Taking back the Republican party

[JermCool]

I will agree that the party has changed, but not for the better. Would Reagan have walked away from it? I don't think so. "You never argue with another Republican." But I also don't think he would have allowed it to get as bad as it has.

A Reagan Republican would not have even suggested TARP. A Reagan Republican would allow such companies to fail, restructure, and move on. It would have pinched, yes - but it would have been over and done with instead of piling money into sinkholes like AIG, et al.

Powell may be eloquent, but he's not the voice of the party. And no, Cheney or Limbaugh aren't either (well, politically Limbaugh isn't - but at least he's saying the right things). At this particular moment, I don't see a voice of the party - which is why we're in the tank right now. There isn't someone who's willing to stand up and say what we need to hear because it isn't fashionable. They know the MSM will tear them apart, as well the White House.

If one person were to stand up and say the "unpopular" thing, the Republicans would have someone to rally around.

And I'll be damned if the majority of the party doesn't agree with me.

That's not to say I wouldn't vote for a third party should someone stand up for classic conservatism - but I'd like it a lot more if it happened within the Republican party.

And frankly, whether or not you like the term RINO, if the shoe bloody fits...

[The Cid]

Suggestion: Cid, Deacon, Jerm, Liz, Greg, me. Run for office.

I don't think I'm pro-organized crime enough to win elected office in eastern Massachusetts, but it's a nice thought and I thank you.

I see the Democrats as having achieved power in large part because they don't lambaste those members that stray from the party line as do the current batch of Republicans.

I've noticed this too. In fact, it brings up a question.

Jerm: you talk about RINOs in a less-than-pleasant tone. Am I to understand that you think every Republican should march right down the party line?

That's not to say I wouldn't vote for a third party should someone stand up for classic conservatism - but I'd like it a lot more if it happened within the Republican party.

Why? Does the word Republican have some special significance to you? I mean, if that party existed, and everyone marched in line and there were no Colin Powell types to try and add a dash of dissenting opinion, why would you care what the name of that party is?

The Republican Party has changed. It's no longer the party of Ronald Reagan, but of Joseph McCarthy's ghost, where a terrorist is crouching behind every curtain, and the possible deaths of hundreds or thousands bring down a harsher response than the threat of nuclear annihilation.

I really, really like how this is worded. When I try to say something like this, it usually comes out as much more inflammatory.

[Martin Blank]

And frankly, whether or not you like the term RINO, if the shoe bloody fits...

No dissension allowed in the ranks, right?

[JermCool]

Jerm: you talk about RINOs in a less-than-pleasant tone. Am I to understand that you think every Republican should march right down the party line?

Lock step, no. But should they speak and act on the values that defined the party back in the 80s? Damn straight.

Look at Arlen Specter. When he jumped ship there wasn't a single Republican that was surprised. Why? Because he spoke and acted just like the left. The same goes for Colin Powell. If he decided to change his party, I sure as hell wouldn't be surprised.

The Republican party doesn't need to move farther left. They need to get back to basics with the likes of Jefferson, Lincoln, and Reagan. Once they do that, they stand a chance in elections.

It's not dissension, MB. It's straight up leftism - not what the "R" is supposed to stand for.

[Mav]

Except for the fact that the Republican party has redefined what the "right" stands for. Moving left these days might mean giving up the religious tones, or backing off the pro-life and homosexuality issues, not government rights and controls. The Republicans aren't what they used to be. You can't even say "getting back to core values", since those core values are now different. Hell, even the word "conservative" has a different connotation thanks to them. It doesn't mean "Backing out of your shit" anymore, it means "Making sure shit doesn't change" (IE flag waving, praying, straight white America).

I mean, have you watched Fox News? They're not the only news station that does it, but they're certainly the leading example of the news anchors not just reporting the news, but telling you what to think of it. How the hell is that the traditional meaning of conservative? Ungh.

This thread really made me realize that I wouldn't be so staunchly supporting the Democratic party if the Republicans hadn't fucked up so bad. You should pray Powell get's the spot light, at least he won't make the party look so fucking nuts.

[JermCool]

The message got lost along the way, I'll concede thanks to pearls of wisdom from our previous spokespeople (Bush, Cheney, et al). But in what way have the values changed?

And remember, I am a Reagan-esque Republican (as are a majority of the party base).

[spikegirl7]

*Has been munching her popcorn, now puts it down.*

Deacon's original post got right to the point, IMO. Bravo to him.

If I had to side with one party or the other based on the stated political platform of the party AND NOT THE PEOPLE IN IT I would choose the Republican party. There have been great republicans, and there still are a few out there. However the past few years I haven't seen many. The election was a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. Or, to be less inflammatory, with a man (Obama) who I thought had good intentions but the wrong way of going about them, and a man who had some of the right ideas (McCain) with a generous lacing of the taint that has been going through the republican party of late.

What do I think is wrong? Basically the Republican party has stepped away from "small, responsible government" and focused more on social conservatism and the religious right. More and more I'm seeing them sticking by this and conceding to bigger government and more spending (this isn't necessarily true in the past couple months, but then again they don't have much power right now. It's odd that when they have no power what I hear from them tends to make more sense). If I might be frank about this is a BIG part of what's driving people away from the party.

But then again, you folks already stated that, didn't you?

So what needs to happen? They need an Obama. They need someone young to stand up for small government and responsible spending. They also need to distance themselves from people like Limbaugh. They have to do this while not completely alienating the evangelical part of their voting base. And if they can do this then bravo. I'll be sitting over at the Libertarian table.

[Mav]

The message got lost along the way, I'll concede thanks to pearls of wisdom from our previous spokespeople (Bush, Cheney, et al). But in what way have the values changed?

And remember, I am a Reagan-esque Republican (as are a majority of the party base).

Would you call the faces of Fox News, or the previous administration, or McCain's campaign to be of Reagan values? Maybe Palin is a Reagan republican, and I'm just against Reagan myself. But if not, then the point that I'm making is that in politics, the face you present is the face you become. It's who or what the people think they're voting for, that's going to count in the long run.

For example, if Powell says the American people want more government, that's going to have to be something you seriously consider giving them if you want to get elected in the first place. All of the other policies that you could still contribute with are moot if you fail to get elected, and hence every politician stating, "I'm here to serve the American people." On a very similar note, if you represent batshit crazy, you're only going to appeal to voters who support batshit crazy. Not that I'm saying your average republican is batshit crazy, just the ones getting all the air time.

[Deacon]

if Powell says the American people want more government, that's going to have to be something you seriously consider giving them if you want to get elected in the first place.

See, that's what I'm talking about, in two ways. First, there's this notion that the important thing, the end goal, is to get elected. What? That's it? What about fighting for what is good and right and working to help wean people off short-sighted unsustainable dependency on our lord and savior, The Federal Government? Second, you seem to be suggesting that if Powell says it, then it must be true. It may be, or it may not be, but it doesn't mean it's a good idea.

[Arres]

I think the concept is that if you don't get elected, you can't fight for the right. The problem is that in sacrificing what you believe in to get elected, you've already lost the fight.

[Mav]

I believe it's usually referred to as wisdom. How do you expect to fight if you can't get into the ring? If you don't get elected, just what the hell are you going to do? Sit in your living room, watch the news, and grumble "My ideas would have been better?" Tough shit, fatty-in-the-arm-chair. Better get elected next time.

Now, if you can persuade people to agree with your ideas, and then elect you based upon them, well then you're getting somewhere.

[Deacon]

Now, if you can persuade people to agree with your ideas, and then elect you based upon them, well then you're getting somewhere.

Well, yeah. That's what I'm saying... That's very different from saying whatever it takes to get elected and then doing whatever you want once you're in, which has been very common for a long time.

[Mav]

Well that's mostly going to be the job of the writer, philospher, TV producer. The people who influence culture.

I've thought it over for several years now, and politicians, with the way our political system works, mostly have their hands tied. You have to lead from the back, herd people like sheep, if you want to get into office. The average person isn't going to understand the subtleties of law, foreign relations and so forth. And if you don't tell them what they want, they're going to vote for the guy who does. Why was Bush in office in the first place? Or Obama for that matter? (Note, I still support Obama, but I'm going to face reality that he talks pretty to get people with him)

It's the journalist who can throw an idea out there, say consequences be damned, and let people react to the paper while he goes on to write a new one. Hell, in journalism you can make your career off of being contraversial.

[The Cid]

Jerm: you talk about RINOs in a less-than-pleasant tone. Am I to understand that you think every Republican should march right down the party line?

Lock step, no. But should they speak and act on the values that defined the party back in the 80s? Damn straight.

Even in SPPACE, I can't escape eighties nostalgia.

Personally, I think Powell's comments were poor advice for any company, party, organization or group. Remove it from the political spectrum and it's still poor advice.

"Well okay, Burger King is #2 and you want to beat McDonald's. Why not think about, oh, selling a Quarter Pounder and a Big Mac? Seems to work for your competition. Now if you'll excuse me I have a conference call to tell the makers of Cialis to hire an ex-presidential candidate to endorse them. Just imagine Al Gore looking into a camera and saying 'Cialis: so you don't have to face that inconvenient truth.'"

It's not that difficult. The Republican Party doesn't have to change it's biggest unifying value just because they lost the presidency and congress. Elections aren't won on stances and values, they're won on preening and sound bytes. They need someone who can churn out the sound bytes and preen it up for the cameras. (So maybe in that sense they DO need a Reagan.)

[JermCool]

Once again, Chris Muir nails it.

Edit:

Holy crap. If I am like an abused spouse waiting for the party to change, maybe I do need to find a new party. Or a womens' shelter.