GOP Listening Tour: Just Say No!

Frankly, what's so wrong with being "the Party of No!" when the Federal government is looking at re-shaping American corporations and entire industries, ultimately nationalizing Health Care and spending our children's money like a drunken sailor? It seems to me these guys are more afraid of bad headlines, than they are the mostly Republican base that has been taking to the streets in recent months. If so, that isn't a good thing for their political futures.

If Eric Cantor thinks an inclusive Republican Party means not opposing Gun Control he needs to sit down and shut up. Ironic that only 75 people showed up in Virginia for the new GOP listening Tour. Yawn. There were hundreds of thousands in the streets over the last few weeks. One wonders if this bunch is listening to them?

And Cantor said the party should be inclusive in recruiting candidates, when asked if he would be open to supporting pro-choice candidates or those supporting gun control.

“We are – and should be – an inclusive party,” he said.

I don't want to be too hard on these guys. My belief is that they are well-meaning, along with wanting to keep their names in the mix. But Jeb Bush has another new Federal Education Plan and Romney wants to talk Health Care reform? Who would have guessed. They've both been doing the same thing for years. This is a PR stunt and one that's doomed to fail if it's going to produce Democrat-lite.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to advocate local control on Education, or to figure out Free Markets with prudent regulation. Nor does it require one to address the border before considering some form of path to citizenship for hard working, law abiding illegals. The answer for the GOP is not making a bunch of new promises from the Federal Government after having not fulfilled earlier promises. 

The former Florida governor offered a panoply of proposals on education reform, citing a study showing the United States lags well behind other developed countries in math and science.

Romney touted his work in Massachusetts to implement a universal health care system that he said incorporated the private sector, not the government, in the process. And he warned that rising spending under the Democrats threatens to stagnate long-term economic growth.

"We don't have to come up with all the answers today," Romney told the crowd, before offering that, "Certainly, by 2010 we should."

Comments

[Rick]

This is the same old give up your principles to gain power garbage.
Compromising to move your principles along and then pushing some more is quite different.

[William Teach]

Is the agenda for National Council for a New America a joke? They want us to get excited over Democrat Lite?

[Jeff Dempsey]

I will make it simple:

I am in the kitchen with a Democrat and a Republican. We are making brownies...

The Democrat says, "I know what will make these brownies extra yummie." He comes back with 10 pieces of cat poop.

The Republican says, "Woah! You can't do that! Let's put just 5 pieces in."

Then, the Democrat leaves and talks to his friends... and comes back and says, "Well, I was talking, and in fact, we need to have 20 pieces of cat poop in the brownies to do it right."

The Republican is horrified, and says, "No more than 10 pieces."

And there you have the tale of why we have messed up the greatest country on earth. Starting in 1902.

[Calypso Jones]

75 people? That's surprising. I didn't expect that many. I wonder if they GOT the message.

[Michigan State sucks]

Calypso Jones,
Yes, they got the message. They're on the right track and WE are the problem. Those 75 are considered more important that the million of Conservatives.

[Mark Turner]

The GOP has until early 2012 to sort its message out if it wants to field a serious challenge to Obama in the presidential election, regardless of what his approval ratings are.

With regard to the 2010 election cycle, the individual GOP candidates up for (re)election need to focus on the political pulse of their own states and districts and approach their campaigns accordingly. They are not running against Obama, Bush or anyone else but their immediate opponents. An effective strategy from 1994 would be to associate their Democratic opponents strongly with the very unpopular congressional leadership (in this case, Reid and Pelosi). It worked like a charm then and there is no reason whatsoever why it can't be effective again, as long as the GOP does not field any unpopular or controversial candidates of its own.

[Mark Turner]

Remember, in 1994 -- Clinton had strong approval ratings, but the Democratic congressional leadership was very unpopular and the GOP was able to pounce on that, taking both houses of Congress. I see something very similar in store for next year -- Obama will still be reasonably popular among the electorate as a whole (even if he's at 50% approval); but Reid and Pelosi have very poor approval ratings that I do not see improving drastically in the next year or so. This should be a fertile ground for GOP gains in Congress in 2010 (though not necessarily regaining control), if the individual candidates can play their cards right.

[LOL]

ROFL both houses? keep dreaming buddy.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

Look at the top left column about 2010 Senate races. Look how many "open" red seats there are. Look at what states they're in. New Hampshire, Ohio, Florida -- Freaking Obama states. How exactly do you think you're going to hold all those battleground red seats AND pick off ~9 Democrat senators in ONE senatorial election?

You've got almost an 80 seat deficit in the house too. So in less than 2 years, you're going to overcome repubs huge unpopularity and pull a monstrous upset?

And you wonder why people think yall are out of touch

[Mark Turner]

"Freaking Obama states"

No, those are swing states, if you'll look back at the last few presidential elections. On a house and senate level, they also swing over time.

Look also at polls of LIKELY VOTERS (hint: Rasmussen). Not exactly a shoo-in for Democrats. I did qualify my statements with "though not necessarily regaining control".

"Repubs huge unpopularity"

Again, reference Rasmussen polls of likely voters. Not exactly a crushing margin for either party.

[Dan S]

This is totally off-subject but every once in awhile I'll cheer myself up and read a liberal blog like "crooks and liars" just to read the comments. Warms my heart to see the lack of substance coming from the opposition. With people like that on the other side how can we possibly keep losing? Just throwing out the name Newt or Palin to that Daily Kos bunch is like chumming for cliched insults and profanities. Makes me proud to be a conservative when we don't lash out in a string of profanities every time the name Pelosi, Kennedy or Reid is thrown about. Thanks for (at least most of the time) staying classy.

[gary gulrud]

The GOP is dead, and dead because it became too inclusive.

Yeah a few of their sitting members have a pulse but do you really think they will not opt out when the time arrives.

The pain cannot be avoided, voting Republican is painting lipstick on a pig.

[LOL]

"how can we possibly keep losing?"

[Roger Knight]

Please allow me to propose a platform that Republican candidates can win with:

Balanced Budget. Balanced Budget. Balanced Budget. Mean it. Believe it. Communicate it. Don't betray it.

Energy Issues: All of the above of Palin-McCain campaign was a good start. But you have to really mean it. Meaning, DRILL DRILL DRILL. In ANWR and off-shore. But ALSO Fischer-Tropsch process to make gasoline and diesel fuel out of COAL. We only have 350 billion short tons of coal within the US that we know about. Germany launched a mechanized war with FT made gasoline. SASOL in South Africa supplies over 20% of that nation's gasoline with FT process from coal. FT plants can be rebuilt in Poland and Germany to use those nations' coal and free Europe from dependence upon either the Russians or Arabs for liquid fuel. FT plants could be built in Wales and Newcastle as well. China? Why not! And of course we can refine liquid fuels out of oil shale in Wyoming and Colorado. Only about 3 to 100 Saudi Arabia equivalents there. Enough fuel to allow each of us to drive the equivalent of 1965 Cadillac Sedan deVilles for the next thousand years. Point I am making is that we could have been energy independent all along! Not doing these things is as butt ugly stupid as racking up $11 trillion in national debt and adding another $1.5 trillion each year.

Global warming. A HOAX. Just say so. Regulating the 3.5% of the carbon cycle that burning fossil fuels contributes will have as much effect on the climate as sacrificing virgins has on volcanic activity. Just say so and oppose all carbon taxes and cap and trade BS. No need to compromise there.

Social issues. No fault divorce incentivised by the Child Support Crusade and heavy gender bias in the courts does far more damage to the institution of marriage than two persons of the same gender wanting to try it. Best way to handle this admittidly hot potato is to assert that there is no more excuse for violating constitutional principles in family law than there is for domestic violence. And certainly no excuse for perjury and peonage as these are CRIMES.

Education. As it is not listed in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution it is not a federal issue. In state and local politics, favor teaching paper and pencil arithmetic by the tell them how to do it and make them practice method. "Everyday Math" and other bonehead education fads give Republicans some beautiful issues with which to pound liberals for being "idiotic". Would help to stay away from creationist intelligent design nonsense because the libs can use it to make us look "idiotic".

Immigration. It turns out that a business license in Bolivia costs about 200 times as much in the United States. This is typical of the roadblocks Latin American governments place in the way of prosperity. The best way to approach this issue COMPASSIONATELY, is to assert that the poverty in the Spanish speaking nations is not due to capitalism. Rather it is due to capitalism never having been TRIED. Meanwhile, ENRFORCE THE LAW. No amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Stay within these parameters and Republicans will do fine. Deviate and we will lose.

[Tully]

Mr. Riehl, you have just insulted drunken sailors everywhere....

[LOL]

"Would help to stay away from creationist intelligent design nonsense because the libs can use it to make us look "idiotic"."

Libs don't use creationism to make conservatives look idiotic. It's used to prove you are.

[Philip McDaniel]

You really have some nagging problems, don't you, LOL.

Roger; a pretty good analysis. I was talking with some friends this weekend about the state of the party and the state of the country. Except for the loony left, I think the general consensus is that we are in serious trouble and will need sensible and responsible people to get back into politics in order to straighten things out. As (Tip) O'Neill's father once said, 'All politics are local'. We have got to get back to working on the grass roots level.

Surprisingly, and you may already be aware of this, the young people in university today are much more conservative than one would think. They are also quick to spot the loonies. They are intelligent, have the drive and interest, and are aware of just how serious the situation is. We would be wise to actively cultivate them and, more importantly, listen to them. A cross generational debate, if you will.

[IslamoLlama]

"--Libs don't use creationism to make conservatives look idiotic. It's used to prove you are.--"

The best part is that they can't run away from their creationist roots. That's where they get their block walkers and fund raisers. If you don't have GOoPers on the Hill, screeching about our children being indoctrinated into thinking they are monkeys, you don't get red neck bible thumping swamp rats in Florida or Alabama turning out to the polls for them.

Creationism is the GOP base.

[IslamoLlama]

And Roger, I don't know if you missed the McCain race, but he played all those cards and still lost the election by 192 electoral votes. So yes, please, do all this again in 2010, but bigger and louder.

Some say the definition of insanity is trying the same thing and expecting different results. I say that's the definition of success!

[Roger Knight]

"I don't know if you missed the McCain race, but he played all those cards and still lost the election by 192 electoral votes."

If only that was true. When Bush went on television with his proposed $700 billion bailout, McCain abandoned all pretensions to smaller government and balanced budget by running to DC to support Bush's Bailout. This bailout was opposed by the vast majority of Americans, all over the political spectrum. It was as unpopular with the left as it was with the right. By supporting it, McCain gave cover to both Obama and Biden to vote for it, with an added helping of $150 billion worth of pork. This destroyed McCain's credibility as the anti-earmark candidate.

Had McCain opposed the Bailout, he would have won the election. Having looked at the meltdown, he might well have decided he did not want the job after all.

As for the other issues, McCain's support for off-shore drilling is a $4 per gallon gasoline during election year conversion, not a consistent belief all along, and he was the Republican who sabotaged Bush's efforts to get ANWR opened up for drilling. Bush's decision to lift the presidential portion of the off shore drilling ban should have been done on January 21, 2001. McCain supported the global warming hoax. Palin seems to have the right ideas on both government spending and energy independence, but she was limited by the fact that as the VP candidate, she was only allowed to disagree with McCain on the ANWR drilling. That was why she was tongue-tied during the debate with Biden when he was saying that our use of fossil fuels was going to lead to the destruction of life as we know it. If Palin wants the White House in 2012, she will be much more forceful in opposing cap and trade and in favor of drill, drill, drill, FT process, and oil shale development.

As for education and social issues, McCain was nowhere to be found. A father's rights activist asked him about it and he declined to make any statement whatsoever about it, other than to pretend that it is a local issue and to ignore the huge federal involvement with it. Not exactly a limit the federal government to its Article I Section 8 responsibilities kind of advocacy.

And on immigration, McCain is Mr. Amnesty and Let 'Em In to provide cheap labor and reduce what Americans can get for their labor.

This is why McCain lost. Why the Republicans lost Congress.

The BIG issues are out of control federal spending and the completely unnecessary dependence on imported petroleum for liquid fuel. If the Republicans can ever get their heads screwed on straight about these issues and keep their heads screwed on straight, they will regain and keep power.

[Roger Knight]

A comment on the creationism and what I said about the social issues.

You are a warship on the water and a missile is coming right at you. What do you do? One thing you do is you shoot chaff. You blow a bunch of loose floaty aluminum foil off to the side and hope the missile focuses on the chaff and not on the ship. The missile hits the chaff and ship continues to float.

With respect to education, the Republicans all too often focus on chaff they themselves shoot out. Teaching of evolution is a minor issue at best, and necessary to know for any student who goes on to any career involving biology or natural history, such as health care or petroleum geology. The ship that is deliberately being missed is the dumbing down of the education curriculum, including the bonehead policy of abandoning the teaching of paper and pencil arithmetic leaving our kids calculator dependent. That is like shooting at the chaff of same gender marriage while ignoring the ship of no fault divorce incentivised by the Child Support Crusade, heavy gender bias in the family courts, and the total absence of constitutional principles in such practice.

Republicans and conservatives would win more local races if they aimed at the ships and not at the chaff.

[Philip McDaniel]

Well thought out, Roger. I hope your message is getting out to people in the party who understand what you're saying and are prepared to act on it. We need more of this and less of 'me too' copying of the left's agenda in a lite version.