GOP, party of change

So it appears that the GOP might be turning over a new leaf. Today the GOP released a new set of recommendations for their party that seem to accept many of the changes that could lead them to a successful presidential run in 2016.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/18/17351259-gop-report-calls-for-sweeping-reforms-to-compete-in-2016?lite

The most important action on that list seems to be increasing the push for comprehensive immigration reform. They also suggest toning down the rhetoric on gays, increasing minority outreach, reducing the party's reliance on large donors, creating legitimate grass root infrastructure, and candidates that will probably be a little more PC. I'm obviously paraphrasing a bit here.

Another aspect of this that seems important is how they are now firmly against any and all public financing for campaigns. I've been saying for awhile now that the GOP would have to worry about another conservative party picking up the slack if they did choose to move slightly to the left. By getting rid of things like the matching funds programs that can cut directly into the funds of any competing smaller party.

Now to be sure these are suggestions given by some of the top brass, but may never get put into effect. That's evident from their convention where Rand Paul won the straw poll and Sarah Palin basically told all of the reformers in the party to go fuck themselves.

If implemented I do think these policies could definitely lead the GOP out of the hole they've been digging for decades but is it too little to late? Anyways, how does the escapist feel about this?

Edit: To add Sarah Palin said this, "We don't have leadership coming out of Washington, we have reality television". God I hope she runs for president.

I don't think this will help much. At least, not without a complete change of face. If they throw people like Boehner, Palin, and Rand Paul up there and try to convince us that they really believe these new ideas, it will sound like nothing but the same political lies that we're used to. The Republican party has taken a stance of undercutting and avoiding anyone with moderate leanings for a long time, an expensive study and "a new leaf" won't cut it. They need new people, people that we can honestly believe hold the positions they claim to be supporting now. I don't see it happening.

I see a lot of stuff about funding, but has that ever really been the problem with Republicans? Have they really struggled with that?

LetalisK:
I see a lot of stuff about funding, but has that ever really been the problem with Republicans? Have they really struggled with that?

In the last two Presidential elections, yes. It doesn't need to be said that Obama grossly outraised both McCain and Romney in terms of direct contributions to the campaigns. Romney may have more outside money on his side, but election communication laws, which mandate minimum rates for campaign commercials (done by the campaign) but not issue ads (done by outside groups) gave Obama a more efficient expenditure rate overall.

When you get down to the Senate and House races, money made more of a deal, but the less than viable nominees for the GOP concentrated money into borderline races, such as Allen West's House race in Florida.

However, I think the concern by the party on campaign finance is more related to the incident during the primary where a handful of billionaires kept non-viable candidates like Newt Gingrich in the race well after they lost.

In terms of comprehensive immigration reform you've already seen the GOP come around, although not without caveats. The US immigration system is fundamentally broken, the fact that over one third of people living in America who were born outside of America are without documentation is proof of this even if you don't want to go into the nitty-gritty. It just goes to show how head up their ass backwards the GOP is when it's considered a remarkable turnaround that immigration reform is even up for debate. But of course, they'll only do CIR in a Republican way, you're already seeing them agree to giving visas to undocumented workers with the catch that they won't have a path to citizenship, or if they do it will be needlessly long and arduous, and also refusing relatively uncontroversial things like immigration rights for the domestic partners of gay Americans.

Which leads into their treatment of gays. With some minor recent exceptions the party has not changed its mind on gay unions. They know that they're missing out on a large voter base, but their solution isn't to actually recognise gay families under the law, it's just to sweep it under the rug and hope that a lack of outward hostility and "leave it to the states" excuses will be enough. I can't imagine their treatment of other minorities would be any different either.

The funny thing is that they've dug such a hole for themselves now that even if most candidates moderated their tone to appear more... well, moderate, there's still that "God, guns and gays" further-right chunk of the party that will never moderate their tone and fight loudly for their cause until the crack of doom and make it impossible for people to forget the GOP's history.

Whew, got a bit of work done. I'll reward myself with one post.

I figured the GOP was either going to change or split sometime soon, and it looks like they're wanting to change. Probably because a split means they will inevitably suffer even more losses (since a split party can never win against a united one), and they value winning more than they value continuing to put up with the tea party's shit. The article I read on CNN talking about this spoke a lot of the generational split between the young members of the GOP and the old members. They said the young very much support gay rights and gay marriage, seeing it as the civil rights issue of our time. Considering the article started with their admission that the public sees the GOP as too old, too white, and too insular this is one of the issues they'll be conceding on to get themselves back together.

The rest I read looked pretty good. It'll be interesting to see if/how they try to jazz up their stances on immigration, welfare, and abortion. Unless they take a more John McCain mindset to immigration and admit deporting everybody is not feasible and doesn't address why so many are jumping the border rather than taking the legal route, it's going to be hard for them to prove that they have any intentions of working with the hispanic community. Unless they can stop trying to claim everybody who is on welfare or who has no tax liability is scum and a leech upon the country, it's going to be hard for them to prove they aren't a bunch of rich white guys who have no idea what's going on with the lower and middle classes. And unless they get some damned good secular and comprehensive approaches to limiting abortions (such as actually giving citizenship to unborn children rather than just saying we should treat them like citizens and then not doing anything about it), it's going to be hard for them to prove they aren't seeking a theocracy.

The guy in the article claims it's just a matter of presenting themselves better, and while I think that's certainly true in many ways, I don't think that alone is going to solve their image problem. If they really want to reinvent themselves and alleviate people's biggest worries about them, they're going to have to grab a hammer and pull up a few planks in their platform.

They really need to step away from the social conservatism and go back to being about economic and governmental conservatism. If they actually move forward with that they'd probably do fairly well.

More likely you'll see a schism and two new parties, one of the more traditional far right beliefs across the board and one more moderate when it comes to social issues.

Lilani:
And unless they get some damned good secular and comprehensive approaches to limiting abortions (such as actually giving citizenship to unborn children rather than just saying we should treat them like citizens and then not doing anything about it), it's going to be hard for them to prove they aren't seeking a theocracy.

Just wondering exactly what you mean by this bolded here.

As an aside: You say have a better idea for a secular stance on abortion. How is "Illegal, but only after it can feel pain. Before, it is legal."

BOOM headshot65:

Lilani:
And unless they get some damned good secular and comprehensive approaches to limiting abortions (such as actually giving citizenship to unborn children rather than just saying we should treat them like citizens and then not doing anything about it), it's going to be hard for them to prove they aren't seeking a theocracy.

Just wondering exactly what you mean by this bolded here.

As an aside: You say have a better idea for a secular stance on abortion. How is "Illegal, but only after it can feel pain. Before, it is legal."

A label given to the abortion debate is often "personhood," that is when a fetus becomes an actual "person" (which is also a secular way of approaching the subject). The way I see it, if people are going to argue that a fetus is a "person" and to kill it is equal to killing a person outside the womb, then to eliminate further questioning of this that is exactly what we should do. Give them a legal status equal to that of a person outside a womb. Citizenship from conception, or whatever cut-off point they decide on. I just don't see how you can say they they should be legally indistinguishable from "people" without actually making them people. It's like trying to have your cake and eat it--using the "they are people, too" argument while not following through on it.

Lilani:
A label given to the abortion debate is often "personhood," that is when a fetus becomes an actual "person" (which is also a secular way of approaching the subject). The way I see it, if people are going to argue that a fetus is a "person" and to kill it is equal to killing a person outside the womb, then to eliminate further questioning of this that is exactly what we should do. Give them a legal status equal to that of a person outside a womb. Citizenship from conception, or whatever cut-off point they decide on. I just don't see how you can say they they should be legally indistinguishable from "people" without actually making them people. It's like trying to have your cake and eat it--using the "they are people, too" argument while not following through on it.

The worst nightmare of anti-choice conservatives in this instance would be the possibility of waves of illegal Mexicans getting pregnant so that it would be impossible to deport them and not also deport the US citizen inside them, and staying as close to being perpetually pregnant as physically possible. Even though the likelihood of this actually happening is subzero I'm betting it would be the kind of thing that would prevent unborn babies being granted citizenship.

BOOM headshot65:

As an aside: You say have a better idea for a secular stance on abortion. How is "Illegal, but only after it can feel pain. Before, it is legal."

That would effectively cut in half the time in which a mother to be could get an abortion, in some states even more than that. As of now it's in the low 20's however there is a CNS developing at 8-10 weeks where the fetus responds to touch.

I assume you mean sentience when you say feel pain.

I can't say I agree with anything from the GOP, but I do believe at one point in history they believed in something noble.
And if member of the GOP can take a step back and say, 'what the hell have we become?' and make some changes, and really get to the root of their problems and eliminate them, maybe politics might return to some level of sanity again.

I called this a while ago...

Comando96:
Change or die.
They are changing.

As feckless some politicians can be in supporting things that they not just don't personally agree with, but outright don't support it unless forced by party (George W Bush was ok with Homosexual couples, and by the sounds of it would have theoritically gone along with gay marriage), this is a sign that no longer do many Republicans believe its either possible, or more importantly a vote winning method to be opposing gay marriage.

The current Republican voting base consists of White, older men. This will result in their destruction if they don't change.

Firstly they need to open up the party to ethnic minorities. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, would be people, who if they got the Republican ticket would do a great deal to break the Republican party, in order to fix it.

Its not going to last in its current form for more than another 3 or 4 election cycles. However its better if they were to change before that. However appauling an uncheckable Two party system is... an uncheckable One party system due to opposition incompetenecy is worse.

Oh and... yeah they are wanting to change as... oh yeah... not all of them are braindead :D

OK in terms of the parties future, it is going to be a partially watered down version of their current form, with more emphasis on significant redrafting on the feasibility of their current policies.

There will be people who try to hold the party back(I'm completely unbias as you can see), and those who try to push it forward. Ultimately the country is changing and the party will change accordingly... by 2016 or not.

----------------

Here are a few people to look out for in 2016:

Marco Rubio - Hispanic Republican Sentator for Florida
image

Its clear he's making a run for President and he is appears to be a perfect mix of Conservative values. He would push immigration Reform and in doing so drag the Republicans both into the voting range of Hispanics, an icreasing demographic, and addressing one of the countries key Social and Economic problems that has had no one try to tackle it. Otherwise not much change. He would be the perfect "token gesture" candidate. Also he would likely carry his home state if running for President, Florida, a key swing state.

Jeb Bush - Former Governeror of Florida... and no, that surname isn't a coincidence
image


Just when you thought you had seen the last of them... no there are plent more members of the Bush Family. This is the son of George H. W. Bush, and brother to George W Bush, both former Presidents. And who says that the USA doesn't have a flourishing political Aristocracy?
Well as much as many have grown to hate the name Jeb was the only Governor of Florida to be elected for, and serve both of their terms. This means he did his job and did it well in Florida which routinely removes its Governors. He is notably more "liberal" than the current Republican party. Better yet is that he holds many of the same appeals as Marco Rubio. Jeb Bush isn't Hispanic, however his wife is, and his son too. Florida, with many Hispanics would appear to have faith in him. Again, Florida, a key swing state he would likely secure.

Chris Christie - Governor of New Jersey
image


Most people saw Christie in the wake of Hurricane Sandy... being very very cosey with Obama. Very.
Unsuprisingly he can be seen from space making an attempt at President.
He is a Republican Governor of a more easily swayed Democrat state. This means that he is at the very last not an extreme Republican. He has also indicated his opinion of the recent trends within the Republican Party, and the development of the Teat Party as the quote "Tea Party Problem".
While lacking elements of Marco and Jeb's racial influences he would likely be another contender and maybe even more "liberal" than both.

And now one for the future, beyond 2016...
And oh how you have got to love Neptosism...

George P Bush - yep... another one :D
image

I mentioned Jeb Bush's son. Here he is.
He is, as says his Wikipedia article:
An "attorney, U.S. Navy Reserve officer, real estate investor, and politician"
The significance of this is that that above^^^ is the most copy and paste Résumé for every wanna-be-politician in the USA.
He has the family, therefore their full support and experiance.
He is half-Hispanic as well, with the increasing Hispanic Democraphic will be more and more important.

This boy was born into the shoes of a politican, lets see if he puts them on, and how far he can run with them.

--------------------------

From the source:

Place a greater emphasis on early voting in political strategy, messaging and budgeting;

I do have to say that the average American knows pathetically little about their own political system. I'm from the UK and when I walk onto a Teamspeak with Americans... I crack a joke at their expense, they try to rebuke it... I explain to them their entire political system and they sorta look on agase at how bad it appears. So yeah I'm brain-washing gaming Americans 1 by 1 :P

The only problem with the GOP was it got hijacked by the Tea Party, I'm not against the Tea Party it's self as I understood why they were upset. But it really made it hard to be a Republican if you were not a die hard conservative, I would like to see both parties change but mainly the GOP to go back to the way it was during the 70's.

Unfortunately, I don't think changing stance on abortion, same sex marriage, and immigration will get any women, gays, or Latinos to vote for the GOP. Once you're totally locked into voting for a particular party you don't even notice the issues or the candidates anymore, you just keep towing the party line.

Lets look at gays specifically. The rule is "If you are gay, you vote Democrat". I'll admit there is good reason for that, Democrats are much more supportive of same-sex marriage. So if the Republican candidate in 2016 is more supportive of same-sex marriage than even the democratic candidate is, the reason for that rule and the rule itself should disappear. But I think you would still see 95% of gays vote Democrat, because the rule "Gay = Democrat" has been accepted for so long that people will keep following it without even thinking of why they started in the first place.

You cant convert voters from a parties base for the same reason you cant get WoW players to leave their game no matter how good an MMO you make. They have been there so long that being there is just second nature to them.

cthulhuspawn82:
You cant convert voters from a parties base for the same reason you cant get WoW players to leave their game no matter how good an MMO you make. They have been there so long that being there is just second nature to them.

Sorry but dislike this that you may, you have only explained why 45% of the Country are entrenched Democrats and why 45% of the country are entrenched Republicans. The people who decide the elections are the 10% in the middle who either party has to convince to side with them.

Also Racial Minorities are not as entrenched a factor as single issue voting factors, such as Homosexual = Democrat voter. A policy change in term of ethnic minorities would be possible. The Black communities would be more entrenched Democrat as a lot... aren't indoctrinated into the "American Dream" psychology and other factors, ie they're poor, keep 95% of them Democrat.

cthulhuspawn82:
Unfortunately, I don't think changing stance on abortion, same sex marriage, and immigration will get any women, gays, or Latinos to vote for the GOP. Once you're totally locked into voting for a particular party you don't even notice the issues or the candidates anymore, you just keep towing the party line.

Lets look at gays specifically. The rule is "If you are gay, you vote Democrat". I'll admit there is good reason for that, Democrats are much more supportive of same-sex marriage. So if the Republican candidate in 2016 is more supportive of same-sex marriage than even the democratic candidate is, the reason for that rule and the rule itself should disappear. But I think you would still see 95% of gays vote Democrat, because the rule "Gay = Democrat" has been accepted for so long that people will keep following it without even thinking of why they started in the first place.

You cant convert voters from a parties base for the same reason you cant get WoW players to leave their game no matter how good an MMO you make. They have been there so long that being there is just second nature to them.

Republican moderation would work better than any voter id laws for preventing democrat voter turnout. Republican's core constituency has the highest of any group in the country I believe and that is pretty consistent but what happens when there is no boogey man to aim for?

You have got to think would Akin have won or it have been a close race if there was not talk of rape? I think so.

Nobody expects the latino vote to shift over night but you don't need them voting for you just not voting against you. Also I think time could definitely fix rifts, look at the democratic/republican switch from north to south. It happens and it's possible, it may take a decade but I think it's perfectly possible for moderation on the republicans part to see a change in normal demographic voting blocs.

cthulhuspawn82:
Unfortunately, I don't think changing stance on abortion, same sex marriage, and immigration will get any women, gays, or Latinos to vote for the GOP. Once you're totally locked into voting for a particular party you don't even notice the issues or the candidates anymore, you just keep towing the party line.

Lets look at gays specifically. The rule is "If you are gay, you vote Democrat". I'll admit there is good reason for that, Democrats are much more supportive of same-sex marriage. So if the Republican candidate in 2016 is more supportive of same-sex marriage than even the democratic candidate is, the reason for that rule and the rule itself should disappear. But I think you would still see 95% of gays vote Democrat, because the rule "Gay = Democrat" has been accepted for so long that people will keep following it without even thinking of why they started in the first place.

You cant convert voters from a parties base for the same reason you cant get WoW players to leave their game no matter how good an MMO you make. They have been there so long that being there is just second nature to them.

Actually, the reason we won't vote for Republicans is because even if they do a complete 180, they're only doing it for politics. The Democrats may be of limited use in championing our freedoms, but at least they legitimately believe in them. I think most of us would agree that it is better to take slow steps with honest intentions than to hop in bed with someone who moves faster, but only really cares about using us.

If Rubio does end up as the 2016 candidate, which seems likely, don't expect much change.

If you can't be bothered to read the article, let me summarise:
-gay people are inferior to straight people but I'm not bigoted honest
-anti abortion
-pro-choice environmentalists are close minded (because science!)
-'healthcare reform that empowers Americans'
-taxes won't solve long term debt problem
-liberals are freeloaders (*cough*47%*cough*)
-we don't need new ideas because 'Murica

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked