Huntsman and the future of the GOP.

[paul718]

Wow, it's like Bush didn't win in 2004.

Republicans in December '04:  "The Democrats really need to moderate themselves.  They're a broken party and need to reform from the ground up.  How do you expect to win when the party is led by John Kerry and Howard Dean?  America wants a President who will remain on offense in the War on Terror, not some whiney, peace-loving Democrat...The economy?  Who care's about that?  It's great!...Hey, did you hear about that new show Lost?"

[paul718]

Wow, it's like Bush didn't win in 2004.

Republicans in December '04:  "The Democrats really need to moderate themselves.  They're a broken party and need to reform from the ground up.  How do you expect to win when the party is led by John Kerry and Howard Dean?  America wants a President who will remain on offense in the War on Terror, not some whiney, peace-loving Democrat...The economy?  Who care's about that?  It's great!...Hey, did you hear about that new show Lost?"

The comparisons are silly.  First off Bush's 04 win was one of the smallest victories an incumbent has ever had.  On top of that despite those losses the Dems were gaining ground in crucial areas (Northern Virginia, suburban Denver, Research Triangle, Columbus metro).  The Republicans aren't doing that, the areas in which the GOP is gaining ground in have very little electoral impact. 

So while it wasn't enough to win in 04, one thing the Dems had to look forward to, was the fact many of the crucial areas were moving in the Dems direction.  The Republicans don't have that, not even close to it.

My point is that the current "down" party is always perceived to "have trouble with moderate voters".  In a few years, should the GOP be in power, people will be saying the same thing about the Democrats.  It's common sense really.  Elections are won in the middle.  America has been rejecting the Republicans because they've been incompetent and untrustworthy, not because they are too conservative.  In '04 the Democrats lost because the GOP was viewed as tougher on terror, not because the Democrats were "too progressive". 

Are you gonna tell me that Barack Obama was a more moderate Senator than John McCain?  America wanted the Republicans out and the Democrats in.  Period.  Hence, Obama's "Change" theme was so simple, yet so effective. 

[paul718]

The fact is that the ideological center has shifted while the Republicans remained static.

Ten years ago the ideas of universal health care or civil unions for gays were considered leftist.
Now they are considered mainstream. That's why the moderates are gravitating towards the Democrats.

Exactly.  The ideological center will always shift according to external circumstances.  Eventually, it will shift toward the right and the Republicans will win.  Then it will swing the other way, and so on.  Like it always has. 

Simply "moderating" the party's general principles won't solve any problems.  They just need a combination of better circumstances and better candidates. 

[paul718]

Simply "moderating" the party's general principles won't solve any problems.  They just need a combination of better circumstances and better candidates. 

Uh, I don't think the circumstances are coming back where Jerry Falwell and Pat Buchannan need to be the image of the Party, but good luck with all that...

When I say "better circumstances" I mean:
- not during an mishandled and unpopular war
- not on the heels of a presidency with 20% approval ratings
- not in the midst of a global financial meltdown
- not when your team is leading the other team in federal indictments

Uh, I don't really undestand what your post was implying, but good luck with all that.  

[paul718]

The problem is when the party basically refuses to accept the fact that changes have been made in regards to the American public.  Thoughts on Universal Health care, gay rights among other things are very unlikely to swing back toward the right.   By not adapting to the changes, putting themselves into a bubble and just waiting for things to shift back toward the right they will make themselves into a more regional party than they already are.  

Social issues won't swing toward the right.  They always progress, and the more conservative party at the time must always play catch-up.  With that being said, I don't think social issues matter to swing voters.  Did the Republicans get killed in the last two elections cycles because of gay marriage?  Wasn't Obama's position identical to McCain's? 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't know.  Has there been a study on why voters in those cities went Democrat?  How have they been trending?  Did any of them go Republican in '04?  If so, I doubt those voters had a sudden epiphany regarding gay marriage. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

How did the Democrats rebound after 2004? 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You'd be hard-pressed to find many Repulicans who doubt that the party is in deep trouble.  But I'm sure they would all agree that the problem is with "Republicanism", rather than "Conservatism". 

[paul718]

Well the Republicans tried to position McCain as much further to the right on the issue than Obama

How so?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

What other issues are you talking about?  Universal health care?  Everyone wants universal health care.  It's just that most Republicans haven't found a fiscally responsible to make it happen.  And I would venture to say that most Rockefeller-types are unhappy with GOP because they've been incompetent, not because of social issues. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

All of these crucial areas were already trending Democratic.  They were able to continue picking up more & more ground on areas moving in their direction.  The GOP doesn't have that, at least in areas which will help them win anything.  That I think is one of the biggest differences between the Democrats after 04 and the GOP now.  Despite the Dems loses they were picking up ground in important areas, the GOP isn't.
[/quote]


Okay.  You might have a good argument there. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're right, but they also didn't get there asses kicked in for being "too conservative".

War + Recession + Corruption = disaster

None of those factors are based on conservatism.  The post-Clinton Republicans didn't really govern conservatively, anyway.

Social issues won't swing toward the right.  They always progress, and the more conservative party at the time must always play catch-up.  With that being said, I don't think social issues matter to swing voters.  Did the Republicans get killed in the last two elections cycles because of gay marriage?  Wasn't Obama's position identical to McCain's? 

Don't you think that Sarah Palin and her gutter rhetoric alienated many suburban voters?
Don't you that the fact that James Dobson and Rush Limbaugh have become de facto leaders of the Republican party has turned away many moderate voters?
Don't you think that Tom DeLay's shenanigans made many Rockefeller Republicans to recoil and abandon the party?

Okay.  You just named four personalities, who many Republicans don't even like, and nothing that has to do with American rejection of conservatism.  You didn't even address my post that you quoted. 

[paul718]

These personalities all relished taking part into the culture wars.
They have the same characteristics and set of policies:

Strident partisanship.

Rush is a radio commentator.  Sarah Palin was running for Vice-President.  They're supposed to be stridently partisan.  Just like Keith Olbermann and Joe Biden.  
  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Being opposed to hinderance of economic growth, in reaction to a scientific theory that has yet to be proven, is why the GOP lost?  I, for one, believe in man-made climate change (as do many other Republicans, including those in Congress and our last presidential nominee), but I'm not gonna fault those who remain unconvinced.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're making me not want to take you seriously.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Social issue.  And did the GOP platform take a stance against abortion resulting from rape/incest?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

Social issue.  And I don't remember Palin or Limbaugh bordering on "hate" of gay people.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

A belief that laws should be followed?  How extreme!  Besides, Bush and McCain both advocated a plan co-sponsored by Ted Kennedy.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

No.  Not enough to have made a difference.  

[paul718]

All of these crucial areas were already trending Democratic.  They were able to continue picking up more & more ground on areas moving in their direction.  The GOP doesn't have that, at least in areas which will help them win anything.  That I think is one of the biggest differences between the Democrats after 04 and the GOP now.  Despite the Dems loses they were picking up ground in important areas, the GOP isn't.

Okay.  You might have a good argument there. 

How will the GOP regain in these areas??  And if they can't where can they make the gains to cancel out what they have lost?

We'll likely never agree on any of the other points we've argued so far.  But I see substance here.  On what issues should the GOP change in order to fight back in the areas you mentioned? 

[paul718]

It seems that YOU are joking.
Comparing Biden to Palin is at least comical. I don't remember Biden accusing McCain of ''palling around with terrorists'' or of ''voting against our troops''. (even though technically these accusations wouldn't be false)

 

Palin's statements were stupid, but I don't know how they equated to "strident partisanship". 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't understand what you mean by anti-intellectualism.  Please explain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I fundamentally disagree with that statement.  I don't have any studies on hand that would show otherwise.  But if you do, by all means, please share.  I base my opinion on the fact that there were non-social issues (economy, Iraq) that dominated the discussion during the campaign.

[paul718]

They need to drop the over the top rhetoric.  I'm not suggesting that they need to come out and be supporters of gay marriage, but having Focus on the Family types be the spokesman on the issue doesn't help.   Stop fighting any and every environmental advancement.  McCain backed tracked a bit from some of his environmental positions.  They need to stop trying to intertwine religion and Science just because the Science differs from their religious beliefs.  Keep religion out of Science class.  The anti-intellectualism expressed by some in the party doesn't help.  Many of these areas have among the highest education rates in the entire country, having Palin and the ilk rallying basically against intellectualism doesn't help.

I wouldn't have a problem with any of that (I actually disagree with the GOP on most non-economic matters, aside from abortion).  I think those suggestions are pretty on point and quite realistic.  My idea of "moderating" was probably a little more extreme than what you were trying to convey, like dropping the pro-life issue or something like that.