I would love to see this made into a 30-second commercial...
I wonder how long it's going to take the Republican Party to master the art of InfoWar like the Left has.
The fact that there are no nationally recognized leaders out there in the GOP right now being a good thing reveals how badly the Party has beclowned itself in the last few years.
Do I trust the GOP to learn it's lessons and get it's act together? Not really...not yet anyway. C'mon Mr. Steele, get your s**t together and start hammering these self-righteous SOBs to cream. Now.
I wonder how long it's going to take the Republican Party to master the art of InfoWar like the Left has.
The fact that there are no nationally recognized leaders out there in the GOP right now being a good thing reveals how badly the Party has beclowned itself in the last few years.
Me? I'm just praying there's an up-and-coming someone in their ranks who is going to lead a serious self-analysis for the inevitable pendulum swing back to some kind of political relevance. The main theme should be, "Never again." That is, never ever ever lose sight of why the GOP exists, never take voters for granted, never stop thinking about how to best unleash the creativity, ingenuity and productivity of the American people.
I hope that includes promoting individual liberty, personal responsibility, a strong and flexible national defense, free-market capitalism in a well-regulated framework that holds unethical practitioners accountable, and a penchant for reminding citizens of what's good about this country.
Do I trust the GOP to learn it's lessons and get it's act together? Not really...not yet anyway. C'mon Mr. Steele, get your s**t together and start hammering these self-righteous SOBs to cream. Now.
"Do I trust the GOP to learn it's lessons and get it's act together? Not really... not yet anyway. C'mon Mr. Steele, get your s**t together and start hammering these self-righteous SOB's to cream. Now."
Your anger status is duly noted. My first question, you talk of the lessons to be learned. Simply put, what are they? You might want to think of this as an "After Action Report." Did they really want to win? They could have just looked at the economy, the bailouts, the complex war situation and the Military reset and just said, "Forget it, let them fix it." This would mean Obama would get blamed for fixing everything and the costs. Is it possible, that this is what George HW Bush did in his re-election bid against Bill Clinton?
I hate to surprise you, but there is no shortage of self-righteous SOB's on either side of the political debate.
Why, thank you!
Well, just off the top of my cranium…
1. Understand why you lost. What turned the electorate against you? Why did they get mad at you? Why did they think the opposing party offered a better alternative than liberty, free markets and a conviction that America is an exceptional idea, not a country that needed to apologize to the world for its “sins.”
2. Understand what you stand for.
3. Understand why you stand for it. Note: This and Lesson 2 was Ronald Reagan’s secret weapon. Granted, he had years to form his philosophy and then was able to practice as California governor, but we have people smart enough and talented enough to do it in a shorter period than he enjoyed, yes?
4. Be able to explain Lessons 2 and 3 in ways that best resonate with the majority of Americans.
5. Understand how to do that in today’s media, i.e., mostly partisan and hostile, environment.
6. Internalize the first lesson of the Democratic National Committee and the Netroots: “Politics is War by Other Means.”
7. Examine the tactics, techniques and Procedures of the enemy and use those against him. Study what they say, pick it apart and destroy it in stages.
8. Get out of Washington and stay out for a significant period of time whenever possible. This will help with Lessons 2, 3, 4, and 5.
Meh. I prefer to call it a “mission debrief.” ;)
Well, I didn’t think they wanted to lose. But "they" were beaten before Obama won his party’s nomination. The GOP, led by the sitting president (as traditional head of his party in that role), quit the field. They knew they were going up against Goliath and acted like someone other than David. Instead, they should have had the attitude of the Blue Coats in the Bloody Angle at Gettysburg, not the Red Coats at Isandlwana.
Eehhhh, a little too cynical for me.
The economy:
A free market has its ups and downs. One thing about recessions: they end. Who was at fault? Well, if you think like James Carville, the guy who you can pin it on. If you look at it a bit differently, I’d say the culpability was equally shared by the Dems in the House and Senate who engineered the Fanny Mae/Freddy Mac swindle and the GOPers who turned a blind eye to the utterly unethical behavior of the financial sectors players. John Bogle has a good critique of the decline of fiduciary responsibility on Wall Street and in the banking industry.
The bailouts:
I can see how Bush was talked into doing what he did before leaving office. But Obama has taken that trend and accelerated it to light speed.
The Complex War Situation:
As you are well aware, “Complex” is to “War” as "Wet" is to "Rain." Bush was loyal to his subordinates to a fault, literally. But you have to give him credit for two things that are crucial in the strategic battle: agility (mentally, politically, tactically, etc.) and tenacity. He flexed when he had to and then stood firm…and turned the tide. If it all goes to s**t now, well, I don’t think that’s his fault. Frankly, I don’t see the backbone in Obama that will be required when Af’stan really heats up as it appears to be doing.
Not quite sure of the point here, but W wasn’t running. In any case, looks like HW’s plan didn’t pan out so well.
I’m shocked, SHOCKED that this would be the case. You may now holster your Snark Gun, Mr. Grumpy.;)
Personally, I think the Conservative Republican Leadership everyone claims they're looking for is right here in Indiana's 6th Congressional District. Meet Mike Pence
RJ,
You lucky baaaastid...I'm in Donnelly's district (2-IN).
And it's sad when you think you have a better Senator in Evan Bayh and you're a Republican...*sigh* Richard Lugar: the Barbara Boxer of the GOP...*sigh*
While Newt turned out to have flaws as a Representative, at least he can do a good job as per Attila's checklist. He's one of the better theorists the GOP has.
Point 8 above is especially important. If that had been observed more frequently, the Republicans might not have lost their majority. It would be also usefui to take notes at the TEA parties, and internalizing them, instead of just trying to take credit for the movement. Please note that not many people are talking about gay marriage or abortion at these rallies; they've been fired up by political ideas, motivated by the other sides' political platform. They aren't talking about social issues. For once.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the Republican Party has to accept the fact that they'll never be able to outlaw abortion or gay marraige. For decades support for abortion services has quite reliably remained between 60-65%. Several states have approved gay marriage/civil unions by referendum or state legislature vote, not judical fiat. That's how things are trending, and the numbers are worse (from the GOP perspective) when you consider the under-30 crowd. These are social conditions they've literally grown up; they're familar, normal. It's us over-40 (or over-50) auld phartes who tend to get worked up over this stuff.
Even P.J. O'Rourke has snarked about the abortion issue:
Lose the goal to eliminate abortion, and focus on better controls on things like partial-birth abortion, and not forcing providers such as Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. Give up the absolute whole loaf (which you'll never get) and settle for half or two-thirds.
Same thing with gay marriage. There are various in-between approaches including civil unions, which politicians may pursure. Perhaps relegate religious ceremonies to just that; after all, baptizing a baby doesn't make them magically and legally exist from nothing. The social cons will never get a constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage, and right now even the DOMA is under fire. I repeat: if the cons insist on holding everything, and yielding nothing, they'll end up losing everywhere. ...And doesn't that ring a bell? {/snerk}
The GOP can gain a lot of traction in the middle this way. No, I'm not saying that they party should all become RINOs or "squishes." I am saying that they need to back off on moral issues and focus on political issues. As I pointed out above, that's what's firing up TEA party adherents right now. No one has to turn around and advocate federally-funded abortions for married lesbians. Just snip off the absolutism and focus more on politics.
I can tell you there's quite a few independents, libertarians, and blue-dog Democrats the party can attract by, well, not being so dogmatic about social concerns. I don't want the government to tell me how to think, act, or live, from any specific point of view. That's not their flippin' job.
Social cons want to outlaw abortion and shove gays back in the closet. Social libs want to outlaw profits, guns, and fatty foods. I want all of them to shut UP and quit pestering the rest of us.
I believe you are saying, "Major on majors and minor on minors!"
I feel that I have NO party that I can really support, it's just a matter of which of my deeply held beliefs am I willing to sacrifice. (And, no, I didn't vote the party line in this, or any, election).
Remember one thing, *You are not alone!*
Pssssst -- Grumpy! Karla's a *Lady*!
Me, I'm not all that dogmatic, but I do see the need to vote for actual candidates with concrete platforms from which I may judge their performance. I also see the desirability to achieve the possible, vice the improbable.
I must confess I have no idea on what you're referring to on the "majors on majors" remark.
Following that, we have Karla, who (I believe) precisely represents a significant part of the potential coalition to which I refer. If we can get all the cylinders firing in the right order, we can demolish the Obamamites in short order, while reviving liberty, as opposed to reviving a minority social view of modern society.
@Casey, my meds are fine and they are the only pharmaceuticals, I ever take. "Don't you honestly think 'none of the above' is a legitimate choice?" Have you ever seen it on the ballot? I've been voting every year for the last 40+ years. I made choices on every office or question. "None of the above" has never been an option.
The concept "Major on majors and minor on minors", it actually means get your priorities right.