Republican Party

Reviving the GOP

How can the Republican Party dig itself out of the hole it's in?

|

How can the Republican Party—or the center-right political movement in this country generally—dig itself out of the hole it's in?

That's the question being asked after two months in which the Republican Party lost a presidential election, had its positions on climate change and gun control challenged by the dominant press interpretations of Hurricane Sandy and the Newtown school massacre, and failed, at least so far, to use its control of the House of Representatives to avert the scheduled expiration of the Bush tax cuts.

Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House who as a congressman engineered a Republican House majority, is out with a 25-point memo to the chairman of the Republican National Committee. Gingrich says the Republicans need to become competitive in California, in "urban America," among blacks, Latinos, and Asian-Americans, among women, and "especially among younger single women." He also calls for increasing Republican strength in what he calls "story telling and narrative development," to challenge the left's domination of "Hollywood, New York City, academics, the news media." He asks, "how do we write off New England, New York, California, Illinois, etc. and think we are going to compete?"

Thomas Friedman, the author and journalist, calls for Republicans to launch an effort similar to what the Democratic Leadership Council did with the post-Carter, post-McGovern Democrats. He writes that the Republicans need to return to the "center-right" from the "far right." The center-right, in Friedman's view, would raise taxes on millionaires, support an assault weapons ban, and ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of People With Disabilities. He doesn't really explain much how that center-right party would be different from the Democrats. Nor does he deal with the fact that the past two Republican presidential nominees, John McCain and Mitt Romney, were both in some significant ways center-right figures. They lost. So, too, were Bob Dole, who was the nominee in 1996 and lost, and George H.W. Bush, who lost his bid for re-election in 1992.

Peggy Noonan, the speechwriter for President Reagan and columnist for The Wall Street Journalrecommends an essay by James Kurth, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute.  It says Republican prospects will be bleak unless the party can peel away white women from the Democrats.

The next generation of Republican leaders and possible presidential candidates—Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker—will have to sort out these issues.

But it's worth remembering, too, that there was a prior generation of Republican leaders who won in states and demographics that are traditionally Democratic. Governors such as Pete Wilson in California, William Weld in Massachusetts, and George Pataki in New York managed to win the support of what Mitt Romney might have called "binders full" of women. They were environmentalists, they strayed from Republican orthodoxy on abortion rights, they were supporters of legal immigration. They were conservatives on taxes and spending, and they were tough on crime, at least in comparison to the Democrats they were running against.

Neither Wilson, Weld, nor Pataki were ever really fully embraced by the national Republican Party, though Pataki had a prominent speaking role at the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York, as did Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, another governor in the Wilson-Weld-Pataki mold. They were sometimes denounced as RINOS, or "Republicans in Name Only." Rudolph Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, who has a similar profile, made an unsuccessful run at the presidency in 2008. Mitt Romney was like this group in that he was a governor from a traditionally Democratic state who had once supported abortion rights and taken a hard line against pollution, but by the time he made Romney through the Republican primary and the wave of Democratic negative advertising, there wasn't much of that profile left to emphasize for the general election campaign.

The natural move for the Paul Ryans and Marco Rubios of the world is to spend a lot of time courting Republican leaders in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, while trying to anticipate whatever the issues are going to be in 2016. But looking past the nomination battle to the general election, the smart choice for anyone who wants to lead the GOP out of the wilderness would be to take some meetings with Governors Wilson, Weld, and Pataki. The 1990s, when all three men were first elected governor, may seem like ancient history at this point. But one of the ironies of American politics at the moment is that it may be three old white men who never were elected president—Governors Wilson, Weld, and Pataki—who can tell the Republicans how to broaden their appeal enough to retake the White House.

NEXT: Blogger Responds to NY Paper Publishing List of Gun Owners' Addresses by Publishing Newspaper Staff's Addresses

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Do we really want a “revived” GOP? Anybody else tired of the DC Punch and Judy show? I want the GOP to whither and die….only then will we see the naked face of TEAM BLUE control! It will be glorious I’m sure!

    1. You sort of get to the problem.

      The fact is, we get the government the populous wants. Right now, the populous wants government control. Now whether that is the government control of our finances, or the government control of who can settle here and marry which person- that’s what defines the parties.

      The fact is, the GOP is dead until a charismatic Republican along the lines of Obama (or Reagan) can get in front of the American people and convince them (despite his hypocrisy and contradictory views) that he is Their Guy. Obama does this. Clinton Did this. Even Bush(^2) did this.

      This populace is not filled with ideologues, it is filled with genuinely well-meaning people who really don’t want to be bothered with running a country. If a charismatic leader gets in front of them and says the right things, they’ll vote for him. If Reason wants to see a more libertarian country, they need to find an Obama (or Clinton, or Reagan) who can speak pretty and convince people that an ever growing government generally is bad.

      1. Overt,

        Reason should replace your comment with the empty article you responded to. I think this election proved that point unaquivacolly. Neither party represents the 25 million people who had a job in 05′ and are now filing into whatever line they can get in to survive.

        My hope is federalism will start to fix the problem in some states and the results will be so profound , or voting public will take notice.

  2. Oh yeah….firstiest!

  3. The Stupid Party will be replaced by a Stupider Party anon.

    OT — Does anyone have a link to the *actual text of* Feinstein’s “assault weapons” bill? I’m trying to find out what this thing will *really* entail, since the posted “summary” is pretty bizarre.

    1. Apparently they’re still fleshing out what will be as big a boondoggle as the healthcare bill…so no full reading yet!

      I’m long shovel futures and non-compliance!

    2. RC had it. It is even worse than you think

      https://reason.com/blog/2012/12…..nt_3454985

      1. Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

        Dedicated funding for ATF new prison camps to implement registration deal with non-compliance.

        There that’s better! More accurate.

        1. Of course. We imprison productive members of society to free up jerbz, then we also have to employ prison guards. UNEMPLOYMENT SOLVED!

          Broken windows, everywhere.

    3. Not sure that’s OT. Feinstein seems intent on doing her best to help Republicans regain relevance.

  4. Personally, I will shed no tears if the GOP withers and dies. Its a no-lose deal: the GOP is pretty much useless to me now, and whatever replaces it might be an improvement, the long-awaited (if unlikely) realignment of our party politics into the Total State party and the Small Government party.

    1. What probably happens is the GOP splits into two parties allowing a minority but united Democratic party to pretty much run everything and turn America into a giant Detroit.

      1. Well they’ll own it then won’t they? Really better that way…clueless authoritarians rapidly running the country into the dirt. The faster the better!

        1. That sounds nice. But they should already own the failure of Detroit, California, Illinois and New York. But it doesn’t seem to have hurt them has it?

          1. No it has….just haven’t reached the tipping point yet. It will be harder and harder to hide their ineptitude as they go forward.

            1. Sure. Five decades just isn’t enough to expose the ineptitude. Give it another five, and then you’ll see!

              1. “Hockey Stick” Fatty……just like climate “science”.

            2. just haven’t reached the tipping point yet.

              sure we have and this election confirmed it. I’m not going to say Romney would have been a savior but Obama was very much a known quantity and a majority of voters said “thank you, sir, may I have another.”

          2. Ah the nightmarish hellscapes of New York and California.

            1. Give it time. This latest round of California tax hikes is causing the productive class to look elsewhere for fame and fortune.

            2. When all you have to pay is the 45% hotel tax it doesn’t seem so bad, but it’s worse when you live there.

              If the argument for left wing political philosophy is “Mmm Mmm NYC” or “Mmm Mmm Detroit”, I don’t think there’s really anything left to say.

          3. Only until there is no one left to lie to/steal from.

        2. fish| 12.27.12 @ 12:23PM |#
          “Well they’ll own it then won’t they? Really better that way…clueless authoritarians rapidly running the country into the dirt. The faster the better!”

          A reasonable person might think so, but as CA shows, no matter what happens, the rethuglicans caused the bad stuff. Both of them.

          1. They are already wrestling with how to go forward without the built in excuse of having opposition. Darrel Steinberg won’t have plausible deniability to hide behind as easily now. When they piss away multi billions on speedy choo choo plus a multitude of other money wasters and Californians start to really feel the bite it’s going to get interesting fast!

          2. There will always be dissident obstructionist gumming up the works to make the state look bad.

        3. Thing is Fish, when shit starts hitting the fan everybody wants someone to “do something.” It’s completely natural behavior even though it’s the wrong course of action.

          So of course, the guy sitting in the corner that says “how about we just do nothing?” gets laughed out.

          1. “Something” always involves spending money….California is going to have a harder and harder time doing this as times progresses.

            1. Hah! Yeah, right. One word: Bailout.

              1. Yeah well get back to me on that. I live here and frankly sticking you fuckers with the check is something I could adjust to. 😉

        4. They’d also have free rein to double down…

      2. The American electoral system effectively makes three parties impossible. And that’s not a bad thing either if you take a look at how that works out in Europe.

    2. You mean the Total State Party and the Total Theocracy Party.

      1. Hey, I said it was unlikely.

  5. The next generation of Republican leaders and possible presidential candidates?Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker?will have to sort out these issues.

    You missed one, the guy with the most credibility on the fiscal issues that will determine the fate of the US government:

    Rand Paul

  6. Republicans are done until they quit caring about abortion, homos and deportation.

    Oh yeah, and that whole “A TRILLION DOLLARS A YEAR ISN’T ENOUGH MILITARY SPENDING! NEED MOAR!”

    1. Yeah, Americans get sick of that shit. What they want is “3 TRILLION DOLLARS A YEAR IN SOCIAL SPENDING ISN’T ENOUGH! NEED MOAR!”

      Get with the times. People stopped giving a shit about spending about 10 trillion bucks ago. The EVUL RICH will pay for it.

  7. Okay, slightly OT, but the A.M. Links seem to have petered out, and this is simply to precious to to post:

    A CNN columnist is calling for a consortium of billionaires
    to buy out Freedom Group, maker of Bushmaster rifles. I believe he’s serious:

    “They should appoint George Clooney, Angelina Jolie and Matt Damon to the fundraising committee and recruit a loud-mouthed, poison-penned, but good-hearted activist hedge fund titan as chief investment officer (Bill Ackman? Dan Loeb?).”

    1. *TOO precious not to post.

    2. Editor’s note: John MacIntosh was a partner at Warburg Pincus, a leading global private equity firm, where he worked from 1994 to 2006 in New York, Tokyo and London. He now runs a nonprofit in New York.

      Really? You would think that their hiring screening process would be able to winnow out stupidity this blatant. Sigh…even the big money makers can’t get it right.

      1. Really? You would think that their hiring screening process would be able to winnow out stupidity this blatant.

        Maybe he was afflicted after he was hired; hence his involvement in a nonprofit these days.

        But yeah, this notion that these billionaires would buy out a a company and let it die off is ridiculous. While Soros and Bloomberg and their ilk are haters of liberty, they’re capitalists first and foremost; any silly pet causes area a distant second.

        1. Maybe he was afflicted after he was hired; hence his involvement in a nonprofit these days.

          Ahhh…given a “window seat”. Could be!

        2. Maybe he was afflicted after he was hired; hence his involvement in a nonprofit these days.

          to the contrary; his involvement in a non-prof may well have more to do with being in a network that has a shit ton of untaxed and largely unregulated money to spend as it pleases. Non-prof is not the same non income.

    3. They really are drunk on the blood of dead children aren’t they?

      1. They really are drunk on the blood of dead children aren’t they?

        If nothing else, they’re not about to let this opportunity go to waste.

    4. I love how these dumbasses are laser-focused on the Bushmaster model. I hate to break it to them, but there are hundreds of models of scary black rifles made by probably a dozen companies.

      1. I love how these dumbasses are laser-focused on the Bushmaster model.

        For instance, earlier this week when that guy in New York State set his house on fire and shot the firefighters that responded, I knew he had use a Bushmaster before I learned that he’d served 18 years for beating his grandmother to death with a hammer.

        1. Time to outlaw hammers.

  8. They were environmentalists (translation; allowed themselves to be bullied into believing unscientific bullshit to the detriment of their states)

    they strayed from Republican orthodoxy on abortion rights (translation, too the minority view on abortion)

    They were supporters of legal immigration (supported a policy that brought in more voters for their opponents but won them no votes for themselves)

    What could possibly go wrong with such a strategy?

    1. They were supporters of legal immigration (supported a policy that brought in more voters for their opponents but won them no votes for themselves)

      When did you become closed borders, John?

      1. open borders and a welfare state is not a combination that ends well.

      2. I am not for closed borders. I am just not optimistic that open borders will result in anything good politically.

        1. ^This.

          I really wish people could come here and work as they please. And so I always support immigration.

          But to pretend that the introduction of millions and millions of people who were raised in paternal, big gov autocracies isn’t the end of small government is to ignore reality.

          I’ll continue supporting open borders personally, but really wish Reason writers would spend some time trying to deal with the plainly obvious outcome.

          1. Completely ignored by everybody (on the subject of border control) is the fact that there is more to the issue than immigration.

            Have any of you open borders loons ever been through southern border country? It is a no man’s land where anybody can smuggle anything into this country.

            I know, I know…legalize drugs and there goes most of the issue. But the same is true of bombs, weapons, and anything else it might be in our national interest to keep out of the country.

            I am an advocate of what I call “national sovereignty libertarianism”, which is minarchism in practice. Under minarchism, national security is about the only job of the federal government–and protecting our borders should be considered part of national defense.

            I am not anti-immigration; but I only support open borders, come one come all, in the absence of a welfare state. The Reason writers who constantly remind us how great our open borders are, would do better to remember that America was not a welfare state when all those europeans came here a hundred years ago.

            1. Have to agree on that. I’ve said about a billion times on here, screening out people that can infect me with communicable diseases and making sure nobody smuggles in a bomb to blow me up are among the very few things the government actually has a legitimate interest in doing with the wealth they extract from me, and Reason doesn’t want them doing it.

          2. If even you’re willing to support open borders knowing how it’s going to end up, why do you expect anything better out of Reason?

            What kind of strange political schizophrenia is this that causes people to support positions which will doom them to irrelevance? Libertarians supporting open borders makes about as much sense as chickens supporting Colonel Sanders.

            The only difference being that the chickens know better.

  9. Let them wither and die, they are democrats with different teleprompters.

    1. +1

      “different teleprompters” HA!!!

  10. Does anyone have a link to the *actual text of* Feinstein’s “assault weapons” bill?

    It will be made available after it has been passed and signed, per established Congressional procedure.

    1. Just get ready to register all your guns. Makes it easier for them to round them up, so there’ll be less fuss when we’re herded onto the trains.

    2. They have to pass it so we can find out what’s in it!

  11. Also OT: “EPA Administrator Jackson announces resignation”
    “Jackson, […] did not point to any particular reason for her departure.”

    Couldn’t be her attempt to hide from the FOIA by using private emails, could it?
    http://www.sfgate.com/business…..148820.php
    or your fave AP reseller.

    1. ….. did not point to any particular reason for her departure.

      Of no further use to the administration…..(end of line)

    2. Nah, not blatant and serial violation of the law. Seriously, none of these people worry about that (and with good reason).

      I suspect its just time for her to go through the revolving door and make bank. Nothing more than that.

  12. According to Tom Friedman, the Republicans need to shitcan their vile, disgusting base, and embrace their inner Democraticness.

    GOOBLE GOBBLE!

    1. If that were actually true, wouldn’t republicans already have no problem being elected?

      1. If that were actually true, wouldn’t republicans already have no problem being elected?

        Bingo. If Romney wasn’t his man, essentially a progressive who flip flopped on the single issue of abortion, he is intellectually dishonest to the core given continued support for the Obama administration only embraces continued failure.

    2. Because those people have no right to any representation whatsoever.

      1. As a libertarian, I’m used to that.

    3. Why doesn’t Tom just come out of the closet and embrace TEAM BLUE? He was flirting pretty seriously with TEAM RED CHINA last year…it wouldn’t be that big a stretch!

    4. GOBBLE GOBBLE TURKEY. FROM JIVE TURKEY GOBBLERS.

  13. George Clooney, Angelina Jolie and Matt Damon

    All of whom have raked in big paydays while running around shooting up the countryside with TEH GUUUUNZ in their movies.

    1. Being a Top Man comes with its privileges

  14. Oh, and more (delicious) OT:
    “Branson Becomes Face of U.K. Health Flap”
    Seems Branson is providing med-care *for profit* and doing a better job than others:
    “One of the groups that lost the bidding for the Surrey contract?Central Surrey Health, a nonprofit group owned by 700 nurses and health-care workers?says it doesn’t understand how Virgin can make much profit on the deal,”
    That profit motive; how’s that work again?
    http://online.wsj.com/article/…..sNewsForth

    1. I will never understand how people think profit is a bad thing.

      1. That’s because you’re a diamond cane encrusted wielding, top hat sporting, monocle wearing monster!

        1. …diamond cane encrusted wielding

          Sorry fish backward talking!

          diamond encrusted cane wielding…..

          1. Technically, it should be “diamond-encrusted-cane-wielding.” But I liked it better the first way.

      2. Not that it will help understanding, but reading comments in Common Dreams and other Prog Sites and Huff Po help us understand that this country is in deep shit.

      3. Profit is the difference between the benefits to society that a company produces, and the cost to society in resources consumed. Seems like everyone should be in favor of that.

  15. Gingrich says the Republicans need to become competitive in California, in “urban America,” among blacks, Latinos, and Asian-Americans, among women, and “especially among younger single women.”

    so telling blacks they are lazy, latinos that they are criminals, and reminding women that their bodies have natural defenses against rape doesn’t make them competitive?

    color me surprised

    1. so telling blacks they are lazy, latinos that they are criminals, and reminding women that their bodies have natural defenses against rape doesn’t make them competitive?

      And many of those same people say that “those” drugs addle your brain to the point of serious defunctionality.

      We need a War on Politics, dammit!

  16. Any New York Republican would tell you that embracing George Pataki type politicians is a bad idea, if there were any New York Republicans left. Pataki, D’Amato, and Bruno made sure there weren’t.

    Speaking as a former New York Republican, and a sensible human being, it’s usually the case that “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” candidates are typically crony capitalists who ultimately grow the size of government getting Fat Cats rich. George Pataki’s D grade from Cato should have been sufficient evidence of this. Apparently he’s been out of office for so long, people forgot.

    1. ^^THIS^^ I have yet to find this mythical “socially liberal fiscal conservative” politician.

      1. The idea isn’t the problem, it’s that they AREN’T fiscally conservative.

  17. If your only choices are Dem Lite and Dem, why would you go Dem Lite?

  18. Put a muzzle on the religious fanatics and take them out of positions of power.

  19. Summary: the Republican Party clearly needs more any-way-the-wind-blows squishes.

    Brilliant.

  20. The next generation of Republican leaders and possible presidential candidates?Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker?will have to sort out these issues.

    Paul Ryan? Why the fuck do people in the media always call him “conservative”? Even by the neocons’ definition of what a “conservative” is, Paul Ryan is definitely not a conservative. Seriously, it’s no wonder Romney lost so badly when he chose a near-clone of himself to be his running mate.

  21. The “next” generation of Republicans need to be LIBERTARIANS! As long as the word “Republican” means social-conservative/fiscal-conservative, it will continue to serve 35% of the voters.
    Liberals, socialists, progressives . . . Democrats are social liberals and economic socialists. The thing (in my opinion) that keeps the Republican party has nothing to do with messaging and everything to do with the content and perception of the message by the center/swing voters.
    Start a new party that butts out of social issues, and focuses on fiscal conservatism (which is not right-wing or neanderthal or anything else progressive/socialists call it.)

  22. When the Republican party used the artificial debt ceiling as an occasion to take the global economy hostage, they ceased being a credible political party and started being insurgents. I hear Gitmo is lovely this time of year.

    1. You’re going to need to find a new “party” to hang your future TEAM BLUE failures on….TEAM RED is going the way of the Whigs.

    2. If we’re going to use bad main stream media analogies then why don’t you tell me who it was who locked the hostages in the room with those damned republicans?

      Hint: He’s been president for four years.

    3. I remember when raising that very same artificial debt ceiling represented a moral failure of responsible government. But that was like, over 5 years ago.

  23. Instead of trying to broaden their appeal, Republicans should go hard core fiscal conservative. The national government is falling into a fiscal abyss, and someone has to be the grownups, and it sure isn’t the Democrats. The independent middle of the American electorate is fiscally conservative, but Romney chose to distance himself from even the modest fiscal conservatism of his running mate. Go full bore limited government in 2016, and watch the conservative turnout go up enough that all the hand-wringing over demographic targeting go out the window.

    1. The independent middle of the American electorate is fiscally conservative

      Lol. So they elected Barack Obama once on the promise he’d jack spending through the ceiling, and again on the promise he wouldn’t stop? You’re adorable

  24. If you’re a fiscal conservative turned off by social conservatism, then you’re probably white and already part of the center right. The kind of voters the GOP needs don’t fit that mold.

    It’s best to stop saying “if you limit the government, they will come”. If the LP replaces the GOP, then most of its members will be former republicans and white independents. If the GOP was savaged for being “darwinian”, then what do you expect the media to do if “true” libertarian economic agendas take center stage? No Republican runs on cutting defense and eliminating the minimum wage.

    Reaching out to minorities will bear little fruit, because they’re not interested. If they don’t like taxes, they’ll find ways not to pay them, instead of getting involved in an emotionally charged debate about taxes like the tea partiers. Most of them live in their little bubble safe in their ethnic enclave without ever interacting with outsiders themselves.

    Hold onto your white base, and see what happens when Obamacare goes into effect. That’s the best this side can do, at this point.

  25. Why is this at all complicated? I guess pundits have to justifytheir jobs somehow.

    It’s overwrought to imply that the GOP needs reviving. Their position is slightly improved from where it was 50 yrs. ago, and they’ve been in approximately the same position since their founding, i.e. one of 2 parties in a long-run tie for total domination of politics throughout the USA. In the medium to long term the 2 parties will continue to do what they’ve always done in the land of the pragmatic voter, i.e. the USA, and that is to straddle the center between them, fairly closely. In the short run we’re seeing some ideologic separation between the parties, but that’s usually an unstable situation. A great many issues will continue to not be partisan, with the most influential people in each party agreeing with each other; when & if they changetheir minds, they’ll change them together so the issue will remain non-partisan, just from the other side.

  26. Gingrich says the Republicans need to become competitive in California, in “urban America,” among blacks, Latinos, and Asian-Americans, among women, and “especially among younger single women.”

    One of these days someone will have to explain to me the point of having a party that represents everyone except it’s core constituency. When there aren’t enough people like you left to support a party that represents your interests, I suggest the smart thing to do is find a more hospitable country. At which point why would you give a flying fuck about what becomes of the Republicans?

    1. I thought the “core constituency” of the Republican party is people who believe in small government and individual liberties. Blacks, Latinos, Asian-Americans, immigrants, and other “minorities” can benefit from that as much, if not more, than white middle class guys. The problem is that they don’t see it. (The other problem is that the Republican party falls short on delivering it.)

    1. Grand Old Potheads, right?

  27. What’s needed is no mystery: a charismatic someone who believes fervently in freedom, free markets and free minds. In other words, the Republican party needs to find someone who is “pro choice” on every issue and capable of explaining why that is what is best for everyone: women, men, blacks, whites and hispanics, and gays and straights, rich and poor. Until then, the GOP is going nowhere.

    1. We had that in Ron Paul.

      1. Ron Paul didn’t manage to sell himself to the mainstream, and that’s part of what makes a successful politician.

        Part of Ron Paul’s mistake was that he promised too much change too quickly. No matter how wrong-headed past policies have been, reform and reduction of government needs to happen slowly, and people need to be convinced not that smaller government is better in the abstract, but that it is better for them personally. In many cases, that includes some kind of explicit transition plan that is crucial to convincing people.

        For example, say you want to get rid of social security. You really also need to say in the same breath that people who have paid in so far will pretty much be getting at least what they expected, but that everybody has the opportunity to make more money.

      2. ^THIS^

        The public at large isn’t ready for libertarianism on a grand scale. They may well NEVER be. The wisest use of libertarian resources is to find another rock on which we can live and the technology to get there. Only then can we have a shot at the freedom we desire 🙂

  28. Republicans need to realize that social and “Christian” conservatives are a dwindling minority of voters, and that many independents are not going to vote for a party that makes socially conservative policies a central part of their program. In different words, the Republican party needs to become true to its word of small, unintrusive government, and equal opportunity for all regardless of issues that have nothing to do with job performance.

    Republican politicians also need to brush up on their science. While I doubt many Democratic politicians really know what they are talking about when they talk about science, they manage to give the impression that they do. Republicans are widely perceived as being anti-science, and to compensate that, they need to be particularly well informed.

  29. Merry Christmas,NBA ,NFL 2012

  30. “How can the Republican Party dig itself out of the hole it’s in?”

    Stop digging.

  31. So, the way to ‘save’ the Republican party is NOT to follow the lead of Rand Paul or Ron Paul, but take a page from crony capitalists like Pataki and Weld who supported confiscatory environmental regulations? Or gun grabber Guiliani? Or tax and spend Schwarzenegger?

    How the heck did this statist drivel get posted on what is supposedly a libertarian website?

  32. I suppose Pete Wilson was indeed a supporter of “legal immigration”. His way of supporting it managed to alienate California Latino voters to the extent that the CA Republicans have never recovered.

  33. What Republican Party ? it is the party of Rhinos, and frauds that will say anything to get elected, and then do what ever suits them, citizens be damned
    Folks if we are going to keep our Constitution and our freedom we better turn back to GOD ..HE is the ONE in charge .. The Tea Party is on the right Track . Time to listen to them ..

  34. Well put! Lets hope he is a true conservative, who is charismatically talented.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.