who will be the leader of the republican party?

[remaxjon]

The Rush thread got me thinking about this.

I hope Mark Sanford steps into a leadership role and he is someone I could be proud to vote for 2012. He may be the only one

My fear is Jindal or got forbid Romney who won the straw poll at cpac will become the face of the party.

Sarah Palin maybe but I doubt she could win any kind of general election. Pro life women will always have a tuff time imo.

I of course would love it to be Paul but the Bush lovers and age will never let that happen but Sanford would be an acceptable choice for me.

thoughts?

[akhhorus]

Sanford is a corrupt moron who shouldn't be anywhere near 2012. He's lucky he wasn't indicted in SC for selling off reclaimed military base property at cut rate to his political donors.

I vote for Pawlenty.

[remaxjon]

Sanford is a corrupt moron who shouldn't be anywhere near 2012. He's lucky he wasn't indicted in SC for selling off reclaimed military base property at cut rate to his political donors.

I vote for Pawlenty.

Sanford is a good conservative who believes in property rights, personal liberty, and non intervention.

I like him even more now that I know you hate him

[akhhorus]

Sanford is a good conservative who believes in property rights, personal liberty, and non intervention.

I like him even more now that I know you hate him

I'm not saying he doesn't believe in those things, but he was my congressman and governor for awhile and I know a lot of people in SC who dealt with him personally. He's very stupid and would be a disaster in interviews(which he showed some of during the 08 campaign) and I know of about 4-5 scandals that will catch up with him when/if he decides to go national. If you want a southern conservative gov, how about Sonny Perdue or Charlie Crist? But Perdue also has skeletons and Crist is gay.

I hope its Crist or Pawlenty, but Im sure it'll be Palin or Mittens.

[fent]

I'm not saying he doesn't believe in those things, but he was my congressman and governor for awhile and I know a lot of people in SC who dealt with him personally. He's very stupid and would be a disaster in interviews(which he showed some of during the 08 campaign) and I know of about 4-5 scandals that will catch up with him when/if he decides to go national. If you want a southern conservative gov, how about Sonny Perdue or Charlie Crist? But Perdue also has skeletons and Crist is gay.

I hope its Crist or Pawlenty, but Im sure it'll be Palin or Mittens.

allegedly ;)

[akhhorus]

allegedly ;)

Maybe more than allegedly... (http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2008-02-28/news/the-talk-of-the-green-iguana/)

It doesn't matter to me, and shouldn't to voters. Crist is a smart politician who's shown great leadership and ideas.

[fent]

Maybe more than allegedly... (http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2008-02-28/news/the-talk-of-the-green-iguana/)

It doesn't matter to me, and shouldn't to voters. Crist is a smart politician who's shown great leadership and ideas.

i agree, but we all know who votes in primaries.

[BurgundyNGold]

i agree, but we all know who votes in primaries.
Gays?

[akhhorus]

i agree, but we all know who votes in primaries.

People who shouldn't, I know lol

[Ibleedburgundy]

thoughts?

That's the trillion dollar question. Seems to me the GOP is in a tough spot. They are fractured. The fiscal conservatives are having differences with social conservatives. The moderates are clashing with the Limbaugh crowd. And the Ron Paul crowd is just looking for someone slightly less nutty and more paletable to the masses.

IMO, it's going to take a master politician to nudge the right back to reasonableness without dismissing the far right and still being on the good side of talk radio.

Pawlenty could be the guy. I think Crist has drawn a lot of ire by supporting Obama a little too much.

Either way, I think whoever tha guy is would be wise to play it safe until 2016. The GOP needs some brown bag years (much like the Redskins) before they can exorcise their demons.

[BurgundyNGold]

That's the trillion dollar question. Seems to me the GOP is in a tough spot. They are fractured. The fiscal conservatives are having differences with social conservatives. The moderates are clashing with the Limbaugh crowd. And the Ron Paul crowd is just looking for someone slightly less nutty and more paletable to the masses.

IMO, it's going to take a master politician to nudge the right back to reasonableness without dismissing the far right and still being on the good side of talk radio.

Pawlenty could be the guy. I think Crist has drawn a lot of ire by supporting Obama a little too much.

Either way, I think whoever tha guy is would be wise to play it safe until 2016. The GOP needs some brown bag years (much like the Redskins) before they can exorcise their demons.
They're worse off than that.

They're not just fractured, they have no core ideology. Their traditional base is fiscal conservatism, smaller government, state's rights and laissez-faire regulation. They lost that some time ago, probably around 2002 when Bush started spending like mad and the congressional GOP couldn't get enough of the orgy of cash. That just left them wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage. In good or even decent economic times, secondary issues like that can take an election. But when times get tough and you don't have any planks left in your platform, those dogs won't hunt.

The problem is that the GOP hasn't had many original ideas over the past 20 years or so. Their answer to health care is medical savings accounts. Their answer to poverty is faith-based organizations. They have no real answer for education and they have been pushing the fantasy of "clean coal" technology for 30 years with little to no advancements in the field.

What the GOP needs is an entirely new platform. With Obama's charge left, the center is open for the taking. The problem is that the GOP doesn't know hoe to get there. Their platforms of the past have increasing been based on wedge issues, but to occupy the center and to have any sustainability into the 21st century requires a core, populist platform.

Unfortunately, nobody is advocating such a platform. Nobody is even trying to define what the GOP is all about. You can get back to GOP basics, but it will ring hollow with voters for the next 20 years. They need to redefine themselves by creating a platform of populist conservatism. But first, they have to define what that is.

[akhhorus]

They're worse off than that.

They're not just fractured, they have no core ideology. Their traditional base is fiscal conservatism, smaller government, state's rights and laissez-faire regulation. They lost that some time ago, probably around 2002 when Bush started spending like mad and the congressional GOP couldn't get enough of the orgy of cash. That just left them wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage. In good or even decent economic times, secondary issues like that can take an election. But when times get tough and you don't have any planks left in your platform, those dogs won't hunt.

The problem is that the GOP hasn't had many original ideas over the past 20 years or so. Their answer to health care is medical savings accounts. Their answer to poverty is faith-based organizations. They have no real answer for education and they have been pushing the fantasy of "clean coal" technology for 30 years with little to no advancements in the field.

What the GOP needs is an entirely new platform. With Obama's charge left, the center is open for the taking. The problem is that the GOP doesn't know hoe to get there. Their platforms of the past have increasing been based on wedge issues, but to occupy the center and to have any sustainability into the 21st century requires a core, populist platform.

Unfortunately, nobody is advocating such a platform. Nobody is even trying to define what the GOP is all about. You can get back to GOP basics, but it will ring hollow with voters for the next 20 years. They need ideas which, as I said, have eluded them for 20 years as it is.

+0.5

You're right on the bad ideas 100%, but its that plus refusing to update the platform on issues that just are killers for the party among suburban independents(which are as critical a swing group as there is) like gay rights, abortion, climate change, etc. Ron Brownstein and Stan Greenburg have done some analysis that says that the traditional swing suburban counties around places like Philly, Detroit, Charlotte, DC, Denver, St Louis, etc etc have gone from Purple to deep blue and thats the reason why. I think this has caused more problems then just having no new ideas.

The country, for better or worse, is moving left because of Bush's excesses, and the party leadership has decided that moving farther to the right is the smart move. This would be the equivalent of the Dems putting Jesse Jackson and Kucinich in charge of the party after 2000. Its suicide barring some sort of Watergate level scandal that would smear Obama and Obamaism. I give them until 2014. If the party can't pull off some major positive by then(winning back the Senate at minimum, and that looks extremely difficult because of demos), the big donors are going to jump ship before 2016 rolls around and then its just a question of what emerges from the GOP.

[BurgundyNGold]

+0.5

You're right on the bad ideas 100%, but its that plus refusing to update the platform on issues that just are killers for the party among suburban independents(which are as critical a swing group as there is) like gay rights, abortion, climate change, etc. Ron Brownstein and Stan Greenburg have done some analysis that says that the traditional swing suburban counties around places like Philly, Detroit, Charlotte, DC, Denver, St Louis, etc etc have gone from Purple to deep blue and thats the reason why. I think this has caused more problems then just having no new ideas.

The country, for better or worse, is moving left because of Bush's excesses, and the party leadership has decided that moving farther to the right is the smart move. This would be the equivalent of the Dems putting Jesse Jackson and Kucinich in charge of the party after 2000. Its suicide barring some sort of Watergate level scandal that would smear Obama and Obamaism. I give them until 2014. If the party can't pull off some major positive by then(winning back the Senate at minimum, and that looks extremely difficult because of demos), the big donors are going to jump ship before 2016 rolls around and then its just a question of what emerges from the GOP.
Their current state is unsustainable. They'll get smashed up like the Whigs and another party will rise form the ashes. They need to make a hard move for sustained populism, which involves a hard move to secure Latino voters before they become entrenched as Dems.

Short of that scandal, this is their only hope to sustained political relevance.

[akhhorus]

Their current state is unsustainable. They'll get smashed up like the Whigs and another party will rise form the ashes. They need to make a hard move for sustained populism, which involves a hard move to secure Latino voters before they become entrenched as Dems. Short of that scandal, this is their only hope to sustained political relevance.

That ship has sailed. Cross off Arizona, NM, Nevada and Colorado. The Latino vote is gone.

Whats probably going to happen is the dems, sensing the open road in front of them, will move far to the left, and the moderate GOP with the blue dog/Western dems will emerge as a centrist party.

[BurgundyNGold]

That ship has sailed. Cross off Arizona, NM, Nevada and Colorado. The Latino vote is gone.
Advocate a path to citizenship for illegals (once the wall is done) and they'd do an about face.

Whats probably going to happen is the dems, sensing the open road in front of them, will move far to the left, and the moderate GOP with the blue dog/Western dems will emerge as a centrist party.
Unfortunately, their base is dwindling in population percentage so, without a populist platform and a good chunk of the Latino vote, the most the GOP could ever hope for is to be the opposition party that sees power once every blue moon.

[dj_stouty]

The party's only hope is to lean slightly towards the middle on social issues and appeal to the younger crowd. If they can't - I just don't see this party gaining any strength in the decades to come. The younger generation is being turned on by Obama...and they won't lean right anytime soon unless there is an attractive offer towards the middle.

Whoever is the next leader...I hope they are young and they possess a lot of charisma. Obama has both and he was able to really rally the country. Of course, he had the perfect situation to do it...but then again, I couldn't see Hillary pulling it off in '08, either.

My guess is that it will be a no-name who pops up in the next 4 years and challenges the core of the party. And if the extreme right isn't on board, then they can go on without a major party representation until they do. I'm certainly over that group.

[akhhorus]

Advocate a path to citizenship for illegals (once the wall is done) and they'd do an about face.

They aren't going to do that. No way. Opposing any path to citizenship is now required for all candidates.

Unfortunately, their base is dwindling in population percentage so, without a populist platform and a good chunk of the Latino vote, the most the GOP could ever hope for is to be the opposition party that sees power once every blue moon.

Or when the Dems really screw up, at some point the big donors will start pulling their cash and start planning for the future.

[Ibleedburgundy]

They're worse off than that.

They're not just fractured, they have no core ideology. Their traditional base is fiscal conservatism, smaller government, state's rights and laissez-faire regulation. They lost that some time ago, probably around 2002 when Bush started spending like mad and the congressional GOP couldn't get enough of the orgy of cash. That just left them wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage. In good or even decent economic times, secondary issues like that can take an election. But when times get tough and you don't have any planks left in your platform, those dogs won't hunt.

The problem is that the GOP hasn't had many original ideas over the past 20 years or so. Their answer to health care is medical savings accounts. Their answer to poverty is faith-based organizations. They have no real answer for education and they have been pushing the fantasy of "clean coal" technology for 30 years with little to no advancements in the field.

What the GOP needs is an entirely new platform. With Obama's charge left, the center is open for the taking. The problem is that the GOP doesn't know hoe to get there. Their platforms of the past have increasing been based on wedge issues, but to occupy the center and to have any sustainability into the 21st century requires a core, populist platform.

Unfortunately, nobody is advocating such a platform. Nobody is even trying to define what the GOP is all about. You can get back to GOP basics, but it will ring hollow with voters for the next 20 years. They need to redefine themselves by creating a platform of populist conservatism. But first, they have to define what that is.

I don't disagree with any of your points except the initial statement. It's a two party system, and voters as a whole have a short term memory. If Obama and the Democrats faulter, the door cracks open. If they don't, people will largely forget the Terry Schaivo fiasco, the Jack Abramoff scandel, Dick Cheney, etc. by 2014.

They're dead for now, but they've got 34ish% of the population. Maybe they win a 3 way election like Clinton did.

[akhhorus]

I don't disagree with any of your points except the initial statement. It's a two party system, and voters as a whole have a short term memory. If Obama and the Democrats faulter, the door cracks open. If they don't, people will largely forget the Terry Schaivo fiasco, the Jack Abramoff scandel, Dick Cheney, etc. by 2014.

They're dead for now, but they've got 34ish% of the population. Maybe they win a 3 way election like Clinton did.

It is a two party system, but if they lose the big donors, they'll die a slow death while a new party emerges from their ashes. This has happened before in US history.

[BurgundyNGold]

They aren't going to do that. No way. Opposing any path to citizenship is now required for all candidates.
This is about survival. Absent any enduring, legitimate ideology they are dead in the water. The best way to save that party and to offer voters a legitimate choice is with 2 things: 1) differentiation, and 2) new ideas based on said differentiation.

Or when the Dems really screw up, at some point the big donors will start pulling their cash and start planning for the future.
Can you wait 20 years? The GOP can't. At the very least, the GOP has handed the Dems 8, if not 12 years of running the country carte blanche with their ideology. Absent a huge, Watergate level scandal or an even more disastrous policy decision than Iraq (which has got to be close to impossible), the GOP has no hope to take back the WH and probably not the House either.
And waiting for such a travesty is bad policy

Like I said for the Dems in 2004, they have to move center and stay there if they plan to govern anytime soon. And they have to do that with centrist, populist policies that are in stark contrast to the edge policies on the opposing party.

[BurgundyNGold]

I don't disagree with any of your points except the initial statement. It's a two party system, and voters as a whole have a short term memory. If Obama and the Democrats faulter, the door cracks open. If they don't, people will largely forget the Terry Schaivo fiasco, the Jack Abramoff scandel, Dick Cheney, etc. by 2014.

They're dead for now, but they've got 34ish% of the population. Maybe they win a 3 way election like Clinton did.
That 34% is dwindling every year as their traditional base (blue collar whites and seniors) dwindle as a percentage of the US population. They might never see the top side of 45% in a national election for President again in our lifetime if they don't move center and occupy that territory as their "base".

And as for a 3 way election, there is no way that will happen. The Dems are united left of center. Pelosi and Reid might be much further left than America but they're not that much further left than Obama, if the first 6 weeks are any measure. That means that the only challenge to come to the left would be from a more centrist Blue Dog candidate, which will not happen for at least 8 years.

The GOP is wandering the desert. They need to change but it seems that the same people running things in minority in the House and Senate are the same leadership that America bitch slapped in 2006 and then again in November. And if Pawlenty, Jindal, Sanford, Crist or God forbid Caribou Barbie are their idea of new blood, they're destined to be wandering that desert for a biblical duration.

[akhhorus]

This is about survival. Absent any enduring, legitimate ideology they are dead in the water. The best way to save that party and to offer voters a legitimate choice is with 2 things: 1) differentiation, and 2) new ideas based on said differentiation.

This isn't like climate change or abortion: there is no one in the official party that wants them to change on this. Not even the latino wing of the GOP. This is like tax cuts now.

Can you wait 20 years? The GOP can't. At the very least, the GOP has handed the Dems 8, if not 12 years of running the country carte blanche with their ideology. Absent a huge, Watergate level scandal or an even more disastrous policy decision than Iraq (which has got to be close to impossible), the GOP has no hope to take back the WH and probably not the House either.


I think they have a chance to take back to the house anytime, but the Senate is a goner, and barring some massive screwups, the WH is for awhile also.

And waiting for such a travesty is bad policy

Agreed.

Like I said for the Dems in 2004, they have to move center and stay there if they plan to govern anytime soon. And they have to do that with centrist, populist policies that are in stark contrast to the edge policies on the opposing party.

Only the party officials are doing the exact opposite. Steele ran as a reforming moderate, which lasted all of 10 minutes.

[BurgundyNGold]

This isn't like climate change or abortion: there is no one in the official party that wants them to change on this. Not even the latino wing of the GOP. This is like tax cuts now.

I think they have a chance to take back to the house anytime, but the Senate is a goner, and barring some massive screwups, the WH is for awhile also.

Agreed.

Only the party officials are doing the exact opposite. Steele ran as a reforming moderate, which lasted all of 10 minutes.
No backbone = No hope. The GOP needs to get themselves a political rock star who has mass appeal and who can use that the wrest control of the party from the same, tired old ideologues. Just like Obama did to (and for) the Dems.

And no, the Mormonator 5000 is not a rock star. Neither is F*** Me Boots. Or the Magical Elf from Louisiana, lol.

[akhhorus]

No backbone = No hope. The GOP needs to get themselves a political rock star who has mass appeal and who can use that the wrest control of the party from the same, tired old ideologues. Just like Obama did to (and for) the Dems.

And no, the Mormonator 5000 is not a rock star. Neither is F*** Me Boots. Or the Magical Elf from Louisiana, lol.

Its like Vinny has been drafting for the GOP...ugh.

[BurgundyNGold]

Its like Vinny has been drafting for the GOP...ugh.
The GOP has a real identity problem. A whole lot of America identifies the GOP with the stereotypes of:

1) Rich, selfish, white, possibly racist men
2) Cranky old, possibly racist white codgers who pine for the good old days
3) Uneducated, probably racist rednecks who have guns on their night stand to protect the guns in their closets
4) Lunatic white women who scream and cry at abortion doctors outside of clinics but who won't give kids birth control. They might be racist too but only against non-white abortion doctors and planned parenthood employees.

So, the impression is that it's not cool, and possibly racist, to be Republican. You can thank W and the congressional GOP for that. Of course, the entertainment world hasn't helped the GOP either, as they get slammed pretty good.

In short, they have no ideas that appeal to the majority of Americans, they have little or no appeal to young voters and their base is eroding every day. Oh, and they think that they need to move further right -- effectively doing what they have been for 8 years only even more hard core, lol.

They need to hire some consultants. Bring in the Bobs!

http://hippiekiller.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/bobs.jpg

[akhhorus]

The GOP has a real identity problem. A whole lot of America identifies the GOP with the stereotypes of:

1) Rich, selfish, white, possibly racist men
2) Cranky old, possibly racist white codgers who pine for the good old days
3) Uneducated, probably racist rednecks who have guns on their night stand to protect the guns in their closets
4) Lunatic white women who scream and cry at abortion doctors outside of clinics but who won't give kids birth control. They might be racist too but only against non-white abortion doctors and planned parenthood employees.

So, the impression is that it's not cool, and possibly racist, to be Republican. You can thank W and the congressional GOP for that. Of course, the entertainment world hasn't helped the GOP either, as they get slammed pretty good.

In short, they have no ideas that appeal to the majority of Americans, they have little or no appeal to young voters and their base is eroding every day. Oh, and they think that they need to move further right -- effectively doing what they have been for 8 years only even more hard core, lol.

They need to hire some consultants. Bring in the Bobs!

I think its more simplistic than that, although you bring up good points. I think the problem they have is the same problem that the Clintons' had: they don't realize the power of the sound chamber that the modern political discourse has. I think youtube killed Hillary and Bubba because every little dumb comment by them would seen millions of times across the world, and it(and every little bad quote or story) would be repeated and lampooned a million times on the news networks and comedy shows like Stewart/Colbert.

They don't need consultants as much as they need TV producers and writers to stop them from putting their feet in the mouth.

[BurgundyNGold]

They don't need consultants as much as they need TV producers and writers to stop them from putting their feet in the mouth.
Tell me about it. Every one of their speeches (including the Jindal speech) sounds like a photocopy of a photocopy pf a photocopy of a draft of a rejected Reagan speech in 1985. They seem tired, worn out, uninspired. They try to write each speech with a recurring tag line, hoping that it will become epic somehow.

These speeches have another problem, as well. Do you remember that Michael Keaton movie "Multiplicity" in which the copies kept duplicating themselves to the point where they would eat shaving cream and try to shave their own tongues? Well, after 25 years of trying to recreate an attempted reproduction of a woeful reincarnation of a Reagan speech, that's about where those speeches have gotten.

I'd make millions on a bumper sticker that said this:

No ideas.
No inspiration.
No direction.
We're the GOP and we approve of this ad.

[RedskinsDave]

I'm not buying the doom and gloom claims. If Palin weren't such a dud, McCain probably would have beaten The Messiah. I am comfortable with the knowledge that the Dems will most assuredly take a hard left turn and leave the middle for the taking. Sure, that means the GOP has to grab it but I think it's easier for them to do than is being posted here.

I agree that the Latino vote is gone. The dems pandering beat Bush and McCain's pandering. Short of some core ideology change where the GOP pushes for giving citizenship to illegals, it's not going to change. The dems are just better at pandering to minorities.

The GOP needs to de-emphasize the far right social items. They basically need to do what I've done which is realize there are simply more important things such as the economy and terrorism than whether Neil and Bob kneel and bob.

I certainly don't think it's as difficult as some of you are saying it is.

[BurgundyNGold]

I'm not buying the doom and gloom claims. If Palin weren't such a dud, McCain probably would have beaten The Messiah. I am comfortable with the knowledge that the Dems will most assuredly take a hard left turn and leave the middle for the taking. Sure, that means the GOP has to grab it but I think it's easier for them to do than is being posted here.

I agree that the Latino vote is gone. The dems pandering beat Bush and McCain's pandering. Short of some core ideology change where the GOP pushes for giving citizenship to illegals, it's not going to change. The dems are just better at pandering to minorities.

The GOP needs to de-emphasize the far right social items. They basically need to do what I've done which is realize there are simply more important things such as the economy and terrorism than whether Neil and Bob kneel and bob.

I certainly don't think it's as difficult as some of you are saying it is.
This mindset is what's making it so difficult for the GOP to adapt. Half of the folks think that Palin sank them, the other half think she is the savior in 2012.

The reality is that there was no Rep that could have run with McCain that would have beaten Obama because Obama wasn't running against McCain. He was running against Republican rule. He was running against Bush.

Until the GOP brain trust realizes how lost they are, they have no chance of finding their way out of the wilderness.

[akhhorus]

I'm not buying the doom and gloom claims. If Palin weren't such a dud, McCain probably would have beaten The Messiah. I am comfortable with the knowledge that the Dems will most assuredly take a hard left turn and leave the middle for the taking. Sure, that means the GOP has to grab it but I think it's easier for them to do than is being posted here.

It should be easy, thats the problem, but the official party has decided to do the complete opposite, egged on by the activists.

I agree that the Latino vote is gone. The dems pandering beat Bush and McCain's pandering. Short of some core ideology change where the GOP pushes for giving citizenship to illegals, it's not going to change. The dems are just better at pandering to minorities.


I agree, but electorally, this is terrible for the party. This takes Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico off the map at a time when we need every state we can get, and this pushes the battle line from Pennsylvania to Virginia/North Carolina. We don't have to give in to illegal immigration, we just have to stop demonizing latinos.

The GOP needs to de-emphasize the far right social items. They basically need to do what I've done which is realize there are simply more important things such as the economy and terrorism than whether Neil and Bob kneel and bob.


Agree 1,000,000% This is a killer.

I certainly don't think it's as difficult as some of you are saying it is.

It takes recognition of a problem, and there's just none of that now. David Frum mildly criticized Rush Limbaugh, and he's the subject of a whisper campaign of being a secret liberal who voted for Obama(nevermind that he endorsed Mccain at the NRO openly). This has to stop.