Huntsman and the future of the GOP.

[Landslide Lyndon]

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. 

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.

[Landslide Lyndon]

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? 

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?

[Landslide Lyndon]

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

Strident partisanship.
Global warming denial.
Anti-intelectualism.
Pro-life to the extreme (even in cases of rape and incest).
Fervent opposition to gay rights, bordering to hate.
Fervent opposition to immigration reform.

Don't you think that these stances made the republican party as a whole an unacceptable choice to many voters?

[Landslide Lyndon]

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.  

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)
And why stating that Republicans have become the party of Anti-intellectualism is unserious?
Please explain.
 
The SOCIAL issues was a big reason of why the GOP lost the suburban vote. If you want to ignore it and pretend it didn't happen then more power to you.