What the Republicans need to do

[del]

Does anybody else have a useful idea on what the direction of the GOP should be?

i think you sketched it out very well, crimson. if the evangelicals don't like it, they can go some place else.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

uh oh! I think you just failed Republican 101 dude!

I'm just curious what Crimson means by an "engaged" foreign policy.

 

[WillowTree]

I'm just curious what Crimson means by an "engaged" foreign policy.

and you call yourself a Republican? Why doncha come go Independent with me?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

and you call yourself a Republican? Why doncha come go Independent with me?

No, I don't call myself Republican. I call myself Libertarian.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I'm just curious what Crimson means by an "engaged" foreign policy.

An engaged foreign policy is just that. Talking to world leaders has never been a bad idea. The problem ss that Republican dictomy now dictates that we just talk and don't listen. Its a my way or the highway type of attitude that has damaged many of our relationships with foreign governments. Talks with North Korea for instance was not a bad idea. Kim Jong IL is a crazy bastard by he sat down with Secretary Albright and engaged in conversation. The Bush Administration cut off these conversations and now North Korea is more dangerous than ever. There is no liberal or conservative ideology on foreign policy, only right and wrong. Isolationism has never worked. It has instead gotten us into two world wars. We are a world power. We have to act in that capacity responsibly.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

An engaged foreign policy is just that. Talking to world leaders has never been a bad idea. The problem ss that Republican dictomy now dictates that we just talk and don't listen. Its a my way or the highway type of attitude that has damaged many of our relationships with foreign governments. Talks with North Korea for instance was not a bad idea. Kim Jong IL is a crazy bastard by he sat down with Secretary Albright and engaged in conversation. The Bush Administration cut off these conversations and now North Korea is more dangerous than ever. There is no liberal or conservative ideology on foreign policy, only right and wrong. Isolationism has never worked. It has instead gotten us into two world wars. We are a world power. We have to act in that capacity responsibly.

I agree, diplomacy is never a negative. Though I'm not sure if your comments on isolationism and our status as world power were perhaps a knock on my non-interventionist beliefs?

 

[Paulie]

Quit pandering to the religious right. DEFINTELY quit bringing out candidates who sleep with their bibles under their pillows. Lighten up on the foreign policy. Quit the absolutely ridiculous policy of pre-emptive strikes. Basically, cut out the hardline religious and neoconservative views, and the party will do much better.

But if the party wants to continue referring to themselves as the home for conservatives, they need to start being CONSERVATIVE. Stop voting for increased spending, stop voting to continue our military empire around the world. Stop borrowing money from foreign countries "who don't like us very much". Stop bailing out companies. Stop the wasteful pork barrell spending.

There are a lot of things the Republican party needs to do to become viable again. They're going to have a real hard time staying to the right though, if this new administration presides over a perceived to be "improved" economy.

 

[PeterS]

They are the polar opposite of proposed policies of President-Elect Obama. These conservative ideals are my ideals and the Republican that demonstrates these ideals wil get my support.

I have to ask, when did protecting the environment become a conservative idea? The tenets you profess, less environmentalism, sound more like libertarianism than conservatism. I think you are voting for the wrong party...

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I have to ask, when did protecting the environment become a conservative idea? The tenets you profess, less environmentalism, sound more like libertarianism than conservatism. I think you are voting for the wrong party...

Unfortunately, these tenets have become libertarian, but they were Republican first. There are many left in the GOP that agree with me. Whitman comes to mind. Like I said these have always been tenets of the Republican party but were pushed to the back after the Reagan Revolution.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Thats what I want to get away from. The religous right can have a place in the party as long as they know that their issues are not going to be the center of the platform. Those five principles should be the platform. Small government, small platform.

I agree with the sentiments that both of you have given, if not every part of what you have said. I think the religious right is far too powerful in the the party. But, they are extracting payment for their service as foot soldiers in the ground game. If you weaken their power, you will probably lose their level of commitment and willingness to act.

So, as a practical matter, if not the religious right foot soldier, who will be activated to stuff envelopes, ring doorbells and man phone banks? These are absolute necessities in winning. I'm not advocating for the RR, I'd just like an alternative.

 

[Tech_Esq]

The Republicans would do well to focus on "conserving" our economy and our personal freedoms and not pandering to bigotry disguised as religion.

Actually, the Dems are traditionally the ones that focus on "conserving" the economy (pie slicers). The Repubs are traditionally, the ones who focus on "growing" the economy. (Pie makers).

Or, you could use Jack Kemp's analogy wagon loaders (Repubs) and wagon unloaders (Dems). Either way, the recent behavior (last 10+ years) of the Repub party is that they have decided they like wagon unloading a lot better than wagon loading. We don't need a Dem-lite party.

 

[Ravi]

i think you sketched it out very well, crimson. if the evangelicals don't like it, they can go some place else.

I was getting scared for a minute there that we might be taking them off your hands.

 

[Ravi]

Wasn't Teddy Roosevelt are Republican? He seemed pretty okay.

 

[jillian]

I posted this in another thread, but I wanted to post it again so each and every Republican sees it.

The GOP needs to get back to its "core" values. True conservatism. Goldwater conservatism. This is what the GOP needs to focus on:

-Low taxes with balanced budgets
-Strong national defense
-Engaged foreign policy
-Protection of the environment
-Less government interference in individual lives

These tenets of true political conservatism have been missing from the GOP since the Reagan Revolution. These principles, these conservative principles are now viewed by the Rabid Religous Right as unimportant. Some refer to the Republicans that believe in these principles as RINO's or in some cases liberals. Instead the party is now more worried about homos getting hitched, forcing the Christian God into every crevice of the US Government, and abortion. I loved Ronald Reagan, I really did. He didn't rebuild a damaged Republican Party, he rebuilt a damaged United States. But he hijacked my party in the process and it is time to take it back. I thought McCain was the guy to do it. He preached these very things in 2000 and seemed to forget about them in 2008. These are the principles that matter in government. They are the polar opposite of the ideals of liberalism. They are the polar opposite of proposed policies of President-Elect Obama. These conservative ideals are my ideals and the Republican that demonstrates these ideals wil get my support.

I know it's not my party. And far be it from me to want your guys back in power. But if you really want to know where your party should get back to, look at Richard Nixon. I know that sounds funny. But if you remove the paranoia and megalomania that resulted in watergate, he'd have been one of the greatest presidents we ever had.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I have to use an a word with evil conotation in certain right wing circles and say the Republican party needs to get a little progressive on some social issues. First being homosexuality. Honestly who gives a flying fart if a gay couple wants to marry. I certainly don't.

Have a sensible stance on abortion. No abortions for any reason at not time is pretty ridiculous. I have said before the real issue behind abortion is when does human life begin. That's real discussion that needs to take place. For me that's when we are dealing with a human capable of feeling pain. I think we can all agree that doesn't exist at the moment of conception. i think we can also agree it isn't only after the baby is expelled from the whom.

And if you're going to run on the platform of limited government and manage to get elected. DAMMIT, DO IT. Take a hard look at the books, make some tough choices and right a tax code that makes sense.

I agree on getting reasonable about positions on some of these social issues. I think there are many Repubs that adopt a more rational view of abortion etc. I take the view announced by Justice O'Connor, if you can take the fetus out of the womb (regardless of whether you've actually done it) and it can live, it's a baby. If you can't, it's not. Seems like a bright enough line to me.

Gay marriage. I have a small semantic problem with it. Equal rights for gay couples, how about that?

If you can construct an economic reason, and I think it is fairly easy, to do an environmental agenda, I think there is room for that too. The current lying and fear-mongering from the left is no way to go about this though.

I think there is plenty of room to support a sensible family-values agenda that would even appear modest. I say sensible as opposed to some of the extreme values that have been cloaked as "family-values" by social conservatives. We have to keep as a core value maintenance of the nuclear family as the basic building block of society and a strong America. As part of that, we need to remove some of the ill conceived social engineering projects that have resulted in the destruction of our families especially in the poverty stricken areas.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I know it's not my party. And far be it from me to want your guys back in power. But if you really want to know where your party should get back to, look at Richard Nixon. I know that sounds funny. But if you remove the paranoia and megalomania that resulted in watergate, he'd have been one of the greatest presidents we ever had.

He was quite good at foreign policy if you like Real Politik which I happen to, but his domestic policies were mostly atrocious. Wage and price controls should never be used.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I was getting scared for a minute there that we might be taking them off your hands.

Well they came from the Dems and I'd be happy to send them right back to ya. We didn't get them until 1980. Carter had them in 1976.

 

[jillian]

He was quite good at foreign policy if you like Real Politik which I happen to, but his domestic policies were mostly atrocious. Wage and price controls should never be used.

I disagree, obviously, in terms of wage and price controls. I think minimum wage should be a living wage since clearly, as has been proven over and over and over, unregulated capitalism fails.

And, yes, Kissinger ran a very good foreign policy. Nixon's domestic policy was ahead of his time, though, ... he started the EPA, and knew even then that the environment was an issue that needed to be addressed.

 

[Tech_Esq]

An engaged foreign policy is just that. Talking to world leaders has never been a bad idea. The problem ss that Republican dictomy now dictates that we just talk and don't listen. Its a my way or the highway type of attitude that has damaged many of our relationships with foreign governments. Talks with North Korea for instance was not a bad idea. Kim Jong IL is a crazy bastard by he sat down with Secretary Albright and engaged in conversation. The Bush Administration cut off these conversations and now North Korea is more dangerous than ever. There is no liberal or conservative ideology on foreign policy, only right and wrong. Isolationism has never worked. It has instead gotten us into two world wars. We are a world power. We have to act in that capacity responsibly.

I agree. If you look at the engagement of Reagan as President, (we'll set aside Iran-Contra and Afghanistan for a second), the first thing he did was to build up Perceived Power by the US. Our military was a joke by 1980, Reagan restored. He used it in a minor but overwhelming way in Grenada. It sent a message about willingness to use force. But, that was basically the only time he actually used force. Sure, we retaliated in Beirut and Libya, but we did not fully engage. This had the effect of increasing America's power through out the world without decreasing it by using it. Like Roosevelt (Teddy not Franklin) "Walk softly and carry a big stick." We don't need to be the world's policeman, now less than ever. We do need to be considered. We do need to be listened to when we decide to speak. We do need to insure our interests where they exist.

Back to conflicts in central America and central Asia. I think our involvement in those are best explained by it being the late Cold War. These were the tactics used in the Cold War and there were many people whose job it was to do this things back then. It's not a very satisfactory response, but I view these things as dissimilar that than consistent with the rest of policy. The only thing that is consistent is that it was part of a tough Real-Politik type reaction to those situations.

The point is, don't fight, conserve and build power. Build and unite allies. Grow friends. Practice cautious engagement, in concert with our allies, with our opponents. All our foreign political capital is gone, so there is no more room to go it alone.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I disagree, obviously, in terms of wage and price controls. I think minimum wage should be a living wage since clearly, as has been proven over and over and over, unregulated capitalism fails.

And, yes, Kissinger ran a very good foreign policy. Nixon's domestic policy was ahead of his time, though, ... he started the EPA, and knew even then that the environment was an issue that needed to be addressed.

If it was only the minimum wage, I wouldn't have even mentioned it. Nixon clamped controls on what produces could charge and prevented wage increases as a means of controlling inflation.

For the record, I disagree with your assessment of the minimum wage and basic economy. I've never heard of unregulated Capitalism. Did we actually practice that at some point? Certainly hasn't existed in my lifetime.

I like clean water and clean air too.