What's Ahead For The Republican Party
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-11-08/whats-ahead-republican-party
Since Tuesday's election, many Republicans have called for a frank reassessment of what it means to be a member of the GOP. As one Republican strategist put it, "Our party needs to realize that it's too old and too white and too male and it needs to figure out how to catch up with the demographics of the country before it's too late." Diane and Republican analysts discuss the identity and future of the GOP.
Guests
Henry Olsen
vice president of the American Enterprise Institute.
Matt Kibbe
president and CEO of FreedomWorks, and author of "Hostile Takeover: Resisting Centralized Government's Stranglehold on America."
Leslie Sanchez
Republican-affiliated consultant, founder and CEO of Impacto Group LLC, and author of "Los Republicanos: Why Hispanics and Republicans Need Each Other.”
David Winston
Republican strategist, president of the Winston Group and CBS News consultant. He has served as an adviser to the House and Senate Republican leadership for more than a decade.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
ecgberht wrote:
Yeah. That's a great idea, Cliff. If you're a Democrat. It would cost AT LEAST the next 3 to 5 Presidential election cycles. 20 more years of Democratic Presidents and you would not recognize the country you live in.
The idea that this country will be "unrecognizable" has been used since Obama took office. The echos of the 1920's (women's voting rights) and the 1960's (African-American rights) can be heard in this propaganda every single time.
I'm a white male and given what religious, conservative white males have "accomplished" in this country over the last 100 years make me sick. I'd be happy being the minority at this point -- we've shown that we can't handle being in the majority.
Please see Fox News' not so subtle talk of "white establishment" vs. 'gimme stuff' culture of African-Americans and Latinos. Thanks, Fox News. I had almost forgotten you were the worst thing on television.
"The idea that this country will be "unrecognizable" has been used since Obama took office. "
Hey, like he says, he could only accomplish so much in four years!
It is only, and I mean ONLY the Republican House that is keeping us from a complete redistributionist tax policy. Every step since voting law was nationalized has moved us toward where we are today. It gave universal rights to vote without regard to race, then without regard to sex and that is a good thing. But it did not carry with it the requirement of owning property or paying taxes - in other words, having something at stake when you vote.
That is wrong, UNdemocratic, and immoral.
That, apparently is ok with you. We are no longer the country our Founders established; one based on freedom, being responsibile for one's self and one's family, and one based on self-determination. We have moved inexorably toward socialism. It's only a natural consequence when individuals vote only for their self interest when they have put nothing at risk. As I have been writing this week, we have passed the tipping point, when there are too many individuals with nothing of value at stake who can vote themselves gifts from the public treasury. Redistributionist tax policy is the natural result ... which again, is wrong, undemocratic, and immoral.
I think the phrase "makers or takers" pretty much sums up the major problem Republicans face. In their pursuit of fiscal conservatism, they speak as though everyone receiving something from the government is gaming the system, even those on Social Security who have paid into the system for years. They speak about the unemployed and those receiving food stamps as though these conditions were not caused by economic factors, but rather by the laziness and selfishness of those receiving help. Everyone must prove themselves worthy of receiving any kind of government service or assistance. The party's adherence to outdated thinking on women's issues, gay rights, and healthcare further alienate the party from many voters, and their touching belief in trickle-down economics helps no one. It's further hurt by Republicans and Tea Partiers in Congress behaving like children, stamping their feet and saying, "Don't wanna! Can't make me!" Maybe the Republican party just needs to grow up and face the world of real working people.
all i heard were the same old republican talking points said by bewildered republican operatives. they have no clue as to what, we the american electorate, want. i look forward to a more Democratic house of reps in 2014 and a complete takeover in 2016. hillary for prez in 2016.
you wanna talk self interest? look at congress. they have no other interest but money. take the money out of elections if you want real change. 6 billion spent for not much change. i would call that wasted.
climatewiz1 on November 9, 2012 @ 8:46 am wrote: “Answered concisely: . . . “
Yes, and you have no idea how much I envy that ability!
;-)
We are agreed that legislation (not judicial decree) is the proper route. I must add, however, that I think it should be on a State-by-State basis. Much as I want gay marriage (or reasonable alternatives) nationwide, I also think the traditional pre-eminence of the States in this area should be respected.
However, I still don’t understand what you mean by “If, thru that process the rights of those who choose traditional ‘1 man - 1 woman’ marriage are given equal consideration and not eroded in the process then there are no qualms.”
The voters of Maine, Maryland, and Washington have chosen gay marriage. In that process the “rights” of those on the opposite side were “eroded”, as is always the case with those who lose political and legal fights. It’s part of the democratic process.
However, the fact that you went on to discuss equal protection under the law, leads me to think you are concerned only with judicial decisions creating gay marriage. Since we both reject that approach, I’d say the matter is moot between us. If I’m mistaken, please feel free to elaborate further.
Take care.
ecgberht on November 9, 2012 @ 10:12 am wrote: “Here is the dilemma.”
(I’m actually replying to both of your back-to-back Comments, since they really are just two parts of the same argument.)
Yes, in this country marriage can have both a civil and religious component. But not always so. Atheists can get married in civil ceremonies, and there is obviously no religious aspect. This debate is solely about the civil aspect of marriage. The government clearly has no business telling a religious institution (Synagogue, Church, Mosque, Temple, etc.) to violate its faith by performing a ceremony contrary to that religion. (And no one is even suggesting the government can or should have such power.)
I’m afraid you’re wrong when you say “many politicians on the right” have no objection to granting gay couples the legal benefits (including medical and financial) that can come with the status of marriage (or an alternative). In many places, including my State of Arizona, where such “domestic partnerships” have been created to extend such rights, “many politicians on the right” worked to eliminate them. Furthermore, many of those “marriage protection” Amendments passed in some States not only prohibit gay marriage, but any attempt to create alternative institutions.
As for your “slippery slope” argument (the one about bringing a neighbor into your marriage), I’m sorry, but that’s as phony as the day is long (as most such arguments tend to be). It assumes both that such a slope exists, and that there are no “ledges”, no natural “stopping places” where descent down the slope may cease. Both assumptions are wrong.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
Especially when we are talking about legislative change, no such slope exists, and stopping points are plenty. Marriage can be “redefined” precisely as much or as little as the voters in each State choose (or the legislators, as in New York). There is no more an “inevitable progression” from gay marriage to polygamy than there was from inter-racial marriage to child molesting!
And therein is where the “ledge” appears. There is overwhelming evidence of the harm caused by polygamy. And avoiding or preventing harm is a legitimate basis for distinguishing between gay marriage and polygamy. For in contrast to polygamy, there is no proof of harm from gay marriage. Quite the contrary. Gay marriages have existed for over a decade in many places. They have existed for years in Vermont, Massachusetts, Canada, and much of Europe (to name a few places). Yet, despite the hysterical assertions of NOM (and other opponents of gay marriage) the heavens have not collapsed, and the roof has not caved in, or even sprung a leak! There’s nothing “arbitrary” about it.
Sorry, but the only one here who is selfishly trying to ‘satisfy his own desires’ is you!
P.S. - Plus, your entire argument depends on assuming there’s a constitutional right to gay marriage. If there isn’t (and I don’t believe there is), then your “slipper slope” argument fails for that reason too.
ecgberht on November 9, 2012 @ 4:35 pm wrote: “Every step since voting law was nationalized has moved us toward where we are today. It gave universal rights to vote without regard to race, then without regard to sex and that is a good thing. But it did not carry with it the requirement of owning property or paying taxes - in other words, having something at stake when you vote. That is wrong, UNdemocratic, and immoral.”
Do you ever bother to read what you spew before you post it?
I know you delude yourself into believing you’re a rational, principled, person, who’s views are in keeping with the basic ideas and ideals this nation was founded on, and you think the rest of us should surely see that. But then you write something like this, and wonder why all but your “fellow travelers” regard you as a joke.
First, voting law is hardly “nationalized”. If it were, Congress would set the standards as to who can and can’t vote. It doesn’t. The State governments still have the primary responsibility and authority over that. (How else could the Republicans have done all they could to manipulate the voting process in order to “win the State for Romney”? As more than one of them were too honest about, and admitted? Too bad it didn’t work.)
The Constitution puts only limited restrictions on what the States can and can’t do in this area. They cannot deny any person equal protection of the law (14th Amendment), they cannot deny the right to vote because of race or color (15th Amendment), nor because of sex (19th Amendment), nor by a poll tax (24th Amendment), nor deny it because of age to anyone 18 or older (26th Amendment). That’s it! That’s precisely how far the “voting law was nationalized”.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
In fact, at one time the States did require owning property, or paying taxes, in order to vote. But it gradually dawned on them what has obviously eluded you: such requirements make a mockery of the claim that “all men are created equal”, with the equal and unalienable right to governments “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” (Sound familiar?) Consent given by voting!
And, of course, your diatribe is based on the false assertion (spread by Republi-Cons) that everyone who voted for Obama (or, at least, 47%) did so because they wanted “redistribution”, and because they had “no stake” when they voted.
Lies, lies, lies, LIES!
(Especially when applied to Mr. Zehnder, whose November 9, 2012 - 2:04 pm Comment you were responding to. Or, actually, not responding to, so much as evading and avoiding.)
I can’t speak for him, nor can I speak for the majority of Americans who voted for the President, but I can speak for myself. Wealth redistribution, and an inability to be “responsible for one's self and one's family” played no part in my vote. What did? In order of priority:
1) The Supreme Court: I want no more Citizens United decisions, allowing corporations and their wealthy owners to try to buy or bribe an election. Neither do I want more decisions like the one’s allowing restrictions on abortion - as long as they aren’t “undue”. (Whatever the heck that means.)
TO BE CONTINUED
PART THREE
2) Religious freedom: I don’t want the government telling me whether to pray, how to pray, or whom to pray to. Neither do I want it composed and controlled by the “religiously correct”. I stand with the Constitution, and it’s No Religious Test Clause. So, if a member of Congress wants to take his oath of office (for a mere photo op, mind you) on the Koran instead of the Bible, that’s no one’s business. And neither should our laws be based solely or predominantly on the conservative religious point of view.
3) Women’s rights, and that includes more than just abortion and birth control.
4) Gay rights, more than just marriage.
5) Public policy based on Science, fact, and reason, not just mindless ideology.
6) And I don’t want a government composed of those who appeal to the worst instincts of humanity, relying on ancient prejudices to divide the nation, while “piously” (and hypocritically) denying that’s what’s going on. (Take a good look at the Republican Platform sometime. Your own tirade is another perfect illustration of this.)
Your Social Darwinist and Laissez-Faire “philosophy” (half-baked as it is), is not what the Founders established. While much of what you invoke may be good ideas (though not the way you use them), none of it can be found in one word of the Constitution, nor the Declaration of Independence. A curious omission if it was so vital as you think.
So, go ahead and spew your mindless, partisan, ideological, bigoted, half-baked “opinions”. (Most of them clearly derived from Faux News, Glenn Beck, and Limbaugh, among other such “patriots”.) No one with eyes to see, ears to hear, or (most importantly) a brain to think with, gives them any credence. Because behind them all your true position is clear: Only the “conservatively correct” deserve the right to vote.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART FOUR
That is what’s wrong, undemocratic, and immoral. And most importantly, and literally, Un-American!
Oh, and speaking of percentages, it appears Romney received about 47% of the popular vote.
Breathe the irony.