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Great Point

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Wed, 11/12/2008 - 21:26.

A rich old white man, a black man, a white woman and an Indian man. Brilliant. Plus, Jindal is 38 years old and Palin is 44.

 I'll join your exercise. I see a difference between "party leader" and "party candidate".

Right now, I would like to see Newt as party leader and Jindal, Palin, and Steele as potential candidates. All of them would expand the base.

I would love to know more about Jindal. He was extremely impressive during hurricane Ike, with knowledge of the smallest details and priorities. The differences between him and Kathleen Blanco were so apparent.

Great post. The Dems get so much credit for being the party of diversity, while our party lives it.

 

Comments that kill credibility...

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Wed, 11/12/2008 - 21:48.

See Lonestar, your post was fine until that last comment. IIRC, the Democratic party also has a rather famous black person in it, and has already had a female run for VP. And while I don't know of any political hotshots of Indian heritage in the Democratic party, Bill Richardson is a high-up Latino.

I don't have the records for 'diversity of political parties' at my fingertips, but to imply that the Democratic party is not diverse is just silly.

OK I'll Play

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Wed, 11/12/2008 - 22:35.

I said "the dems get credit for being the party of diversity". Please tell me if you disagree with that, because I havn't seen any major publications calling the GOP "the party of diversity".

I said the GOP lives it:

Colin Powell-First Black Secretary of State

Condoleeza Rice-First Black Female Secretary of State

Alberto Gonzalez-First Hispanic Attorney General.

Barack Obama-First press conference with twenty white "tranistion team membors and advisors" standing behind him. Thats right. Not one person of color.

Please tell me if you disagree with that.

If you have some facts  you  will have credibility. Tell me about all the black or hispanic top level cabinet members Clinton had.

Come on now

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Thu, 11/13/2008 - 07:04.

Do we have to play, "I have more colored friends on my side than yours!"

BOTH sides are diverse. Democrats are often seen as the party of the diverse more often because of who votes for them. Look at the exit poll data... usually women and african-americans go Democratic. If you have a wider diversity of people voting for your side, then it seems to follow naturally that the party will be seen as 'more diverse'.

The right way to change the idea of the diversity of the party would be to reach out to a wider base, I think. That would be a more effective way to diversify than to see increased minority leadership (though that certainly helps to some degree).

Edit: Additionally, I don't think I'd ever brag about Alberto Gonzalez.... lol

How do you explain?

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Thu, 11/13/2008 - 23:30.

McCain was a champion of the amnesty for illegal aliens, but got hammered by Hispanic voters? He certainly "reached out to a wider base". As in McCain -Kennedy. Facts are facts.

He did more to try to include Hispanics than Obama, but got no credit. Please educate me on why he lost support from those voters.

Its about winning not losing

Submitted by gizmosellspigons on Thu, 11/13/2008 - 02:47.

The new party chairmen or lady should concentrate in rebuilding the Western Brand of Conservatism that meant low taxes, good goverment,  protecting civil liberties.   The rebuilding of the Goldwater Wing would means comprises on Social policy, and being open minded immigrants.  Navisitsm, Rasicm, Intolerance is what rotted the Republican coalition. 

Bush was not bad president in terms of policy, but made very poor discisions on who to hire to run govermental departments.  As a result,  Republican party lost house seats and the public trust on good goverment.  The Republican party will need to adjust the platform period and McCain could of won if he picked a Guilani or Ridge because Obama weakness was experience. The selection of Sarah Palin cancel out the experience question since Obama picked Joe Biden,  You cant make everybody happy in the party base.  "Winning elections means, see things as they really are instead of how they should be? " Sometimes to move agenda foward you have to do little give and take.  Democrats Rahmail Emmanuel figure out how to win Republican seats by selecting candidates that can win if that meant pissing off progressive wing of the Democratis so be it.   The Republican gonna have to learn the same idea?  The goal push agenda forward sometimes compromises are needed.  

open borders means no conservative party

Submitted by superdestroyer on Thu, 11/13/2008 - 07:54.

The open borders and unlimited immigration politicies of the last twenty years is what is making conservative politics impossible in the U.S. Importing millions of poor people who will eventually be automatic voters for the Democratic Party has been suicide for the Republican party.  Poor immigrations want more government services, higher taxes on the middle class, poorer schools, higher crime, and lower standard of living. 

If you want the U.S. to be like Brazil, then keep importing millions of poor people. It only took two world wars, a depression, and forty years of closed borders to limit the problems of the last wave of unlimited immigration.  No one wants to do through that again.

Compromise on economic policy instead

Submitted by clam75 on Thu, 11/13/2008 - 05:16.

gizmosellspigons, compromise on social policy (i.e. abortion, embryonic stem cell research) means I quit voting GOP or knocking on doors or delivering yard  signs.  I have no problem compromising on economic policy to benefit working class voters in a manner argued by Ross Douthat in Grand New Party. In fact, I think that we need to follow Ross's formula to lock those working class voters into our voting coalition.

On immigration, we will need to create some sort of framework to legitimize the status of illegal aliens.  I would argue that it must include (a) securing the border, (b) high fines against employers who employ illegals, and (c) payment of back income taxes by illegals.  If such a framework can be set up, I think that it will be acceptable to the vast majority of our voting coalition.  This system--coupled with our conservative social policy--would allow us to once again make inroads with Hispanic voters.