What's next for the GOP?

The past two elections have been a complete repudiation of the policies forwarded by the Republican Party. I would argue not of conservatism, but that's another issue.

My question is, where does the GOP go from here? It seems they've lost the Hispanic vote and the youth vote. It even seems that many evangelicals have become more liberal policy-wise.

Do they go back to conservative principles, do they appeal more to the middle? Do they continue to run on social issues? Do they actually become the party of small government?

Please don't post to this thread if all you have is a snarky response.

 

I hope they return to their core values of limited government and self-reliance. This compassionate conservatism BS was something I was totally against in 2000. Just stupid. They need to dump the evangelicals and form the party on a strong platform.

 

What do you think of Romney....from a leadership and/or core values standpoint?

 

Great on economics, but will sell his core values for a single vote. You don't become an LDS Republican Governor of Massachusetts by not betraying some of your core beliefs.

 

If you want to talk about how they take back the White House and Congress...that all depends on how Obama, Pelosi, and Reid do these next two years. It's hard to predict. Democrats would probably gain some more house seats in 2010 and maybe a seat or two in the Senate. If they do poorly/mediocre 2010 is when Republicans start to pick up seats again.

As for 2012, Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin are the first two that comes to my mind. Bobby Jindal will be 7 years younger than Obama when he ran with 3-4 years as Governor of Louisiana, combined with his service in the House and various state executive positions within the health care system. Mitt Romney might be back too.

As for a complete philosophical overhaul...that's going to take more than two years and a lot of support. Who knows if or when that would happen.

 

Sarah Palin, really? I think her appeal is very narrow. In fact, I think Palin is emblematic of the Republian failure: selected to appease a single, extreme wing of the party and to be a "barracuda" (supposedly able to tear others down). I don't think she actually was very effective at tearing down Obama or Biden, but the mentality of attack mode (ushered into Republican policy by Gingrich's neo-con movement) is divisive and I think ultimately a turn-off to most. The two likeable people they went after, Clinton and Obama, it failed. It worked well against Gore and Kerry, both of whom hurt themselves significantly with their own personalities.

I think Palin fits the neo-con style perfectly, but I don't think the neo-con movement is what the Republicans should be embracing. Honestly, if I were to pick a Republican whom the party should try to focus on, it would be Condaleeza Rice. She strikes me as smart, competent, non-exteme, non-divisive and considered.

 

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PhSjuduQGN4&hl=pt-br&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PhSjuduQGN4&hl=pt-br&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

As I see it, the party will devolve into an initial period of internal bickering between those who would support a candidate like Palin, who plays well with the right-wing evangelical crowed but virtually no one else, and those who will look for a new voice of conservatism, perhaps uniting behind a guy like Jindal. IMO, the Palin camp would doom the party to another election cycle of irrelevance. Time for cutting to the core of conservatism and getting out of the phony morality plays.

 

I don't agree that things should have been expected to go better for the Democrats. The Democrats have power in government that is extremely rare in history and that's despite the country being right-leaning and the first non-white candidate heading a Presidential ticket. A Senate super-majority is exceedingly rare and was never likely...suggesting that it should have been assumed and not getting it shows surprising strength in the Republican party doesn't seem correct, to me.

I don't think conservatism was repudiated. Conservatism is always part of the human psyche and thus the political landscape. What has happened is that the Democrats have a very charismatic leader and the power to enact legislation. To me, it's very similar to 1980, which was also a protest election. The Republicans gained a charismatic leader and, by framing his ideology as the building of a great, new America, he shifted the nation more to the right. Obama has the chance to frame his own ideology (if he is, in fact, the liberal that some conservatives fear) as the building of a great, new America and he has the charisma to succeed. If he does, he can shift the nation more to the left. There's nothing inherent in Americans that makes them more conservative or more liberal. Like all human populations, if they are sold on an ideology being the way to progress as a society, that becomes the social character.

I'm not saying Obama will do for the left what Reagan did for the right. But a lot of the same elements are in place, and Obama has the ability. Whether he wants to do that and whether he will succeed remains to be seen.

 

I don't believe it was Reagan's ability to deliver a line, but rather the power of his ideas that pulled America away from the brink.

 

I think he was wise to steer clear from this train wreck. He got some great exposure during the recent hurricane.

 

Can't do it. She was a part of the Bush administration...too much baggage.

Now, if she switches parties or starts supporting Democrats, that all goes away (I.E. Colin Powell).

 

I don't think many people actually tie her to Bush. Perhaps moreso than they do Powell (who was disassociated with Bush long before he endorsed Obama; it was clear that he never meshed well with the Bush administration). Clearly, this is opinion, but Rice doesn't seem to be placed in the same group as Cheney, Rove and Rumsfeld.

 

Policies go in and out of vogue and are debated with roughly half the politically aware citizens on one side and half on the other, when it comes to long-standing issues. The thing that tips an electorate heavily toward one end is charisma and the ability to make people believe that certain policies will lead to a better tomorrow, in my opinion. Throughout human history, that's what political leadership has revolved around.

 

This election was about young vs old. Young people are sick and tired of this country being run by a fucked up out of touch older generation that repeats the same mistakes over and over. In order to gain tangibility again, they need to modernize, and start working modern issues that folks really care about.

While Republicans were talking "Joe the plumber", Democrats were talking to "The IT guy." Joe the plumber is so 50 years ago.

While John McCain was admitting he never uses a computer, Obama was using up to 3 different mobile devices for communication.

These are just a couple of examples. There are a lot out there. The thing to remember is, each generation that is born is much bigger than the one before it. There will always be more younger voters than old unless people start living a really long time, or people quit having sex. If you target the young people, you should always have a good chance of gaining majority.