"As Politico reported, there's growing concern among some GOP leaders that controversial commentators and far-right conservatives have hijacked the message. People like Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin appeal to the base – and you certainly need that base to win elections. But in an age when 42 percent of Americans call themselves Independents – you can't win with just the base, either." – Katie Couric, CBS News (link)
This is typical of the advice liberals like Katie Couric have for the Republican party. It always boils down to an appeal for Republicans to become more like…Democrats. You know, moderate (ha ha). Some fainthearted GOP leaders agree, fearing they will lose elections if they don't become Democrats in Repubican clothing, aka RINO's (Republicans In Name Only). Former Republican Arlen Specter (?-PA) is a perfect example of a Republican who wanted to become more like a Democrat to win an election, and Specter finally did complete his Democratic sex change operation, though it doesn't appear that Specter's political chameleon routine is working. Some voters actually can remember what happened prior to yesterday, and Specter is trailing in the polls. What a great loss it would be to cull a distinguished gentleman like Arlen Specter from the ranks of Congress. And by "great loss," I mean, good riddance (along with about 500 other Congressional denizens I'd like to kick to the curb).
Katie Couric and "some GOP leaders" are concerned that conservative commentators and far-right conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin have "hijacked the message."
Hijacked the message ? Hijacked what message ? The message that was rejected halfway through George W. Bush's second term ? The message that led to $4 trillion more in federal debt, the creation of the first new (unfunded) Medicare program in 40 years, two long term wars, massive increases in government spending in nearly every department, massive pork barrel spending, and corruption ? You mean, THAT message ?
Yes, God forbid that Sarah Palin would hijack that message. The problem of the Republicans isn't that their message might be hijacked by Palin, Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, or anyone else. The problem of the Republicans is that they hijacked the message themselves. They sold out their conservative principles on nearly every front, and used divisive social issues like gay marriage and abortion to gin up the base come election time (note – the GOP never really tries to reverse Roe v. Wade by proposing a Constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion, if you notice. They only use it as a wedge issue. Therefore, they must like the wedge issue being in place to be used as a political football).
The Republicans have their version of the divide and conquer strategy, just like the Democrats do. The Dems use class warfare, phony racism charges, etc.
My advice to the Republicans would be just the opposite of Katie Couric's. My advice would be to listen to those conservative commentators. Listen to those "far-right conservatives," and listen to those Tea Party protesters (who are independents, btw). My advice would be – return to the long abandoned ideas of limited government, low taxes, and individual liberty. Get the government out of everybody's personal business. Foster the free market to help small business, not to help the mega-corporations and the government destroy the market via their hegemonic dominance. Balance the budget and start paying down the debt, so America's future isn't being washed down the drain. Tell the American people the truth, for once. We've had enough of the lies and spin for political gain. Start implementing policies that benefit America and American workers, instead of policies that benefit foreign nations. That, in turn, will reduce the cancer of government dependency that the Democrats love to foster. Don't become more like Democrats. Become the ANSWER to the ennui of the Democrats fatal socialist policies.
The Republicans don't need to worry about their message being hijacked. They need to worry about formulating a message, because right now, it isn't being articulated, if it exists at all.
Alternately, the Republicans could just dissolve and make way for something new. I wouldn't mind that either. This country needs something new. The majority of this country disagrees with the Democrats on most issues, but the Republicans are a lousy alternative. The two parties are selling us down the river, and I don't see any healthy change coming from either of them. All I see is continual change for the worse, with the public relations figurehead Obama being but the latest example. The citizens are always faced with the same political Coke vs. Pepsi choice. What we aren't told is that both Coke and Pepsi are bad for you.
{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }
Yeah, being a Libertarian is kind of like being an Ale-8-1 or Cheerwine fan. Most people don't know what you're talking about when you mention it. I've registered as a Libertarian now, though my voting habits haven't changed. The truth of the matter is that politicians in general need to stop pandering to special interest groups in the name of being elected and really try to improve this country.
I'll use Obamanator as my example. He won 70% of the gay vote (pandering) but homosexuals are increasingly disappointed with his lack of action on the subject. http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-10-11/dont-ask-dont-tell-makes-america-unsafe/ He pandered one the illegal immigration thing, but has he taken any action on providing illegals a path to citizenship, as he promised? Nah, he keeps saying that's for later. Things haven't really changed on that front, as far as I can tell. http://www.racewire.org/archives/2009/03/immigrant_adovcates_want_actio.html
I'm not picking only on Obama. He's just an example that doesn't really require thought on my part. Check out Pelosi's victory speech in 2006 for more example of promises not kept. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385×4722 And I never saw a line item veto pushed into action, a guest worker program or any action on health care from former President G.W. Bush, lest anyone think I'm being overly partisan here.
Politicians today see politics as the game of saying the right thing to get elected, having the right message, but it's all just words. You never know what you're really getting until after the election, and then you have to deal with disappointment until you get the opportunity to have someone else disappoint you.
Am I mistaken…or are you arguing for the "Republicans need to be more conservative" movement?
If I'm not mistaken…..you are for even more radically conservative congressional representatives.
Republicans are down to one or two moderates in the Senate and maybe one in the House and you are calling for the elimination of those few…plus replacing already-conservative members with even more radically conservative people.
Am I mistaken? Did I understand you correctly?
It's time to hit the RNC where it hurts………..their piggy bank. Continuing down the road of coddling these so-called "moderates" has destroyed the party and left us with a "distinct" choice of hard-left or "not-so-left". The Reverends, MSM, and Democratic party continue to demonize those who carry the conservative flag because it benefits their interest. They continue with their rantings of how the GOP has gone too far right, but if that's the case…………..how is it possible for the McCains and GWB's to emerge as the leaders??? According to liberal standards, bipartisanship can only exist when the Snowes and Specters of America sell out their constituents to advance radical partisan agendas, but when a Lieberman or blue dog oppose the treachor of Pelosi and Reed………………the wolves eat their own.
If Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, and others are so irrelevant…………………..why are many trying like hell to silence them? Michael Steele spoke a big game in restructuring the GOP, but it appears that he will be content playing the game and placing an emphasis on merely filling a seat. If Hoffman can pull off a win in NY 23rd, this will become the biggest headache Michael Steele or Nancy Pelosi could envision and it will kill 2 birds with one stone. If the GOP refuses to embrace the conservative revolution, it's time to unleash these mercenaries as independents. JFK and Goldwater would both vomit if they could witness what has befallen their respective parties.
A lot of truth in that D.
This is a legitimate question….
"They continue with their rantings of how the GOP has gone too far right, but if that's the case…………..how is it possible for the McCains and GWB's to emerge as the leaders???"
And I have an answer. The Tea Party type conservatives, even coupled with the evangelicals, still do not make up a majority. The RNC knows that. Can't win with a radical right messenger. Bush and McCain were the RNC's decision to broaden the potential voter base. One victory, not without controversy…and one loss, going with the RNC's plan.
" If the GOP refuses to embrace the conservative revolution, it's time to unleash these mercenaries as independents."
That's all cool with me….but I must point out, I'm not seeing any signs of a conservative revolution. Not really. There's a lot of babble…no doubt. But there's no new message and there's no new messenger. I think a third party would be disastrous for conservatives, so, the GOP needs to reform itself. And honestly, I don't see that happening.
Democrats will become the primary corporate whores for awhile.
Mr. King,
The problem is what passes for conservatism and liberalism these days. Neither party operates under philosophical principles. If they did, we wouldn't have the TARP program, the Iraq war, the massive deficits, the yearly expense of nearly $1 trillion for security, or so called "free" trade, etc. Each party is less concerned with governance than achieving and maintaining power. The means to those ends is to placate their wealthy contributors. These contributions are nothing more than an investment for most, one with more lucrative returns than anything Wall St offers.
The truth is that Republicans haven't espoused conservative principles since Goldwater. Clinton and his Democratic Leadership Council, which still dominates the party, betrayed liberalism. For the Republicans to embrace conservatism they would have to repudiate much of their past and nearly all of their present. They would have to denounce Reagan and Bush for their deficit spending. Ditto for Reagan's ex officio meddling in the Iran hostage affair, the illegal Iran-Contra arms sales, war in Grenada, etc. Same for Bush's illegal war in Iraq, his unitary executive actions, torture, violations of international treaties and Constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties, etc.
Until we demand that the corporate entities which lease our TV and radio airwaves provide equitable air time for all candidates and until we eliminate money from our electoral process, we are doomed to choose between political hacks. A principled statesman cannot survive in our present political environment. Follow the money.
All that being said, king, you would vote for Sarah in a heartbeat…because she's super duper and winks at us….and she's so smart!
Tbomb……you betcha'
The kids, Tbomb and walt, are their usual irrelevant selves, but good comments from the rest of you.
I actually agree with the Reverend about something for once. A third major (conservative) party that would split the vote with the Republicans would be a gift to the Democrats in the short term. That's why I proposed replacing the Republicans, though that's pretty much a pipe dream. It will take a long time to marginalize that party (though they are doing a fair job of it themselves).
I agree completely with Alexander. The GOP isn't really conservative, especially in the ways that are important to me (fiscally). Today's GOP is what I call pretend conservatives. They talk conservative most of the time, but they don't govern that way. Bush is the shining example of that. Conservatives are disheartened with the GOP. That explains the big polling gap between those who call themselves conservatives (40%) and those who call themselves Republicans (26-32%). Btw, only 21% call themselves liberals. Contrary to the Rev's belefs, conservatives are the single biggest ideological group in America, outnumbering liberals almost 2 to 1. This also explains why Fox News has three times the viewership of MSNBC.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideological-group.aspx
And as everybody seems to agree, both major parties represent only their special interests, rather than the interests of the people. You'll get no argument from me there. That's a huge problem.
Amen King,
If the libs and media were not so afraid of the awakening of the silent majority they would not waste so much of their energy trying to demonize and marganilize the conservative message. The beltway Reps. attempt to portray themselves not only as the voice of moderation but as the only viable option in curbing the excesses of the liberal agenda Like their liberal brethern they operate under the theory that they arethe self appointed agents to save "the bitter Americans clinging to….." from our ignorance. They are unable to verbalize any agenda or set of governing principals because they have none.
Their sole purpose is to maintain their position and power under the quise of saving us from ourselves
The problem, angry, is that if this new "silent majority" is "awakening", which , by the way, I don't see, …then you're admitting that that "silent majority" was sleeping during the Bush administration.
And THAT destroys the credibility of whatever silent majority you might be referring to.
"excesses of the liberal agenda"
What? Passing health care reform? The country wants health care reform. Prevent an economic collapse? The country wanted to prevent economic collapse. Get out of Iraq? The nation wanted us to get out of Iraq. Going after the 9-11 enemy in Af-Pak? The country wanted us to go after the 9-11 guys. Don't ask, don't tell? The people want it ended.
I mean…..What excesses?
Rev,
Yes,the silent majority snoozed right through the Bush administration. The silent majority has been disengaged for decades. Otherwise the name would be a misnomer. In the macro more and more of the people are becoming concerned that the country is heading in a direction that is contrary to their understanding of the principles of their country( have we reaced the point where they have been achieved or actually follow all of them –no). In the micro two points. First, most people do want to see an improvement in cost and access to health care but many believe it will add to our serious deficit problem and create a whole set of new problems due to unintended consequences. secondly inspiring slogans and simple solutions may work when people are paying little attention but as they become more concerned the latent mistrust of government surfaces.
My take is that it would be nearly impossible to find a Republican who does not think the party has been hijacked by them other guys. It's probably true of most Democrats too.
We really do need a reincarnation of the Whigs – or something. The further you go to the left or right the less you see of rational thinking and the more you see of emotional responses.
Obama's approval rating is slipping. In a few years people will get tired of his commissars and react by voting republican; not because they like the GOP but to show the democrats how out of touch THEY are. The GOP will claim a mandate from the people and proceed to show how out of touch THEY are. Both sides will accuse one another or dirty politics.
Rev:I think a third party would be disastrous for conservatives, so, the GOP needs to reform itself. And honestly, I don't see that happening.
Then the GOP must be prepared for the consequences, should they continue down the road of selling out their constituents and plugging in candidates which hardly differ from their opponents. I'm prepared to watch the GOP collapse, as the population will always seek an alternative. I think the GOP will come around, but possibly too late for itself. The money is going elsewhere now and this poses a threat to it's status quo.
The demographics do not bode well for the GOP. Perhaps they will suddenly embrace Catholicism over their more conservative Protestant/Baptist/Evangelical religion of choice in order to court the Hispanic vote.
Tbomb…they're already doing that using the abortion issue…..and it ain't working. Conservatives hurt themselves very badly with Latino voters when talk-radio slugs dominated the stage during the comprehensive immigration reform discussions under Bush.
Alexander speaks words of wisdom.
Rev: Conservatives hurt themselves very badly with Latino voters when talk-radio slugs dominated the stage during the comprehensive immigration reform discussions under Bush.
Alexander speaks words of wisdom.
Funny how everyone finds common ground. LOL
This whole immigration reform is a mess. Federal agents, local law enforcement, and ICE have their hands tied by the bureacrats for political purposes. Both parties have disgraced this country and talk radio "slugs" are the only ones who had this right. People have come here illegally, reside here illegally, work here illegally, and somehow both political parties seem to ignore this as they attempt to reinforce their voter bases. Democrats are pushing harder, as they proclaim to be the champion for minorities, but republicans such as McCain and Graham are disgraceful. This is one of the sad gimmicks embedded in the socialized medicine push………..the prez says they won't be covered……………la raza insists they must…………and every amendment strictly prohibiting such has been defeated along party lines. Bottom line is we're being lied to and sold down the river. I have no compassion for those who have violated our borders, regardless of circumstance. If one enters this country on an illegal tone, how will they conduct their lengthy stay? I'm a product of 2 legal immigrants who cherished the process and knew it meant something. Can't say that anymore.
Until these Washington slugs remove their velvet gloves on the immigration issue and show some backbone, the legal citizens of this country lose the most.
Alex,
I have been a long standing adovacate of stong enforcement of our immigration laws and oppossed any form of amnesty. My reasoning was that the hispanic community would become the second large underclass. The black communithy would lose the resources,political capital, and have to share the limited upward mobility path with hispanics. In this era of instant gratifcation and politcal pandering the Hispanics would become the favored minority and the blacks would be the victims. Also I see tensions between whites,blacks and hispanics increasing and the chance of racism escalating and voilence in the streets. Perhaps the new plan is to eliminate the uneven level of prosperity by lowering the white middle class to create more equality thus lowering expectations of the lower class.
As far as the illegals being covered under the new health plan it is a given. They may not be legally allowed to particiapate but the system is now structured so that as long as the individual provides a SS number it is then up to the bureacracy to prove otherwise and we know that is not going to happen.
un-rev: what you and every other marxist in the country fails to understand is that there is a big difference between a "Republican", and a conservative…the jist of what da King is saying. The most radical conservatives in American history were people named Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Franklin, Adams. Do those names sound familiar to you? Didn't think think so, you moron.
frank: you speak like a true marxist historical revisionist, who likes to twist the historical facts in a way that makes Presidents like Reagan look like the bad guys, when it was people like him who had to fix the screw-ups and amti-American policies of the left. But keep it up, moron. You're a great example of what's wrong with America today.
Alex D.: when conservatives speak about illegal "immigrants", they're talking about the law….US law….something that left-wing idiots like you have such disdain for. I'll bet you couldn't define "illegal" for me if you took a month to do it.
sunklhammer said:Alex D.: when conservatives speak about illegal "immigrants", they're talking about the law….US law….something that left-wing idiots like you have such disdain for. I'll bet you couldn't define "illegal" for me if you took a month to do it.
First of all, I'm a proponent of border enforcement, deportations, and cutting off non-residents from any taxpayer-funded perks. My beef is that both parties are selling out America for their own political leverage. Illegal=Illegal and not "undocumented" as my politically-correct comrades on the left prefer. Lastly, my posts have been consistently conservative and yet you perceive me to be a left-wing idiot??? Nothing could be further from reality. It may be beneficial to read a post and fully understand it's content before shooting from the hip as liberal hippees are accustomed to.
sunkl,
I think you are misreading Alex D. It sounded to me like he is for border enforcement, as any sane person would be. Alex is no liberal idiot.
Mr. sunklhammer,
Aside from your anger issues, perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension. My point was that what passes for conservatism, and for that matter, liberalism, is neither. I gave some examples of faux conservatism, which you took as an attack on the sainted Reagan. It would be just as easy to give examples of supposed liberals violating their tenets. Instead of name-calling, why don't you explain the conservative basis for the examples I used.