Make no mistake about it. The Republicans suffered another crushing defeat last night. Not only did Barack Obama win the presidency, the Democrats made gains in both the House and Senate. The door is now open for Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to push a liberal agenda for the nation. The only saving grace is that Democrats didn't achieve a super-majority in Congress; thus, the Republican senators can put up some degree of a fight against any extreme measures.
As far as making any kind of comeback, the Republicans, in my view, have a major reconstruction in front of them. The public, rightfully or wrongfully, has laid the major portion of blame on their doorstep for the weak economy and the poor performance of Congress. George Bush, rightfully or wrongfully, will leave office with a horrible approval rating.
So what should the Republican Party do in the next two to four years?
First of all, they must look introspectively at themselves. They must look back as far as the 1990s when they gained control over Congress based on Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America". Did they live up to their promises? Initially perhaps, but they soon grew too fond of their newly found majority status. Republicans came to Washington-and decided they liked it there inside the Beltway. They learned how to make backroom deals just like the old pols had before them. They took advantage of the attention of the lobbyists, their gifts, their trips on planes to boondoggle destinations, and all the rest. They learned how to engage in earmarks to bring the pork back to their constituents who, in turn, re-elected them. Spending, rather than be cut, was greatly expanded. Some, married or not, took advantatge of their offices and power to enjoy more female attention than they normally would have.
In short, they became corrupted.
Not that the Democrats were squeaky clean all these years. They were doing what they had always done. But it was the Republicans who got all the attention, largely because they had always talked about family values. So when a Mark Foley got nailed chasing pages or a Larry Craig got nailed in a men's room, it severely damaged the Party. Meanwhile, when William "Cool Cash" Jefferson was revealed to have accepted a bribe from undercover FBI agents, the story didn't carry as much weight because it really didn't shock anybody.
Second, it is time for Republicans to clear out their deadwood and make room for a new generation of up and coming leaders. Fortunately, Craig is retiring. Ted Stevens, who has been convicted, yet apparently re-elected (at this writing), must be gotten rid of. If he returns to Washington in January, his Republican counterparts must do everything in their power to get him out of Congress. If he refuses, they should join with Democrats in expelling him. Along that line, Stevens' Alaska crony, Rep. Don Young should also be shown the door. (The FBI may take care of that problem.) The old horse traders and Washington pros, even if not tainted by corruption, must fade into oblivion
The Republicans do have rising young stars; Louisiana Governor, Bobby Jindall, Lynn Swann, Paul Ryan, Michael Steele, and yes, Sarah Palin are prime examples of young conservatives who should be groomed for higher offices. What the Republicans need are young, energetic voices who can effectively articulate conservative values. George W. Bush could not. John McCain could not.
In addition, if the Republicans decide that they need to move closer to the Democrats and compete for their votes with a "we can do more for you" than the Democrats, I think it will be a huge mistake. Do they need to bring in more blacks and Hispanics? Sure they do, but they need to do it with a message that conservatism is the better way. For example, they need to convince blacks that they will be treated equally-not as handicapped children who need to be nurtured-as the Democrats do. With a black president, what need is there for nurturing?
As for Hispanics, Republicans need to convince them that their in-grained family values are more at home with Republicans than Democrats. Competing with Democrats in caving into border/immigration issues didn't accomplish much did it? Did the Republicans overlook a lot of Hispanic Americans who wanted new immigrants to play by the rules-as they had done? Who spoke for their voices? Who spoke for the Hispanics who wanted relief from illegal alien street gangs that were preying on their communities? Nobody, that's who.
All that is a round-a-bout way of saying that Republicans need to get back to their conservative base and sell it to the rest of the American people. They need fresh voices who can stand and debate with the Democrat liberals and show how wrong the latter are. They need to start now-even if inexperience costs them elections two years from now-elections they figure to lose anyway if the country is still basking in the Obama presidency.
The Republicans do have one thing going in their favor begiining in January. If things go bad in the next two years, there is only one party that can be blamed. In the meantime, let the rebuilding begin.
I agree with much of what you're saying, but Sarah Palin is absolutely NOT the right sort of person that the Republicans should try to groom for higher office. While I don't think that she was the only factor, I do believe that she was a big one in McCain having lost the election (especially by as much as he did.)
ReplyDeleteLet's be honest, Gary, if the Republicans got a man who said the same sort of nonsense that she did, we'd be calling him Dan Quayle II. It was a cynical attempt to win over Hillary supporters (that actually worked on a small minority) but they wound up turning off a lot of conservatives and people who were on the fence. (And convincing people like me to vote for Obama instead of our usual third-party candidates.)
They should let her go quietly into the night and never speak of her again.
What the Republicans really need to get away from is the fundamentalist Christians. McCain was smart enough for quite some time to stay away from them, but then he started to pander to them. (He even once called Falwell an agent of intolerance and spoke of how overturning Roe V. Wade would result in a lot of dead women as a result of botched abortions.)
Basically, they need to start living up to the word "conservative." I don't see anything "conservative" about picking a doofus like Palin or getting us wrapped up in a war (Iraq) when the one we're in the middle of (Afghanistan) hasn't been won yet.
I don't know much about the other up-and-coming Republicans you mentioned, but I really have to disagree with you about Palin. You said that President (W.) Bush couldn't effectively articulate conservative values. Well, from everything I saw of Palin in this election, she seems to basically be a female version of Bush, only worse probably. As conservative columnist David Brooks recently put it (and I am paraphrasing here), she is part of the cancer that is killing the Republican party. Check out this clip from the O'Reilly Factor. The wacko social conservatives are becoming dead weight for the Republicans.
ReplyDeleteTo Lance and Bryan,
ReplyDeleteI realized when I included her name, some would disagree. Yet, over 80% of people in Alaska like her. She must be doing something right.She may need some national seasoning, but don't sell her short.
The thing is though, the population of Alaska isn't at all representative of the general population in the "lower 48." So her approval rating there doesn't really tell us much.
ReplyDeleteBryan,
ReplyDeleteThink about what you just said. Of course, the population of Alaska is distinct. Do you mean, however, that the people of Alaska are just a bunch of rubes, fur-trappers, Eskimos and-as the left told us in the election- sexual predators?
Therefore, what they think of their governor should count for nothing?
Well I'm saying the population is certainly more conservative than most of the rest of us, generally speaking. As a comparison, let's say SF mayor Gavin Newsom has 80% approval ratings in SF. Knowing that SF is a pretty liberal place, I'd say it's a fair bet that he isn't going to do very well if he tries to run for governor, considering that the population of SF isn't really representative of the California population as a whole.
ReplyDeleteGary, if 80% of Alaskans liked her, then that says something about them. I hate to generalize like that, but nobody who thinks that Africa is a country, and is over the age of 12, can possibly be a very smart person. (Geez - I'm pretty sure that I learned that in elementary school!)
ReplyDeleteI do like the term "national seasoning." That's the nice way of saying that she needs a "sixth grade education".
Bryan,
ReplyDeleteI hope you are right about Gavin Newsom, but he is probably going to run for Governor.
Also, I wouldn't compare Sf to Alaska.
Why is everyone so down on Alaska all of a sudden? Because of its governor?
ReplyDeleteI agree...We need to reuild the Republican party and the best way to do that is to go back to basics...let's all get back to the RIGHT where we came from. I hear so much trash on the internet about how the Republican Party needs to move farther left to ever nail down the majority...stupid. We look wishy-washy...which is how McCain looked to a lot of people... Let's all stand strong and tall in our RIGHT morals and our values and get our act together and let some of the bad thoughts and feelings of W wash away and rally up the Republican party and let's start winning some of the battles against the liberal left wing illuminati.
ReplyDeleteLike I said, Gary, if they have such a high approval rating for a governor who seems to be a dolt, then that says a lot about them.
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't mean that they aren't good, hard working, loyal Americans. They're just not very critical of their leaders.
Or perhaps there's something wrong with how that poll was conducted.
mnotaro,
ReplyDeleteRight you are.
Lance,
ReplyDeleteOr maybe Palin has done some things as governor that the msm never bothered to tell us about.
Gary, maybe you and other conservatives can clear something up for me here. You argue that the Republican party needs to move FURTHER to the right. So what you're saying is that Senator McCain wasn't far enough to the right. Yet I think we can probably all agree that he was and is to the right of President-Elect Obama. Since that is the case, why did Obama beat McCain by a fairly large margin? If what the American people are craving is a shift further to the RIGHT, then why did they very clearly choose the more liberal of the two candidates? Can you see now how your logic behind moving farther to the right makes essentially no sense? The anti-intellectual, social conservative wing of the Republican party is dead weight and they are pulling the party down.
ReplyDeleteExcuse me as I give a brief snicker over the whole "Illuminati" thing:
ReplyDeletesnicker
I hear what you're saying about what she's done as governor, Gary. Maybe you're right. But your answer isn't any more or less likely than mine.
The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
Lance,
ReplyDeleteIlluminati- " I still don't know what that words means!"
Reminds me of the Clarence Thomas hearings. Near the end, all the senators were droning on and Strom Thurmond said, "I still don't know what Long John Silver's got to do with all this."
Bryan,
ReplyDeleteWhat I was saying may not seem to make a whole lot of sense in that the voters chose a leftward course. We still maintain that conservatism (you call it far-right) is the correct philosophy. For us to abandon that philosophy just because of elections would not make sense either. The Republican party has learned that they have paid a price for not following Conservative values. They need to get rid of the old farts who have become ingrained in Washington and can't think past their next reelection.
This is one reason I am not a Republican. They are not doing what I think they should. Why should I belong to a party that is running neck and neck with the Dems when it comes to corruption?
For us conservatives, it is not about getting more Republicans elected. It is about conservative values. If the Republicans have to become Democrat light to get elected, then the hell with them.
I have not said this yet because I know it sounds arrogant. Yes, the people have spoken loud and clear, but so many of them are following a false God who will never be able to deliver what they think he will.
Gary,
ReplyDelete"Illuminati" is a term used by conspiracy nutbars. Oddly enough, I usually seem to hear it from left-leaning conspiracy nuts.
Yes, the people have spoken loud and clear, but so many of them are following a false God who will never be able to deliver what they think he will.
ReplyDeleteI don't disagree with this statement, but I think that "conservatives" are just as likely to fall into this mindset.
If Obama does anything less than walk on water, he'll disappoint a lot of people.
Gary, please check out this data to see exactly what I am talking about.
ReplyDeleteThe country is obviously taking a shift to the left. The Republican party will need to either adapt or face becoming completely irrelevant. I honestly believe that the party WILL move more towards the center. They'll still be to the right of the Democrats. And to be frank, that's all they need to earn the vote of the conservative faithful such as yourself, is to be more conservative/less liberal than the other guys. Heck, they could have nominated Chuck Hagel this time around and you probably still would have voted for him, because he would still be more conservative than Obama. They know they have your votes no matter what, they don't need to earn them. It's the people in the middle that they need to win. And the people in the middle are obviously leaning more towards the left these days. So a shift right will not help.
Bryan,
ReplyDeleteI couldn't bring it up cuz I don't know how to use the darn flash player. Anyway, I don't believe anything out of the NY Times, unless its the ball scores.
Gary, I want you to see this data bad enough that I took screenshots of it for you:
ReplyDeleteData 1
Data 2
Data 3
It directly illustrates everything I have been saying.
Bryan,
ReplyDeleteSo does that mean that in the next 8-12-16-20 years the Democrats will win every election? Do those charts take into consideration particular candidates, events, scandals etc?
About 10 years ago, most of those charts were red. What changed them?
It's not just demographics.
When you hit the bottom, there is nowhere else to go but back to the top. The mainstream media illuminati have helped the left-wing, but they will not be able to help them with the mess they're bound to make.
ReplyDelete