Evan Bayh was on the talk show circuit this morning. He stated that the GOP needs to decide whether it wants to win elections or to make a statement. I found it an interesting point because I don't know where I stand on the issue. Bayh's point was that you have to compromise like Romney and McCain and Bush and Reagan to win in national elections. I agree. However, I also feel that you have to make a moral argument. On fiscal issues, I don't think it has worked for Republicans to say that they are going to spend, but spend less than Democrats. Democrats, simply ask for more than they want and then the Republicans compromise in a place where Democrats feel comfortable and year by year the deficit and debt grow. And at election time, Democrats have the ammunition to say that Republicans are spenders too. The point is that I don't see how a national party can have as its platform that it is Democrat light. I think Republicans have to believe and promote a balanced budget for the GOP to be able to differentiate themselves. On capitalism, promote free markets rather than some hybrid government business coalition. I think people would rather see true free markets over crony capitalism. What do you all think? Is Evan Bayh right or does the GOP need to make clear stances to differentiate itself?
Ronald Regan would be never make the cut in today's GOP. That is their problem. They do not know who they are and what they stand for. They have been taken over by the far right to the extent that a moderate is considered a liberal and as such this is something that you just cannot be. While Bush was in office this same phenomena was happening except it was the the religious extremists. Now it is the anti government extremists.
[quoteWhat do you all think? Is Evan Bayh right or does the GOP need to make clear stances to differentiate itself?
I can only speak for myself. I could be woo'ed back to the Republican party if they focused only on the spending/taxing issues. It was the social issues that pushed me from a Republican to an Independent. The problem as I see it is that should the Republicans continue to move to the center they'll face potential splintering from the Tea Party. Unlike many previous movements the Tea Party appears to have the critical mass to become it's own minority party. Without that base the Republicans have no hope, I'm afraid.
Mr. Deez- No offense taken. For context, I grew up during the 80's thus Reagan was an influential factor on my political views. With that said, I'll never be a straight ticket voter and firmly believe those voters that choose that tactic are doing a great disservice to our republic. My translation of the "style over substance" is that you feel I'm looking at the message more than the deeds. In other words, the Republican party may take a public stance of outlawing abortion but have only put forth legislation for common sense limitations. Is it your stance that I should measure them on the deeds rather than the public stance? I'd extend the social issues that I'm most concerned about beyond abortion and gay rights. Those are important but I see immigration reform, education (ie. charter schools), gun rights and religion mixing with public policy also as important social issues in which I'm at odds with the Republican Party. From my perspective, Reagan understood the need for strong fiscal conservatism and that's what I believe in and want a party that understands that and pushes that as the primary issue above all others, at least in todays context. It was that brand of the Republican Party that I registered for when I turned 18 in '91. It's Democrats lack of fiscal restraint that keeps me from being a registered Democrat. If the Republicans said to their extreme right simply "social conservatism isn't a priority for us but fiscal conservatism is" and worked to put leaders in place that espoused (and acted upon) the same principle then I'd vote Republican more regularly.
SH, Good explanation, and like you, I've never been a straight ticket voter. Even in the very few elections in which I've ended up only voting for Republicans (which hasn't happened since 1998), I've always read the actual ballot and individually voted for candidates. Nowadays, my ballot is always split. I vote for GOP candidates about 50 percent of the time, Democratic candidates about 10 percent of the time (state judges and anybody who's challenging Rick Perry), and Libertarian candidates about 40 percent of the time.
Yes, I'd be open to Chris Christie. He's socially conservative but doesn't put his views there at the forefront of his agenda. I consider myself part of that "undecided" center voter that generally decides presidential elections. I did vote for Bush Jr. the first time around due to a distrust of Gore and a feeling that the country needed a change after the Clinton years with a Democratically controlled house. I was pretty adamantly against Bush Jr. after his first term.
The GOP's inability to attract you and people like you might be its biggest problem as a political party.
I'm convinced that the GOP needs a spokesperson and a message. Really, it needs to spend some money and rebrand itself. As flawed as Newt Gingrich is, at least he had a message and promoted that message. Currently, it is just a hodgepodge of sometimes conflicting views. If it was up to me, I would promote a fiscally sound agenda as the main focus. Personally, I believe that people care more about jobs than social issues. Social issues are only a wedge when people have a lot of free time on their hands. Next, I would promote a state's rights agenda. The GOP needs to explain why the federal government and centralized planing is inferior to local control. It needs to explain why Republics are good for governing. Now, since I am not socially conservative and because I believe the message, I think the party should adopt a more libertarian view on social issues. Let people decide what they want to do and be. However, people need to be responsible for their own lifestyle choices. If you want to smoke, fine, but don't make me pay for it. Now, I realize that to win elections the GOP needs the religious right. I think the only sensible approach is to leave it up to local control, and promote the rights of the fetus. Personally, I am pro choice but think that there are way too many abortions. And I believe that the message totally turns away too many young women. But, I think it is a necessary step to stay a major player in national elections. What hurts is that the message of fiscal restraint consistently loses to the message of free services. Buying votes works. Christy does pretty well in combating this, but I am not sure how his compromises would play in the South. Perot did a good job of explaining the problems with government spending. So I think it is possible, but it is an uphill struggle. Mitt let the opponent drive the discussion. That can't happen if you want to win. The speaker needs to be strong and show conviction in the message.
