GOP prepares comeback: ‘We can’t come off as a bunch of angry white men’

[Mac1958]

.

I don't know if you folks aren't getting this, or if you just don't want to. This isn't about the Democrats, but you keep diverting to them. It's not about the GOP "leadership", but you divert to them. I gave you examples, I pointed out that people from across the political spectrum, including your own party, are trying to get through to you, and you just won't have it.

Great. You win. Keep doing what you're doing.

.

 

[Freewill]

.

I don't know if you folks aren't getting this, or if you just don't want to. This isn't about the Democrats, but you keep diverting to them. It's not about the GOP "leadership", but you divert to them. I gave you examples, I pointed out that people from across the political spectrum, including your own party, are trying to get through to you, and you just won't have it.

Great. You win. Keep doing what you're doing.

.

OK, you win, but I want to know is why shouldn't we be angry white men???? What's the alternative, agreeing that the mess the democrats have created is great????? What Republicans need to do, and Romney didn't, is explain better why we are angry. But even if Republicans totally capitulated and said not one word we would still have the same failure in Washington, nothing would change for the better. So in my opinion, stick to what we know is right and to hell with just worrying about getting votes. If America likes where the country is heading they are going they will usually vote accordingly. Obama's reelection should never have happened with the country where it is today, but it did, why? It ain't because the Republicans are perceived as angry men, that is another liberal BS story line.

 

[healthmyths]

My first thought when I read that was headline was something to the effect of: "But that's what you ARE."

But I decided to reserve judgment until I had read the news article in its entirety (something I strongly suggest conservatives should try to do, at least once).

And what I came away with after reading the article is the feeling that the GOP wants to burnish its image. They truly want to change the public perception of who they are and what they believe. BUT, the don't REALLY want to change who they are and what they believe.

The excerpts in the following article were drawn from different parts of the article. So, if you want to get the full flavor of the article (and the comments made by many of the attendees at the GOP meeting), you should read the entire article.

As a final note, I wonder how all those angry white males in the GOP will react if and when a kinder and gentler GOP message is rolled out when they've become accustomed to the red meat they've been offered for so long.

"You're going to see a very renewed aggressive effort by this party to put on a different face," Bradshaw said on Thursday. "We've got to find a way to take our message to more people and get more votes. It's not a particularly complicated formula. We got beat; we have to change what we're doing."

First, they said Republicans must work on improving their tone when taking their ideas to the American people. For example, when discussing immigration, maybe presidential candidates should avoid phrases like "self-deportation" (Mitt Romney) and "anchor babies" (Michele Bachmann).


Henry Barbour said some in the party can appear "hostile" to certain constituencies with the rhetoric they use. The party must increase communication training for candidates, he said.


"There are certainly too many times when we've had candidates who have come across as hostile, and that's not really helpful when you're trying to win elections," Barbour said.


Robert Bennett, chairman of the Ohio Republican Party, was even more blunt.


"We need to understand that we can't come off as a bunch of angry white men," he said.

Republicans say if that means supporting a moderate candidate who can actually win over a hardline conservative who doesn't stand a chance, so be it. (You may have noticed that among the names that make up The Bobs, there isn't anyone who might be considered a "tea party leader.")


"If we're not nominating candidates that can win in the general election, what business are we in?" Barbour said. "We are in the business of winning elections."


There is one thing, however, that no one—not the committee members, elected officials or even The Bobs—seem interested in addressing, and that's whether core Republican ideas need to change.


Most here said they don't.


GOP prepares comeback: ?We can?t come off as a bunch of angry white men? | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

BUT WE ARE ANGRY WHITE MEN!!!
Who are being asked to make a 180 degree turn from ALL the principles that have BUILT THIS Country!
When you want change such as being demanded of ANGRY WHITE MEN.. who is going to pay for the change?
ANGRY white men don't want there to be MORE LAWS but more LAW ABIDING people!
We angry white men SEE those people that want change as replacing something that has constructed our country, provided great advantages with CHANGES that will be BAD!

For example... ANGRY WHITE MEN don't want to see a cop on every corner. Do progressives want that? WHY? Is it because non-angry white people CAN'T be responsible?
ANGRY WHITE MEN for the most part ABIDE by laws... NON-white ANGRY people don't care.. they have NOTHING to lose.

NO what the GOP needs to do is wage war on the MSM!!!
Explain how 85% of the MSM FAVORS the news towards Democrats/Obama. How 85% gave millions to the Democrats... and 15% of journalists to GOP!

GOP needs to everytime a MSM hack interviews MUST HAVE facts like these:
Obama was FAVORED in the MSM and ROMNEY was portrayed as the bad guy!
OBAMA was chosen by the MSM not because he was qualified but because he was half black!

GOP needs to point out the MSM sees Obama as Evan Thomas editor of NewsWeek sees Obama "sort of a god"... or Mathews getting a tingle and crying over an Obama speech!
The public needs to know that the MSM hates GOP... LOVES and "SWOONS" over Obama!

ONCE GOP constantly every time they have a MSM hack tell the hack these FACTS and then see if the HACK writes about the FACTS!!!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And their first step in this transformation was...

...to re-elect Reince Preibus RNC chairman. lol, he is a textbook example of an angry white man,

although 'whiney' and/or 'bitchy' might be more precise adjectives.

Clearly ineffective, in any event.

But the problem is at the state and local level.

What went wrong in Missouri, for example, to allow the likes of Todd Akin to become a US Senate candidate, a social conservative extremist advocating the idiotic notion of ‘legitimate rape’ as a way to undermine citizens’ privacy rights.

 

[Truthmatters]

My first thought when I read that was headline was something to the effect of: "But that's what you ARE."

But I decided to reserve judgment until I had read the news article in its entirety (something I strongly suggest conservatives should try to do, at least once).

And what I came away with after reading the article is the feeling that the GOP wants to burnish its image. They truly want to change the public perception of who they are and what they believe. BUT, the don't REALLY want to change who they are and what they believe.

The excerpts in the following article were drawn from different parts of the article. So, if you want to get the full flavor of the article (and the comments made by many of the attendees at the GOP meeting), you should read the entire article.

As a final note, I wonder how all those angry white males in the GOP will react if and when a kinder and gentler GOP message is rolled out when they've become accustomed to the red meat they've been offered for so long.

"You're going to see a very renewed aggressive effort by this party to put on a different face," Bradshaw said on Thursday. "We've got to find a way to take our message to more people and get more votes. It's not a particularly complicated formula. We got beat; we have to change what we're doing."

First, they said Republicans must work on improving their tone when taking their ideas to the American people. For example, when discussing immigration, maybe presidential candidates should avoid phrases like "self-deportation" (Mitt Romney) and "anchor babies" (Michele Bachmann).


Henry Barbour said some in the party can appear "hostile" to certain constituencies with the rhetoric they use. The party must increase communication training for candidates, he said.


"There are certainly too many times when we've had candidates who have come across as hostile, and that's not really helpful when you're trying to win elections," Barbour said.


Robert Bennett, chairman of the Ohio Republican Party, was even more blunt.


"We need to understand that we can't come off as a bunch of angry white men," he said.

Republicans say if that means supporting a moderate candidate who can actually win over a hardline conservative who doesn't stand a chance, so be it. (You may have noticed that among the names that make up The Bobs, there isn't anyone who might be considered a "tea party leader.")


"If we're not nominating candidates that can win in the general election, what business are we in?" Barbour said. "We are in the business of winning elections."


There is one thing, however, that no one—not the committee members, elected officials or even The Bobs—seem interested in addressing, and that's whether core Republican ideas need to change.


Most here said they don't.


GOP prepares comeback: ?We can?t come off as a bunch of angry white men? | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

BUT WE ARE ANGRY WHITE MEN!!!
Who are being asked to make a 180 degree turn from ALL the principles that have BUILT THIS Country!
When you want change such as being demanded of ANGRY WHITE MEN.. who is going to pay for the change?
ANGRY white men don't want there to be MORE LAWS but more LAW ABIDING people!
We angry white men SEE those people that want change as replacing something that has constructed our country, provided great advantages with CHANGES that will be BAD!

For example... ANGRY WHITE MEN don't want to see a cop on every corner. Do progressives want that? WHY? Is it because non-angry white people CAN'T be responsible?
ANGRY WHITE MEN for the most part ABIDE by laws... NON-white ANGRY people don't care.. they have NOTHING to lose.

NO what the GOP needs to do is wage war on the MSM!!!
Explain how 85% of the MSM FAVORS the news towards Democrats/Obama. How 85% gave millions to the Democrats... and 15% of journalists to GOP!

GOP needs to everytime a MSM hack interviews MUST HAVE facts like these:
Obama was FAVORED in the MSM and ROMNEY was portrayed as the bad guy!
OBAMA was chosen by the MSM not because he was qualified but because he was half black!

GOP needs to point out the MSM sees Obama as Evan Thomas editor of NewsWeek sees Obama "sort of a god"... or Mathews getting a tingle and crying over an Obama speech!
The public needs to know that the MSM hates GOP... LOVES and "SWOONS" over Obama!

ONCE GOP constantly every time they have a MSM hack tell the hack these FACTS and then see if the HACK writes about the FACTS!!!

fucking racist

 

[Stephanie]

My first thought when I read that was headline was something to the effect of: "But that's what you ARE."

But I decided to reserve judgment until I had read the news article in its entirety (something I strongly suggest conservatives should try to do, at least once).

And what I came away with after reading the article is the feeling that the GOP wants to burnish its image. They truly want to change the public perception of who they are and what they believe. BUT, the don't REALLY want to change who they are and what they believe.

The excerpts in the following article were drawn from different parts of the article. So, if you want to get the full flavor of the article (and the comments made by many of the attendees at the GOP meeting), you should read the entire article.

As a final note, I wonder how all those angry white males in the GOP will react if and when a kinder and gentler GOP message is rolled out when they've become accustomed to the red meat they've been offered for so long.

BUT WE ARE ANGRY WHITE MEN!!!
Who are being asked to make a 180 degree turn from ALL the principles that have BUILT THIS Country!
When you want change such as being demanded of ANGRY WHITE MEN.. who is going to pay for the change?
ANGRY white men don't want there to be MORE LAWS but more LAW ABIDING people!
We angry white men SEE those people that want change as replacing something that has constructed our country, provided great advantages with CHANGES that will be BAD!

For example... ANGRY WHITE MEN don't want to see a cop on every corner. Do progressives want that? WHY? Is it because non-angry white people CAN'T be responsible?
ANGRY WHITE MEN for the most part ABIDE by laws... NON-white ANGRY people don't care.. they have NOTHING to lose.

NO what the GOP needs to do is wage war on the MSM!!!
Explain how 85% of the MSM FAVORS the news towards Democrats/Obama. How 85% gave millions to the Democrats... and 15% of journalists to GOP!

GOP needs to everytime a MSM hack interviews MUST HAVE facts like these:
Obama was FAVORED in the MSM and ROMNEY was portrayed as the bad guy!
OBAMA was chosen by the MSM not because he was qualified but because he was half black!

GOP needs to point out the MSM sees Obama as Evan Thomas editor of NewsWeek sees Obama "sort of a god"... or Mathews getting a tingle and crying over an Obama speech!
The public needs to know that the MSM hates GOP... LOVES and "SWOONS" over Obama!

ONCE GOP constantly every time they have a MSM hack tell the hack these FACTS and then see if the HACK writes about the FACTS!!!

fucking racist

lol,

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

.

I don't know if you folks aren't getting this, or if you just don't want to. This isn't about the Democrats, but you keep diverting to them. It's not about the GOP "leadership", but you divert to them. I gave you examples, I pointed out that people from across the political spectrum, including your own party, are trying to get through to you, and you just won't have it.

Great. You win. Keep doing what you're doing.

.

OK, you win, but I want to know is why shouldn't we be angry white men???? What's the alternative, agreeing that the mess the democrats have created is great????? What Republicans need to do, and Romney didn't, is explain better why we are angry. But even if Republicans totally capitulated and said not one word we would still have the same failure in Washington, nothing would change for the better. So in my opinion, stick to what we know is right and to hell with just worrying about getting votes. If America likes where the country is heading they are going they will usually vote accordingly. Obama's reelection should never have happened with the country where it is today, but it did, why? It ain't because the Republicans are perceived as angry men, that is another liberal BS story line.

“Well, there you go again…”

What part of ‘you don’t have to become democrats to become successful republicans’ do you not get?

Perhaps the problem is you and others on the right are too young to remember the GOP when it was sane, before the advent of the bane of social conservatism and fiscal extremism.

 

[Mustang]

My first thought when I read that was headline was something to the effect of: "But that's what you ARE."

But I decided to reserve judgment until I had read the news article in its entirety (something I strongly suggest conservatives should try to do, at least once).

And what I came away with after reading the article is the feeling that the GOP wants to burnish its image. They truly want to change the public perception of who they are and what they believe. BUT, the don't REALLY want to change who they are and what they believe.

The excerpts in the following article were drawn from different parts of the article. So, if you want to get the full flavor of the article (and the comments made by many of the attendees at the GOP meeting), you should read the entire article.

As a final note, I wonder how all those angry white males in the GOP will react if and when a kinder and gentler GOP message is rolled out when they've become accustomed to the red meat they've been offered for so long.

"You're going to see a very renewed aggressive effort by this party to put on a different face," Bradshaw said on Thursday. "We've got to find a way to take our message to more people and get more votes. It's not a particularly complicated formula. We got beat; we have to change what we're doing."

First, they said Republicans must work on improving their tone when taking their ideas to the American people. For example, when discussing immigration, maybe presidential candidates should avoid phrases like "self-deportation" (Mitt Romney) and "anchor babies" (Michele Bachmann).


Henry Barbour said some in the party can appear "hostile" to certain constituencies with the rhetoric they use. The party must increase communication training for candidates, he said.


"There are certainly too many times when we've had candidates who have come across as hostile, and that's not really helpful when you're trying to win elections," Barbour said.


Robert Bennett, chairman of the Ohio Republican Party, was even more blunt.


"We need to understand that we can't come off as a bunch of angry white men," he said.

Republicans say if that means supporting a moderate candidate who can actually win over a hardline conservative who doesn't stand a chance, so be it. (You may have noticed that among the names that make up The Bobs, there isn't anyone who might be considered a "tea party leader.")


"If we're not nominating candidates that can win in the general election, what business are we in?" Barbour said. "We are in the business of winning elections."


There is one thing, however, that no one—not the committee members, elected officials or even The Bobs—seem interested in addressing, and that's whether core Republican ideas need to change.


Most here said they don't.


GOP prepares comeback: ?We can?t come off as a bunch of angry white men? | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

BUT WE ARE ANGRY WHITE MEN!!!
Who are being asked to make a 180 degree turn from ALL the principles that have BUILT THIS Country!
When you want change such as being demanded of ANGRY WHITE MEN.. who is going to pay for the change?
ANGRY white men don't want there to be MORE LAWS but more LAW ABIDING people!
We angry white men SEE those people that want change as replacing something that has constructed our country, provided great advantages with CHANGES that will be BAD!

For example... ANGRY WHITE MEN don't want to see a cop on every corner. Do progressives want that? WHY? Is it because non-angry white people CAN'T be responsible?
ANGRY WHITE MEN for the most part ABIDE by laws... NON-white ANGRY people don't care.. they have NOTHING to lose.

NO what the GOP needs to do is wage war on the MSM!!!
Explain how 85% of the MSM FAVORS the news towards Democrats/Obama. How 85% gave millions to the Democrats... and 15% of journalists to GOP!

GOP needs to everytime a MSM hack interviews MUST HAVE facts like these:
Obama was FAVORED in the MSM and ROMNEY was portrayed as the bad guy!
OBAMA was chosen by the MSM not because he was qualified but because he was half black!

GOP needs to point out the MSM sees Obama as Evan Thomas editor of NewsWeek sees Obama "sort of a god"... or Mathews getting a tingle and crying over an Obama speech!
The public needs to know that the MSM hates GOP... LOVES and "SWOONS" over Obama!

ONCE GOP constantly every time they have a MSM hack tell the hack these FACTS and then see if the HACK writes about the FACTS!!!

You mean like the principle of slavery?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

My first thought when I read that was headline was something to the effect of: "But that's what you ARE."

But I decided to reserve judgment until I had read the news article in its entirety (something I strongly suggest conservatives should try to do, at least once).

And what I came away with after reading the article is the feeling that the GOP wants to burnish its image. They truly want to change the public perception of who they are and what they believe. BUT, the don't REALLY want to change who they are and what they believe.

The excerpts in the following article were drawn from different parts of the article. So, if you want to get the full flavor of the article (and the comments made by many of the attendees at the GOP meeting), you should read the entire article.

As a final note, I wonder how all those angry white males in the GOP will react if and when a kinder and gentler GOP message is rolled out when they've become accustomed to the red meat they've been offered for so long.

"You're going to see a very renewed aggressive effort by this party to put on a different face," Bradshaw said on Thursday. "We've got to find a way to take our message to more people and get more votes. It's not a particularly complicated formula. We got beat; we have to change what we're doing."

First, they said Republicans must work on improving their tone when taking their ideas to the American people. For example, when discussing immigration, maybe presidential candidates should avoid phrases like "self-deportation" (Mitt Romney) and "anchor babies" (Michele Bachmann).


Henry Barbour said some in the party can appear "hostile" to certain constituencies with the rhetoric they use. The party must increase communication training for candidates, he said.


"There are certainly too many times when we've had candidates who have come across as hostile, and that's not really helpful when you're trying to win elections," Barbour said.


Robert Bennett, chairman of the Ohio Republican Party, was even more blunt.


"We need to understand that we can't come off as a bunch of angry white men," he said.

Republicans say if that means supporting a moderate candidate who can actually win over a hardline conservative who doesn't stand a chance, so be it. (You may have noticed that among the names that make up The Bobs, there isn't anyone who might be considered a "tea party leader.")


"If we're not nominating candidates that can win in the general election, what business are we in?" Barbour said. "We are in the business of winning elections."


There is one thing, however, that no one—not the committee members, elected officials or even The Bobs—seem interested in addressing, and that's whether core Republican ideas need to change.


Most here said they don't.


GOP prepares comeback: ?We can?t come off as a bunch of angry white men? | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

BUT WE ARE ANGRY WHITE MEN!!!
Who are being asked to make a 180 degree turn from ALL the principles that have BUILT THIS Country!
When you want change such as being demanded of ANGRY WHITE MEN.. who is going to pay for the change?
ANGRY white men don't want there to be MORE LAWS but more LAW ABIDING people!
We angry white men SEE those people that want change as replacing something that has constructed our country, provided great advantages with CHANGES that will be BAD!

For example... ANGRY WHITE MEN don't want to see a cop on every corner. Do progressives want that? WHY? Is it because non-angry white people CAN'T be responsible?
ANGRY WHITE MEN for the most part ABIDE by laws... NON-white ANGRY people don't care.. they have NOTHING to lose.

NO what the GOP needs to do is wage war on the MSM!!!
Explain how 85% of the MSM FAVORS the news towards Democrats/Obama. How 85% gave millions to the Democrats... and 15% of journalists to GOP!

GOP needs to everytime a MSM hack interviews MUST HAVE facts like these:
Obama was FAVORED in the MSM and ROMNEY was portrayed as the bad guy!
OBAMA was chosen by the MSM not because he was qualified but because he was half black!

GOP needs to point out the MSM sees Obama as Evan Thomas editor of NewsWeek sees Obama "sort of a god"... or Mathews getting a tingle and crying over an Obama speech!
The public needs to know that the MSM hates GOP... LOVES and "SWOONS" over Obama!

ONCE GOP constantly every time they have a MSM hack tell the hack these FACTS and then see if the HACK writes about the FACTS!!!

Another blind partisan who doesn’t get it.

You need to examine what being ‘white’ has to do with being ‘angry,’ and whether or not it’s justified.

Who are being asked to make a 180 degree turn from ALL the principles that have BUILT THIS Country!

Actually the opposite – you’re being asked to return to the principles that built this country.

Currently you and others on the right are advocating principles offensive to the Constitution, that can only work to tear down America, by denying equal protection and due process rights to Americans you fear, or perceive as ‘different.’

 

[Dreadnaught1968]

fucking racist

Such a high quality and well thought out argument you put forth.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

My first thought when I read...

Marco Rubio is an angry White Hispanic

Herman 999 Cain is an angry Black man

Michele Bachman is an angry White woman

see a trend here?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You want the math. Here's the math:

According to the exit polls:

In 2012, 41% of voters identified themselves as Moderates. Obama won that vote by 15 points, and won the election.

In 2008, 45% of voters identified themselves as Moderates. Obama won that vote by 20 points, and won the election.

In 2004, 45% of voters identified themselves as Moderates. Kerry won that vote by 9%, and lost the election.

THAT is the voting bloc that Republicans have to get back down to 9% or less. The MODERATE VOTE.

You cannot close the gap by any other means, especially not by moving to the Right.

 

[Stephanie]

My first thought when I read...

Marco Rubio is an angry White Hispanic

Herman 999 Cain is an angry Black man

Michele Bachman is an angry White woman

see a trend here?

ah, so Rubio is a "white Hispanic"
so that must make Obama a angry, black-white man

 

[Stephanie]

Remember folks, you can only be "ANGRY" if you are a DEMOCRAT

[ame=http://youtu.be/NJxmpTMGhU0]I Am Sick And Tired - Hillary Clinton - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

My first thought when I read...

Marco Rubio is an angry White Hispanic

Herman 999 Cain is an angry Black man

Michele Bachman is an angry White woman

see a trend here?

ah, so Rubio is a "white Hispanic"
so that must make Obama a angry, black-white man

Obama angry?

Oh yeah, he's soooooooooooooooooooooooooo angry he did win by as big a margin as last times....and he's soooooooooooooooo angry that his second inaugural was huge by normal standards, but fell short of the previous almost 2million.

He's soooooooooooooooooo angry his health care law was ruled Constitutional by a conservative Chief Justice


Oh yeah, Obama's angry

 

[Stephanie]

Marco Rubio is an angry White Hispanic

Herman 999 Cain is an angry Black man

Michele Bachman is an angry White woman

see a trend here?

ah, so Rubio is a "white Hispanic"
so that must make Obama a angry, black-white man

Obama angry?

Oh yeah, he's soooooooooooooooooooooooooo angry he did win by as big a margin as last times....and he's soooooooooooooooo angry that his second inaugural was huge by normal standards, but fell short of the previous almost 2million.

He's soooooooooooooooooo angry his health care law was ruled Constitutional by a conservative Chief Justice


Oh yeah, Obama's angry

NICE dodge, OBama is a black-white man, right? Rubio is a white Hispanic
as for the rest you all can blow him or his horn all you want

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Obama is a White/Black man.

He rocks

 

[Mustang]

.

Fascinating to watch...

Liberals are telling them this.

Moderates are telling them this.

Independents are telling them this.

And now people in their own party are telling them this.

And many are still refusing to see it.

.

The GOP has a huge problem that doesn't lend itself to an easy solution. They NEED to attract new members. Yet potential new members are turned off by their extremism and their angry my-way-or-the-highway attitude. So, how DO you attract new members when the conservative base is busy chasing so-called RINOs OUT of the party and the conservative base is threatening to leave and start a 3rd party if there's any moderation of GOP 'principles' which don't lend itself to compromise?

 

[Stephanie]

Obama is a White/Black man.

He rocks

thank you..
now on with you blowing him and his horn

 

[sfcalifornia]

Obama is a White/Black man.

He rocks

thank you..
now on with you blowing him and his horn

You need to listen to Bobby Jindal.