As the Obama administration defines itself by actions rather than words and George W. Bush fades into history, the number of people calling themselves conservative has increased. As RealClearPolitics notes however, they do not call themselves Republican. Yet we find ourselves in a world where the Republican Party, which is unpopular, often calls for abandoning major facets of conservatism which are popular. This is consistent with the party direction between Goldwater and Reagan. The Republican Party, when seen as the party of big business and privileges for the rich, is unpopular. When seen as the vehicle for conservatism it regains popularity.
Again, and again, the Republican Party is maneuvered into a position to defend corporations against popular outrage, even when, as with subsidies and earmarks, such policies work against the free market, accountability, and the other principles for which the party is nominally said to stand. One way that Republicans obtained a working majority in the 1980s was to convince conservatives who were Democrats that it was safe to vote for them, and indeed dangerous to vote for the Democrats.
Once again Republicans need to take a page from this playbook. The main type of conservatives available, but unmarried to the Republican Party, are the fiscal conservative, balanced budget hawks. At the present time, the congressional party is not doing that much to gather them in. It is Obama and his policies that are causing them to look to the Republicans again. Republicans must build on the successes of fiscally conservative governors like Mitch Daniels and Tim Pawlenty and go national with slowing the growth of government.
The next thing Republicans can do is publically get behind popular initiatives in the states. Again and again, Republicans have shied away from publically backing initiatives in the states with massive public support such as anti-discrimination ballot initiatives and pro-traditional marriage efforts. The Republican Party rarely raises money and presents a popular face for these movements which then go on to win by landslide margins.
This is also the case for anti-tax movements, where the Republicans sometimes join but just as often don’t. Arnold Schwarzenegger is single-handedly destroying the Republican brand in the nation’s largest state. He was against Proposition 8. He was for every tax hiking ballot initiative that failed by 25% margins. He has supported affirmative action. It is as if Conan was asked “What is best in life” and responded “To raise taxes, to spend enormous sums we don’t have, and to hear the lamentations of social conservatives.” I would love to hear a defense of Ahnold from some New Majoritarians if there is one to be made.
The Republican Party needs to poach on the territory that is vacant by Democrats. That is defense of balanced budgets and less spending. This should be coupled with a shot at corporations that live on the public dole. Republicans should attack the takeover of banks and businesses with the rallying cry “Keep the Private Sector Private — Vote Republican.” Ronald Reagan said that Democrats have a three-step process: “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.” Obama has added “If it continues not to move, socialize it.” There is vast unease in the land over this. It is unease tailor made for conservatives. If they fail to seize it they deserve their minority state.
43 responses so far
1 Tenek // Jun 16, 2009 at 7:39 am
I like the part where you said “anti-discrimination ballot initiatives and pro-traditional marriage efforts.” Dude, pick one.
2 ottovbvs // Jun 16, 2009 at 7:46 am
Didn’t the Republicans take over the banks, insurance and car companies. There is not vast unease in the land there is relief the financial and economic crisis is abating and eager anticipation of the passage of major healthcare reform. Most of these “issue” polls are worthless either because the questions are loaded or because most people are unfocussed or don’t understand the issue. This far from elections you have to look at the national mood and which groups they trust to deal with problems. The national mood is on the upswing and Obama enjoys a thirty point margin over the Republicans. Finally when it gets down to the wire are the electorate going to displace Obama and the democrats and replace them with Limbaugh/Cheney/Palin and the Republicans. Not really. Basically this is blather from Vecchione.
3 mlindroo // Jun 16, 2009 at 7:52 am
> Ronald Reagan said that Democrats have a three-step
> process: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it.
> If it stops moving, subsidize it.
Does Vecchione seriously believe the current financial crisis (housing, financial bubble) is primarily due to stifling regulation and taxes that are too high??
MARCU$
4 midcon // Jun 16, 2009 at 7:59 am
John, it is true that a Republican majority must be conservative, but converse does not seem to be true these days – A Conservative Majority Must Be Republican.
Unlike Fall’s Church, outside the beltway, like in Fair Lakes most folks are conservative but do not seem to be Republican.
In the DC Metro area I conduct bumber sticker polling and the bumper stickers tell me that even though there is broad support for conservative causes, there seems to be little support for the Republican party. Mind you, my polling is not very scientific, it’s only based on what I see on the bumpers as I travel on roads like 66, 29, and 50.
5 balconesfault // Jun 16, 2009 at 8:10 am
“Does Vecchione seriously believe the current financial crisis (housing, financial bubble) is primarily due to stifling regulation and taxes that are too high?? “
That speaks to discussions that we’ve had elsewhere. The Republicans can’t just move forward on an ideological platform. They need to demonstrate competence in governance at a national level.
The popular Republican state governors aren’t just popular because of fiscal conservatism – they’re popular if they can blend fiscal conservatism with a government that’s competent at doing what people expect government to do.
And that is what the Bush Administration failed at – in too many areas, the story of the administration is one of poor governance. Spending increasing without people seeing tangible benefits (except for a subset of the population getting a prescription drug benefit). Debt growing at the same time people were finding a multitude of little “tax increases” cropping up, such as the cost of obtaining a passport, park fees, more and more toll roads, etc.
When a government begins to be perceived as being more interested in spending on water projects and bridges in a country on the other side of the globe than in Louisiana or Minnesota, it’s going to have a significant problem being perceived as taking care of its citizens.
6 Cforchange // Jun 16, 2009 at 8:12 am
Fiscal conservatism is the future but fiscal conservatism is it period. This is clearly substaniated by the Independent rise since 2008 election. I may not add to their ranks if the GOP can drop the religious motivated agenda and get down to business. But like the many before me who have gladly let the door hit their rear on the way out – I’m not willing any longer to endorse my brand until it clears its focus.
Within the GOP, the minority that I will classify as expert cooperatives have stuck with the party and with reason have both listened and conversed about the past but the future will be different. The amicable minority of the GOP has been encited. This minority has been grossly manipulated and disrespected by the base, The GOP
has compromised candidate selection to appease this base. How can this imbalance be disguised.
Well run effective government is what the majority looks for- everything else is special interest. I don’t know of anyone who is buying into Obama is responsible for our deficits – it’s DC as the whole, they own the mess. I don’t know of any single plain ordinary citizen who doesn’t conclude that we are fundamentally broken as a nation and that’s why we have mass deficits, depleted employment and massive social ills like drug addiction, divorce, child abuse…. Blight extreme just look at at the tatoo’d mid American.
It’s time to focus strictly on business – simply it is too difficult to achieve the American dream. The party that can improve the path to the dream meaning give the masses a purpose, a sense of accomplishment not the fear of being outsourced will prevail. So we are the party of no, no, no. Anti this, anti that. The GOP will not win with this negativity so inticately woven into it’s agenda. We’re on rock bottom – the public is looking for the light.
With our diminshing GOP ranks especially with women, how could there be another conclusion about our exclusionary platform. So not only is it time to “poach”, it’s time to purge.
7 grackle // Jun 16, 2009 at 8:46 am
I guess it depends on how you define conservative and Republican. Being a Republican used to mean you were a strong believer in limited government, a free market economic system and a strong national defense in other words being a Republican had to do with promoting certain preeminent and(I believe) politically attractive issues.
But these days the major part of the energies of the GOP is devoted more to demagoging on immigration, promoting religious values and making sure same-sex marriage never happens. The old tried and true issues mentioned above gather dust in obscure corners of the Republican Party, given nominal lip service around election time but otherwise all but ignored in favor of conservative social and moral ideas.
If you live by demagoguery you die by demagoguery and the GOP is rapidly shrinking. It only survives because of certain mistakes in tactics and strategy by the Democrats.
8 sinz54 // Jun 16, 2009 at 9:08 am
ottovbvs: I know how much you adore Obama. But we conservatives have to start somewhere, to rebuild the party and the movement. Even if it takes 16 years (as it did from Goldwater’s landslide loss to Reagan’s landslide win).
Your constantly gloating and telling us to give up, it’s hopeless, just surrender and let the Democratic Party rule America as a one-party state is not helpful.
9 sinz54 // Jun 16, 2009 at 9:27 am
balconesfault sez: “And that is what the Bush Administration failed at – in too many areas, the story of the administration is one of poor governance.”
I totally disagree.
It would be very easy for us to just dismiss Bush as an incompetent, and offer another candidate who was competent in his current job–but not make any changes to our policies and proposals. And we will lose. Again.
The Dems did that after Jimmy Carter–they just wrote him off as incompetent, figured that another smarter liberal could do better, and nominated Walter Mondale and then Mike Dukakis. Though both of them were *competent*, they both lost decisively.
Bill Clinton represented not just “competence” (as Alaska governor), but an *ideological shift* away from hard-core liberalism. His support of the death penalty, his willingness to use military force, and his humble Southern upbringing, convinced many Americans he wasn’t just another Jimmy Carter.
Bush didn’t invade Iraq because he was personally incompetent. In fact, during the 2000 campaign, Bush was critical of Clinton’s military adventurism. The Iraq War was the product of a theory from certain neoconservatives that the true nexus of anti-American terrorism was in the Middle East, not Afghanistan.
The corporate welfare that we all decry wasn’t inadvertently caused by incompetent men, but by men like Phil Gramm who knew exactly what they were doing. (Gramm’s wife got rewarded with a cushy job on the Board of Directors of Enron.) And ideologically, the GOP had little to say about it. The GOP Platform said absolutely nothing about the dangers and abuses of corporatism or corporate welfare. Republicans felt free to traffic in it.
So I don’t agree with you that it’s about demonstrating competence. If we do that, we will end up with somebody like Sarah Palin who, just like Mike Dukakis, can claim to be a competent governor but who doesn’t show the American people that the *policies* they disliked will be changed.
The changes that need to be made here are obvious:
First, declare that America will support freedom around the world by peaceful means. We got the USSR to cave in without a nuclear war. We can do it again with the regimes in the Middle East.
Second, support *across-the-board* economic reforms (like across-the-board tax cuts) while declaring that corporate welfare, where lobbyists huddle with legislators to craft special legislation to favor those lobbyists’ companies, will not be tolerated by the GOP again.
10 KL7212 // Jun 16, 2009 at 3:01 pm
“Second, support *across-the-board* economic reforms (like across-the-board tax cuts) while declaring that corporate welfare, where lobbyists huddle with legislators to craft special legislation to favor those lobbyists’ companies, will not be tolerated by the GOP again.”
Tax cuts, blah, blah, blah.
Forgive my impertinence, but you’re offering nothing new, sinz54.
Supply side economics have been passe for 20 years. Its most recent application, enacted out of quasi-religious zeal, rather than sober, reality based thinking, has been disastrous to the country and its fortunes.
The tax cut message is a non-starter because a) most people no longer pay a significant percentage of their incomes to Federal income tax and b) most people are more concerned with jobs and long term economic security and c) most Americans like Big Government and what it gives them.
Borrow and Spend is no better than Tax and Spend. In fact, it’s worse since neither Democratic nor Republican controlled Congresses will ever risk upsetting their constituencies by enacting the necessary attendant spending cuts.
11 balconesfault // Jun 16, 2009 at 3:36 pm
“Borrow and Spend is no better than Tax and Spend. In fact, it’s worse since neither Democratic nor Republican controlled Congresses will ever risk upsetting their constituencies by enacting the necessary attendant spending cuts. “
Much worse, imo – we did have a moment of stasis at the end of the Clinton Administration, with the Republican Congress – where the budget was balanced, or so close to being balanced – that any new spending proposal received the type of scrutiny that it should have received, because the implications of moving 50 billion or even 5 billion away from the balanced budget could actually draw fire.
The tax cuts killed that dynamic – suddenly we went back to deficits in the 200 billion range … and discipline went out the window. When the government is running a 200 billion deficit, 5 billion seems like nothing, and fiscal discipline is too easy to lose sight of as a goal.
There was clearly the fear among some on the right that surpluses were dangerous, because they provided opportunity for liberals to create new programs. But at least while we had surpluses (for what – 2 years?) we could focus on a greater goal of finally eliminating the debt. I don’t think that anyone grasped that in their own way large deficits lead to fiscal irresponsibility much more directly than surpluses do.
12 jjv // Jun 16, 2009 at 4:04 pm
I can find nothing to find fault with in any of balconesfault. The fact is governors who focus on small government are often very competent indeed. As for CforChange, I’m not for purges. I didn’t want Specter to go and I didn’t want Santorum out (or whoever you think is “too religious.” Sinz54 hits the nail on the head. A majority thinks Republicans are in bed with big business regardless of what its principles are. If the government is confiscating property we defend big business but if subsidies or special breaks are the issue we ought not. Finally, I think grackle is way off base. The institutional GOP does very little for social conservatives when it is in office. It is precisely the corporate interests that get the most out of Republican governance.
13 Chrisc23 // Jun 16, 2009 at 8:40 pm
A person who would make an EXCELLENT President- Congressman Leonard Lance (R) NJ.
I continue to fear that the Republican party will go dark if we continue to have fools like Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, and Rush Limbaugh in the spot light. And I believe Fox News is hurting our image especially with people like Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity on there.
I’m a Republican and I dislike Fox News. I watch MSNBC.
14 Cforchange // Jun 17, 2009 at 5:31 am
jjv- since the article is speaking of ideology, my purging pertains to the reducing the platform that attracts the screechy preechy judgemental. Singling out and purging people is part of the problem – it’s personal and too judgemental. Further I would agree that the tone of my post is part of the funk – we can’t get beyond the fighting – I’m very bored with it myself. We can’t get the ugly part of the party to pipe down.
Here I wanted to strongly convey that I’m not on board for a vague definition of conservatism. I’ve been hoodwinked before – yes by Santorum. You brought him up – the people gave him their verdict. He name called/insulted his constituents but they were clear, his priorities were wrong and he was fired.
15 sinz54 // Jun 17, 2009 at 6:40 am
CforChange: You’re never going to get the so-called “ugly part” of the GOP to pipe down, not after Gingrich and Rove built them up as the key to the GOP’s GOTV drives.
What needs to be done is to build up a “reality-based faction” as a counterweight to the “ugly” faction. David Frum hoped that New Majority could help do this.
Unfortunately, NM doesn’t seem to be succeeding. The furious reaction from the “Dr. Tesla” types is probably discouraging more moderate conservatives who deserted the GOP in 2006 and/or 2008 (which is probably their intention). Why should moderates or sensible conservatives stay and take abuse from the ideologues? What’s in it for them? I’m sure their attitude toward the GOP is: You dug yourselves this hole, now dig yourselves out of it.
David Frum might do better taking his campaign to the smaller colleges and the community colleges, where he might get a better reception. A new group of young Republicans, who aren’t part of the traditional GOP base, would help energize his ideas. (The Ivy League universities are too liberal for even a David Frum to get a decent hearing.)
16 Cforchange // Jun 17, 2009 at 8:41 am
Sinz – Bingo! But I do think defection started earlier like in 2000.
DF should examine your campus idea but if the church ladies aren’t suppressed it will be difficult to make any ground. As a wise friend of mine pointed out that the essence of higher education is to explore your freedom. Presenting Republicanism on a campus framed by what you’re against has been the death blow to the youth of the party. It’s just an unthinkable combination and this will NEVER change.
If the GOP doesn’t start a recruitment targeted towards towards an agreeable middle there will be a successful national Independent candidate in the near future.
If the only way to prosper is to work for, be a vendor of or live near the hub of government – it will be difficult to convince the simple masses like myself to believe we live in a Democracy.
Thinkers too close to this circle think this is a new advent with the bank barf but there has been a continual stream of “prosperity”shams that the average Joe clearly understands and has been too “conservative” and honest to participate. This issue isn’t GOP owned, if Barry can’t fix it there probably will be another contingent of the population open to Independent status.
There are numerous broad appeal issues that haven’t even been seriously presented by either party. Issues that I hear unamimously bantered amongst my peers like term limits, simplified tax code, and tort reform. Maybe this has been the political ploy all along – keeping the hotair swirling so the status quo can remain. The people are very exhausted but the Tesla’s will only win the GOP and that will be on the hands of the leadership.
I have a foggy distant memory from my faith affiliated college days – all my little Republican friends enjoying Bloody Mary’s, Ernest Angely and as sinners, putting our hands on the televison set! Frame the college tours around that and they will come. Sinz maybe you should do the college tour – you seem reasonable + amiable.
17 barker13 // Jun 17, 2009 at 9:14 am
Anyone who thinks Newt Gingrich represents “the ugly part” of the GOP is surely no conservative and absolutely no Republican.
We can argue “means” and “strategies” all day long and still mostly agree on ends… but anyone who isn’t at least 80% with Gingrich on “end” is no conservative, no Republican.
Rove? That’s a different story. He represents “Bush loyalty” first, “GOP loyalty” second, and “Rove’s continuing status as a well paid tv/radio guest, paid speaker, sometimes columnist, and perhaps future political operative once again.”
While I’m not saying Gingrich is above doing “what’s best for Gingrich,” the bottom line is that Gingrich is first and foremost a historian, and intellectual, and an ideas man and policy wonk.
(Hell… I’d pay Bill Clinton the same compliment. And as to Rove, his counterpart would be Carville.)
BILL
18 Cforchange // Jun 17, 2009 at 10:00 am
Oh Barker you’re putting words in our mouths so you get in the middle of our agreement. Your’re trying the Letterman Willow connect on us here, ****yawn****.
19 balconesfault // Jun 17, 2009 at 10:22 am
cforchange: “Issues that I hear unamimously bantered amongst my peers like term limits, simplified tax code, and tort reform.”
Tort reform has been a productive issue for Republicans – but it’s a dangerous one when pushed too far. To an extent, it sounds like “common sense” and is popular … but past a point it starts to sound like “tipping the playing field to large corporations”, and is easily subject to populist attacks.
Term limits WAS tried … don’t you remember the Contract for America? Once in power, the Gingrich Republicans dropped the issue and happily stayed in their seats as long as their constituents would keep electing them.
Same with simplified tax code. Seems the country goes through cycles of simplifying the tax code, and then politicians go back to work sticking tax incentives in to support any number of pet agenda items and constituencies … and in a relatively short time the tax code is extremely complicated once again.
The counterpoint to this would be to mandate that Congress just be up front and honest about things they want to support … and do so through direct subsidies, rather than the tax code. It would make the effects on the budget more transparent, potentially cut down on a lot of shenanigans, and yes … simplify our taxes.
20 barker13 // Jun 17, 2009 at 11:09 am
Re: Cforchange; wrote 56 minutes ago –
“Oh Barker you’re putting words in our mouths…”
Yeah…??? Let’s examine the actual words:
1) Chrisc23; 8:40 PM –
“…fools like Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, and Rush Limbaugh…”
(*SHRUG*)
2) Sinz54; 6:40 AM –
“…the so-called “ugly part” of the GOP to pipe down, not after Gingrich and Rove built them up…”
3) Cforchange; 8:41 AM –
“Sinz – Bingo!”
(*SHRUG*) You were saying, Cforchange…???
(*SNORT*)
BILL
21 Cforchange // Jun 17, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Oh Barker that was fun cranking you up. But get over it -and there you go the classy Republican firing squad “get out if you don’t agree”. I didn’t tell you to get out – I asked not to have the agenda monopolized so monopolized that in fact that it obstructs well run government. It’s hard to run a business for all the people under the guise of a crusade. When will the hangover become reality I wonder.
Here we were speaking about developing a NEW majority – you know, now pie in the sky numbers for the GOP. Sinz had a good idea but you clearly like things just as they lie. Just yell over top of a good idea. Aren’t there plenty of chat opportunities for you finger nail on the chalk board folks? People who snort to communicate are not good for the majority cause either.
Balcon – these issues will resurface because of the pending long term stagnant economy. Maybe we will go to fairlyland where manufacturing magically returns putting throngs of debtless people to work. One can only hope.
22 sinz54 // Jun 17, 2009 at 1:52 pm
barker13: I never said that Gingrich was part of the “ugly part” of the GOP. I said that men like Gingrich and Rove devised electoral strategies to use the evangelicals and the social conservatives as their foot soldiers to win elections. The type of policy wonks that Gingrich was part of, couldn’t be counted on to ring doorbells and phone voters.
23 barker13 // Jun 17, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Re: Cforchange; 12:05 PM –
“Oh Barker that was fun cranking you up.”
“…cranking…?”
What are you, a meth head…???
(*CHUCKLE*) (*GRIN*)
I’ll never get people who seemingly don’t care whether their charges are based on truth or lies. Character flaw? Bad upbringing? I don’t know what to tell you except that you threw out a bullshit charge and I threw it right back at you citing the actual comments I had been responding to.
“I didn’t tell you to get out…”
HUH…?!?! What are you BABBLING about…???
(Are you a meth head…???)
“When will the hangover become reality I wonder.”
You’ve TOTALLY lost me. WHAT in God’s name are you talking about…???
“…you clearly like things just as they lie.”
Umm… translation please…??? Are you trying to say I see things as they are…??? I mean… I do… but this doesn’t seem a trait you especially admire.
(*SHRUG*)
“Here we were speaking about developing a NEW majority…”
Actually… CfC… you might wanna re-read the title of this thread. Here… allow me:
“A REPUBLICAN MAJORITY MUST BE CONSERVATIVE”
(*SNORT*)
“…you know, now pie in the sky numbers for the GOP.”
Huh…??? Seriously… are you drunk? Stoned? On one of those medications where you shouldn’t be driving, operating machinery, or… blogging?
CfC. Don’t quite know what you THINK you’re achieving with this latest (12:05 PM) post of yours, but the more I read the less seriously I take you. For God’s sake, pull yourself together and make a coherent point in relation to something I’ve actually written.
“People who snort to communicate…”
Really? (*GRIN*) Back to that…??? That’s your “go to” move? (*SNICKER*)
“Maybe we will go to fairlyland where manufacturing magically returns…”
First on point comment you’ve made! (*CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*) Good for you! Let’s see if you can maintain concentration…
So… are you inferring that you’re AGAINST a national policy of reindustrialization – a policy that would be anchored to “fair trade” reforms and a tax policy which rewards U.S. manufacturing facility expansion?
I mean, CfC… it’s pretty clear what I’m proposing and why I’m proposing it; instead of trying to misrepresent other’s views as well as back away from your own past comments and those of others, why not engage in policy debate – at at the very least tell us what you favor vs. what you oppose in terms of specific policies and proposed national goals?
(*SHRUG*)
BILL
24 barker13 // Jun 17, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Re: Sinz54; wrote 9 minutes ago –
“Barker13: I never said that Gingrich was part of the “ugly part” of the GOP.”
You inferred it. At least, that’s how I took your post. If you say that’s not what you meant I’ll of course GLADLY take your word for it.
“I said that men like Gingrich and Rove…”
Lumping the two together. Note – my post decoupled the two, commenting on each man as an individual.
Sinz. I’m not out to twist your words. Do me a favor and clarify. Do you include Rove or Gingrich as part of the “ugly side” of the GOP? Simple, straightforward question, looking for a simple, straightforward answer.
(Or do you believe that Rove and Gingrich are both “non-ugly Republicans who engage in creating… er… ugliness?)
(Oh… and if so… going back to the original question would you equate Gingrich with Rove – are both men of a “like stripe” as far as you’re concerned?)
BILL
25 sinz54 // Jun 17, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Cforchange: In keeping with my idea of growing a youth cadre from the smaller colleges, community colleges, and even vocational schools:
Let’s have some opinion polls about what the big issues these young people think are most important. I would imagine that paying for college is numero uno, but I’m sure there are others. Probably preserving the environment.
As for who should go into those schools and campaign: I don’t think these youngsters would or should listen to me. I’m too old. And I’m chronically ill, which is a double downer (and limits how much I can get around).
Obama got a lot of young people interested because they perceived him as one of them: Young (he was a kid when the Vietnam War was raging), hip, and talks like a college intellectual.
David Frum looks the part. Maybe Eric Cantor does too. David Frum should give some guest lectures at some community colleges–for free. Those schools rarely get A-list public speakers, so they would welcome a chance to hear Frum speak.
26 midcon // Jun 17, 2009 at 5:01 pm
sinz,
That is actually a very good suggestion. I hope Frum sees it and decides that it might make sense to get on the non-Ivy League school circuit. The smaller schools would indeed welcome the increased attention. Good solid concrete idea. Nice to see one of those every once in awhile.
27 Cforchange // Jun 17, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Sinz – I second the praise. This is the best idea that I’ve heard out of any of my internet viewing. It appears there are simply too few ideas, a sure symptom of the age of party members.
Well for thinking you are a downer, your attitude is in the right place. Good night, I’m off for my lobotomy or some other seedy activity that helps me cope with my conservative impurity.
28 Cforchange // Jun 18, 2009 at 4:19 am
Sinz, I’ve had my treatment – ha and now my input to a potential agenda:
The GOP needs to take ownership of “Business Organizing”. It’s a natural for the original platform and it’s necessary. Let’s give the Dem’s their day, they deserve it because for a party that didn’t even realize the dior need for “Community Organizing” we deserve our 8 year holiday. We need to respect their strength’s if they succeed in getting humanity back in order but then we will need to manage the cost of this effort. If you need details about what I mean here – I’ve got them… I’ll show them….
Business Organizing needs to be a movement that encourages and simplifies the process to reinstitute small scale assembly or manufacturing where it makes sense. It needs to be efficient thus naturally green plus close to home is the future.
Example: The screw.
Recently we engaged in a tiny home project where we jetted out to the home improvement mega store to purchase some wood and screws. Upon leaving, I was so stunned at the end cost I surveyed my friends who are in the know about these things and yes the price was double what they would have expected. Where we live, wood is local so we bought and paid for convenience. The screws on the other hand, while they were nicely marked and perfectly packaged – they were $7.50 per dozen. Further, one of my survey responders reported that during a recent kitchen rehab, the screws became a major source of stress because they were faulty(fact -poor quality foreign metal) .
The weakness: Purchasing building supplies in this costly mannner is no longer advantageous but it could be argued that it never was. I didn’t care that the screws came out of a retail store nor did I want them shrink wrapped. Quality expected, but for my rehabing friend, the screw cost much more because the carpenter had to source/ resource – screw and unscrew.
The opportunity: New US screw manufacturing plant that uses better quality materials, doesn’t waste time & money on wrapping goods in environ unfriendly materials or burn fossil fuels to deliver around the world then within the states.
The benefit: Accountants put to work managing. Hand work jobs created – this is essential to American happiness. Everyone buys/ rents plus maintains housing. Company buys and mantains facility. Lot’s of money circulated right in the community. Everyone gladly pays taxes and that is how it should be. The GOP has pit bulled onto taxes are bad – no, what is bad that not enough people are paying them.
How many other activites have we dismissed? We need to get out of our Seinfield mentality of days about absolutely nothing. Busy and prosperity are the keys to family values, busy keeps you married. Empty preaching about family values garners spite.
I wouldn’t know what advice to give to a business student today. But it the game changed and we moved to an evolved rhetro state of doing again there is lots to excite and engage people in.
Business Organizing would give the GOP a direct connection back to where we come – the business school and yes of non Ivy league contention. Getting back to business on all accounts would leave a lot less time for obsessing over the nebulous like religion and personal behavior. The hero will be the one who can deliver a paycheck and yes taxes.
29 sinz54 // Jun 18, 2009 at 6:55 am
There already are some so-called “Young Republicans” type organizations. But they don’t seem to be reaching outward to the schools as I had suggested. Rather, they’re spending their time on various hot button issues, like the recent California propositions.
Steele and the national GOP should work to reorient those “Young Republicans” into a cadre who can aggressively target all the schools within reach.
30 barker13 // Jun 18, 2009 at 9:52 am
You know, Sinz… you’re quick to ask others questions and when you ask me questions I’m quick to reply.
Why is it a one-way thing with you?
Not that I want to think ill of you… but if you were actually being honest and sincere in your 1:52 PM post, why not just answer the simple and direct clarification questions I posed in my 2:12 PM post?
As I wrote over on another thread, “fair is fair” and if you’re going to satisfy YOUR curiosity regarding others opinions and where their facts come from then I suggest you show some reciprocity.
BILL
31 balconesfault // Jun 18, 2009 at 12:43 pm
“There already are some so-called “Young Republicans” type organizations.”
For what it’s worth, can anyone explain why Young Republicans weren’t spearheading campus enlistment drives during the last decade? That, more than any polemics, would have defused many liberal arguments against the way our troops were deployed.
32 midcon // Jun 18, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Another good idea I just saw here. Well not so much a whole articulated policy, but I see the potential.
Isn’t our industrial (including manufacturing) capability a national security issue?
Shouldn’t be interested in re-industrializing the U.S. I’m not talking about smokestack spewing factories, but we use to be good at making things. I bet we still are, but we need things to make.
We have people who like to do that work. They like making things. Isn’t there room in this country for a little insourcing? Does most of Boeing’s Dreamliner have to be produced outside of the U.S.?
33 WillyP // Jun 19, 2009 at 5:51 am
I couldn’t agree more with Mr. Vecchione. Shortly following the election, weak-kneed Republicans reflexively recoiled at what they view as the defeat of conservatism. But Mr. McCain was no movement conservative, never fired up the base, never spoke to principles, and aside from his surge policy, had little to brag about. It’s good to read this type of recommendation on this website, which usually focuses inordinately on absurd and dangerous ideas such as fighting global warming and jettisoning all social values from politics. I think traditional conservatism will inevitably re-conquer the party and save us from the systematic destruction being executed by Obama.
34 sinz54 // Jun 19, 2009 at 6:05 am
WillyP sez: “But Mr. McCain was no movement conservative, never fired up the base”
This urban myth has been exploded by the 2008 exit polls, which showed that some 80% of self-described conservatives voted for McCain.
The election was lost by a massive defection of moderate and swing and Independent voters.
If the GOP is to make any forward progress at all, it’s going to have to start by facing FACTS, not fantasies. The notion that the 2008 election was lost due to the base being disaffected is FALSE, just FALSE.
35 sinz54 // Jun 19, 2009 at 6:07 am
barker13 asks: ‘why not just answer the simple and direct clarification questions I posed in my 2:12 PM post?”
Because I don’t remember those questions anymore!!!
If I remembered them, I would answer them.
If you jog my memory and repeat your questions, I will answer them.
36 Cforchange // Jun 19, 2009 at 6:13 am
Midcon I’m repeating my message because I think it’s the key and obviously those on the crusade are not capable of identifying the weakness.
Average (majority) voters aren’t concerned with ideology. They want to succeed and for some reason – it has been too difficult to do so. This has nothing to do with Iraq and Iraq spending – the problem was there before the start of the war. There is somthing fundamentally wrong or unbalanced preventing prosperity unless you participate in the scam of the moment. The party that encourages and simplifies this path will dominate. That’s what the GOP prevailing message represented when I signed on.
Balcon – from what I know about the Young Republican efforts -tied very closely if not one and the same to the pro life movement. That goes back to my orignal statement that college years, self exploration and an anti anything message do not mix. The numbers speak for the results and that we will live with for at least a decade.
37 sinz54 // Jun 19, 2009 at 6:15 am
midcon: The number of units procured by our modern all-volunteer army is so small that our shrunken manufacturing base is perfectly adequate. Our civilian manufacturing base hasn’t had to be converted to military use since World War II.
Our MRAPs are produced not by the auto makers, but by a small company, Force Protection Inc.
Boeing and Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, which show no signs of major financial difficulty, produce all the planes and missiles that we need. Northrop-Grumman-Newport News builds our ships.
Of course we need a defense manufacturing base. But these companies aren’t the ones verging on bankruptcy right now. And the failure of the U.S. auto industry doesn’t impact them.
We haven’t needed to convert much *civilian* manufacturing to military procurement in many years. It would require a titanic effort comparable to either World War to require that to happen.
38 sinz54 // Jun 19, 2009 at 6:19 am
Cforchange: The more libertarian message that conservatives had in the late 1970s was more appealing to young Americans than today’s socially conservative message.
Back then, Republicans offered a vision of entrepreneurship, start-up companies, reduced government red tape, abundant energy, and an America with a bright economic future. What’s happened to that kind of vision? Why have conservatives gone back to being America’s moral scolds, like they were in the 1950s and before?
39 Cforchange // Jun 19, 2009 at 7:03 am
Sinz – my point exactly re the party feel then “It would require a titanic effort comparable to either World War to require that to happen.”
Titanic means big, means lots of people – that’s what I’m talking. There’s lots of people that need to get in the game.
Digest this number – all most 1/3 of my very middle America high school has failed their 1st year of high school. They are migrating to an easier welcoming “Alternative Lifestyle” you know, under the radar never to pay taxes. These are white males – the infection from urban to surburban has occurred. It is time for intervention or we will be very sorry.
40 WillyP // Jun 19, 2009 at 8:49 am
Young Republicans are not intimately tied to any pro-life organizations. I don’t know where you get this from, but from all I’ve known it’s untrue. I must be one of the few pro-life YRs in my club, and it’s the largest in the country (nyyrc.com).
John McCain was the author of a political censorship bill, a nearly disasterous immigration bill that was stopped only because of vocal talk radio hosts and listeners, and a supporter of cap and trade. These 3 transgressions are egregious violations to free speech, free enterprise, and national sovereignty respectively. Conservatives see them for what they are.
41 sinz54 // Jun 20, 2009 at 8:03 am
WillyP: Two questions for you:
1. What percentage of your New York Young Republican club consists of blacks and Hispanics?
2. When your speakers have spoken to other young people about environmental issues, what was the response?
42 barker13 // Jun 20, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Re: Sinz54; 6/19/2009 6:07 AM –
“I don’t remember those questions anymore!!!”
Have you lost the ability to scroll down the page…???
I mean, Sinz, how many times do I have to direct you to the exact spot where you’ll find the questions…???
One more time… scroll down to barker13; 6/17/2009 2:12 PM.
Re: Sinz54; 6/19/2009 6:05 AM –
Two points, Sinz: 1) “…self described…” (*SNORT*); 2) “…some 80%…” What’s that leave, Sinz… some 20%… right…???
(*CHUCKLE*)
BILL
43 sinz54 // Jun 20, 2009 at 6:01 pm
barker13: I most certainly NOT consider Gingrich and Rove to be part of what somebody else called the “ugly part” of the GOP.
But Gingrich and Rove were not averse to using that part of the GOP to help win elections–even if it meant compromising some of the GOP’s earlier liberty-oriented positions.
You must log in to post a comment.