Torch, would you agree that the basic problem is that republicans lack a message?

Their candidates aren't great communicators because the don't have anything to communicate. They can't do the Debbie Wasserman Schultz and shift every uncomfortable question to a soliloquy about something else, because they don't have the something else.

Republican candidates are not going to win miss congeniality contests with democrats because the media will see to it that they don't. They need to take winning issue positions and communicate them. Again, that's what Newt did in 1994. But that's a two step process. Step 2 is communicating the ideas. Step 1 is having them. And you can't do step 2 until after you do step 1.

And frankly, until republicans come up with that message I don't see them as much better than democrats. Different, and sufficiently different to cause gridlock, which is far better that either side getting its way right now.

(09-18-2014 09:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Torch, would you agree that the basic problem is that republicans lack a message?

Their candidates aren't great communicators because the don't have anything to communicate.

Maybe. I think your proposition can be interpreted in different ways.

Part of me thinks "No message!? With this economy, obamacare and the immigration situation?" But a blunt message like that won't play well.

I also can see it meaning, "No clear path forward of what the GOP will do, rather than what they won't do (or sorta won't do)." In that case, I think you're right. There is no clear GOP plan forward.

Yesterday it was reported that Rand Paul said his first executive order would be to eliminate all past executive orders. It was labeled a "gaffe." Too bad, that's worth considering as part of a plan forward.

(09-18-2014 09:56 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 09:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Torch, would you agree that the basic problem is that republicans lack a message?
Their candidates aren't great communicators because the don't have anything to communicate.

Maybe. I think your proposition can be interpreted in different ways.
Part of me thinks "No message!? With this economy, obamacare and the immigration situation?" But a blunt message like that won't play well.
I also can see it meaning, "No clear path forward of what the GOP will do, rather than what they won't do (or sorta won't do)." In that case, I think you're right. There is no clear GOP plan forward.
Yesterday it was reported that Rand Paul said his first executive order would be to eliminate all past executive orders. It was labeled a "gaffe." Too bad, that's worth considering as part of a plan forward.

I meant the latter, so I guess we agree.

I tend to think the two go together, though. "Things are terrible now," is a message, but a winning message needs to be, "Things are terrible now and here's how we fix them."

And, yes, if my friend Rand's statement is a "gaffe," then that's a clear indicator of just how far off into the ditch we have run.

(09-18-2014 10:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 09:56 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 09:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Torch, would you agree that the basic problem is that republicans lack a message?
Their candidates aren't great communicators because the don't have anything to communicate.

Maybe. I think your proposition can be interpreted in different ways.
Part of me thinks "No message!? With this economy, obamacare and the immigration situation?" But a blunt message like that won't play well.
I also can see it meaning, "No clear path forward of what the GOP will do, rather than what they won't do (or sorta won't do)." In that case, I think you're right. There is no clear GOP plan forward.
Yesterday it was reported that Rand Paul said his first executive order would be to eliminate all past executive orders. It was labeled a "gaffe." Too bad, that's worth considering as part of a plan forward.

I meant the latter, so I guess we agree.

I tend to think the two go together, though. "Things are terrible now," is a message, but a winning message needs to be, "Things are terrible now and here's how we fix them."

Yes. Leaders show evidence that they're actually going to lead. So I agree with the point you made, there is no consistent GOP platform for a way forward.

Why not?

(09-18-2014 10:19 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Yes. Leaders show evidence that they're actually going to lead. So I agree with the point you made, there is no consistent GOP platform for a way forward.
Why not?

My opinion is that the GOP "leadership" doesn't think that way. Which provokes the obvious question, "How do they think?" But that assumes they think.

Unfortunately, the alternative to stupid party is evil party.

(09-18-2014 10:19 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 10:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 09:56 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 09:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Torch, would you agree that the basic problem is that republicans lack a message?
Their candidates aren't great communicators because the don't have anything to communicate.

Maybe. I think your proposition can be interpreted in different ways.
Part of me thinks "No message!? With this economy, obamacare and the immigration situation?" But a blunt message like that won't play well.
I also can see it meaning, "No clear path forward of what the GOP will do, rather than what they won't do (or sorta won't do)." In that case, I think you're right. There is no clear GOP plan forward.
Yesterday it was reported that Rand Paul said his first executive order would be to eliminate all past executive orders. It was labeled a "gaffe." Too bad, that's worth considering as part of a plan forward.

I meant the latter, so I guess we agree.

I tend to think the two go together, though. "Things are terrible now," is a message, but a winning message needs to be, "Things are terrible now and here's how we fix them."

Yes. Leaders show evidence that they're actually going to lead. So I agree with the point you made, there is no consistent GOP platform for a way forward.

Why not?

Because the GOP can still get donations and bills passed for their corporate constituents without actually having to risk delivering real leadership.

(09-18-2014 10:22 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 10:19 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 10:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 09:56 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 09:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Torch, would you agree that the basic problem is that republicans lack a message?
Their candidates aren't great communicators because the don't have anything to communicate.

Maybe. I think your proposition can be interpreted in different ways.
Part of me thinks "No message!? With this economy, obamacare and the immigration situation?" But a blunt message like that won't play well.
I also can see it meaning, "No clear path forward of what the GOP will do, rather than what they won't do (or sorta won't do)." In that case, I think you're right. There is no clear GOP plan forward.
Yesterday it was reported that Rand Paul said his first executive order would be to eliminate all past executive orders. It was labeled a "gaffe." Too bad, that's worth considering as part of a plan forward.

I meant the latter, so I guess we agree.

I tend to think the two go together, though. "Things are terrible now," is a message, but a winning message needs to be, "Things are terrible now and here's how we fix them."

Yes. Leaders show evidence that they're actually going to lead. So I agree with the point you made, there is no consistent GOP platform for a way forward.

Why not?

Because the GOP can still get donations and bills passed for their corporate constituents without actually having to risk delivering real leadership.

http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/201...the-habit/

But aren't democrats at least as heavily invested in bailouts and perks as republicans?

From what I see, the democrat way is that we're going to jack up taxes and regulations and then give breaks to our friends--which ensures a steady stream of donations from those friends. Except for the jack up taxes and regulations part, that's the same for republicans.

What's wrong with lower taxes and less abusive regulation in exchange for no more bailouts and perks?

A few points.

First, when people speak about "far right" policies on gays and abortion, that person is either a Democrat trying to smear someone or a libertarian...who is really just a social liberal using smears to try and change a party they otherwise like.

Second, I don't get people, who claim they are the base of the GOP but skip votes for GOP candidates, crying about how if a real conservative was nominated, they would win. Considering the "real conservative" couldn't win a primary with people more ideologically closer to them, I am confused about this great victory in the general election with people that are further from them ideologically.

Third, I am getting tired of the crying and whining about Obama and Dems from people that voted Libertarian or couldn't "hold their nose and vote for _______ (so-called establishment candidate)". Once the primary is over, the candidate that is going to vote more like you is that guy/gal you opposed in the primary. If you want the liberal candidate elected, don't vote (or vote libertarian).

Fourth, the curious case of Romney. In 2008, Mitt Romney was the poster child for conservatism on talk radio. Since that time until 2011, his only "sin" was supporting TARP for banks only (which made the US money), which was needed to stop our financial markets from plummeting due to stupid rules that were in place. Then he became a liberal/moderate somehow. Romney lost for many reasons, but the two he shouldn't have had to deal with was his religion and being attacked and abandoned by those in the party that would rather have Obama than vote for the "establishment candidate" (of course, Santorum and Gingrich were so much better).

Fifth, the GOP has got to stop shooting itself in the proverbial foot. Whatever the flaws of Thillis and Roberts, do people on the right prefer Hagan and undercover Dem Orman? While I agree there needs to be more passionate candidates, at the same time, we need candidates that can answer questions, like abortion, without making themselves into the caricature Dems say they are. And, members of the GOP have got to stop the friendly fire. Unless we are talking McCain or Graham, most in the GOP believe in mostly the same thing, just different ways of going about things.

The GOP has failed to take the Senate twice and the Presidency once thanks to this infighting. If the "base" of the party is so upset, perhaps some of their rank and file should speak with these candidates and get them to commit on certain policies. If they fail to keep their word, without a good and timely explanation, then vote them out in the next primary. But seriously, I fear that the GOP is going to find a way to lose the Senate, AGAIN.

(09-18-2014 11:32 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  First, when people speak about "far right" policies on gays and abortion, that person is either a Democrat trying to smear someone or a libertarian...who is really just a social liberal using smears to try and change a party they otherwise like.

I am a libertarian, and yes I am a social liberal trying to change the republican party--either party, actually.

But republicans are not a party that I otherwise like. They are too conservative for my taste on social issues, true, but they are also not nearly conservative enough for me on fiscal issues.

Here's my problem. Democrats are much closer to me on social issues. Republicans used to be much closer to me on fiscal issues. And I've got absolutely no chance of ever needing an abortion, and about the same chance of ever wanting to marry another guy, so the fiscal issues are far bigger to me. Problem is, the republicans aren't much closer than the democrats on the fiscal issues any more. Republicans would get my vote if they moved closer to me on fiscal issues. So would democrats.

As for voting libertarian and handing elections to democrats, I've never done that. No republican has ever lost to any democrat because of the libertarian vote in any jurisdiction where I have ever voted, remembering that all I vote for in presidential elections is Texas's electoral votes. I've been a "libertarian if you can, republican if you must" voter, and I expect to remain so. Even as slight as it is, the fiscal edge to republicans means far more to me personally than any stance on abortion or gay rights.

I'm willing to vote for Pat Robertson if he will give me what I want on fiscal issues. But I'm not wiling to vote for GWB who will wear a cowboy hat and talk about Jesus a lot while presiding over the largest expansion of the federal government and two major nation-building efforts and the impairment of our constitutional rights.

(09-18-2014 06:30 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-17-2014 07:51 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Let's worry about this after the midterms. Right now is not the time to be weakening the brand.

You don't want to see it addressed at any time. You complain any time criicism is leveled against GOP practices. How sincere are you about seeing the GOP succeed?

Now is exactly the time to make sure this crap isn't forgotten, otherwise you end up w/ another McRomney in the general election.

Not addressed or even care to address. In fact...He loves the GOP the way it is.

(09-18-2014 11:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 11:32 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  First, when people speak about "far right" policies on gays and abortion, that person is either a Democrat trying to smear someone or a libertarian...who is really just a social liberal using smears to try and change a party they otherwise like.

I am a libertarian, and yes I am a social liberal trying to change the republican party--either party, actually.

But republicans are not a party that I otherwise like. They are too conservative for my taste on social issues, true, but they are also not nearly conservative enough for me on fiscal issues.

Here's my problem. Democrats are much closer to me on social issues. Republicans used to be much closer to me on fiscal issues. And I've got absolutely no chance of ever needing an abortion, and about the same chance of ever wanting to marry another guy, so the fiscal issues are far bigger to me. Problem is, the republicans aren't much closer than the democrats on the fiscal issues any more.

I'm willing to vote for Pat Robertson if he will give me what I want on fiscal issues. But I'm not wiling to vote for GWB who will wear a cowboy hat and talk about Jesus a lot while presiding over the largest expansion of the federal government and two major nation-building efforts and the impairment of our constitutional rights.

You are better off joining and trying to change the Democrats.

The day the GOP becomes socially liberal is the day we are no different than France.

You are trying to join the wrong team.

(09-18-2014 11:53 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  You are better off joining and trying to change the Democrats.
The day the GOP becomes socially liberal is the day we are no different than France.
You are trying to join the wrong team.

That's under serious consideration. If they nominate Joe Manchin, and republicans nominate a neocon, I probably would.

There's a lot about France that I like. They have universal health care with less government involvement. They get 80% of their electricity from nukes without major incident. There's plenty of bad about France, too, don't get me wrong.

(09-18-2014 12:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 11:53 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  You are better off joining and trying to change the Democrats.
The day the GOP becomes socially liberal is the day we are no different than France.
You are trying to join the wrong team.

That's under serious consideration. If they nominate Joe Manchin, and republicans nominate a neocon, I probably would.

Focus on making your own party an appealing choice without piggybacking the GOP ticket.

(09-18-2014 10:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But aren't democrats at least as heavily invested in bailouts and perks as republicans?

From what I see, the democrat way is that we're going to jack up taxes and regulations and then give breaks to our friends--which ensures a steady stream of donations from those friends. Except for the jack up taxes and regulations part, that's the same for republicans.

What's wrong with lower taxes and less abusive regulation in exchange for no more bailouts and perks?

The major difference is what DNC does with the tax receipts.

(09-18-2014 11:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 11:32 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  First, when people speak about "far right" policies on gays and abortion, that person is either a Democrat trying to smear someone or a libertarian...who is really just a social liberal using smears to try and change a party they otherwise like.

I am a libertarian, and yes I am a social liberal trying to change the republican party--either party, actually.

But republicans are not a party that I otherwise like. They are too conservative for my taste on social issues, true, but they are also not nearly conservative enough for me on fiscal issues.

Here's my problem. Democrats are much closer to me on social issues. Republicans used to be much closer to me on fiscal issues. And I've got absolutely no chance of ever needing an abortion, and about the same chance of ever wanting to marry another guy, so the fiscal issues are far bigger to me. Problem is, the republicans aren't much closer than the democrats on the fiscal issues any more. Republicans would get my vote if they moved closer to me on fiscal issues. So would democrats.

As for voting libertarian and handing elections to democrats, I've never done that. No republican has ever lost to any democrat because of the libertarian vote in any jurisdiction where I have ever voted, remembering that all I vote for in presidential elections is Texas's electoral votes. I've been a "libertarian if you can, republican if you must" voter, and I expect to remain so. Even as slight as it is, the fiscal edge to republicans means far more to me personally than any stance on abortion or gay rights.

I'm willing to vote for Pat Robertson if he will give me what I want on fiscal issues. But I'm not wiling to vote for GWB who will wear a cowboy hat and talk about Jesus a lot while presiding over the largest expansion of the federal government and two major nation-building efforts and the impairment of our constitutional rights.

I think oklalittledixie might be right. But, I also think you should listen to what the consensus of the party is. I don't see God leaving the GOP like it has the Democrat party. So, gay marriage and abortion (outside of rape, incest, and life of the mother) is definitely what it is. As to "gay rights" outside of gay marriage, I thought libertarians were against the government forcing people to do stuff. It was the point taken out of context made by Rand Paul about the CRA. While I agree with many parts of the CRA, given our history, I don't see the historical equivalency with homosexuality and therefore the need for additional protections for people that choose a certain lifestyle. I personally have no problem with hiring or working with a person of a different sexual orientation, as it has very little to do with most jobs. However, I just do not believe we need federal statutes in place to mandate that people accept the lifestyle.

As to fiscal spending, say what you will about GWB going after terrorists, it at least kept that fight in someone else's country and not here. But, moreover, Dems will tax as much as they can and spend even more. And while they speak a good game about rights and tolerance, they are more likely to regulate how you do stuff and push your rights aside if it doesn't fit their narrative.

I don't think anybody gets their perfect candidate that has a chance to win in the general election. But, when people let that get in the way of voting the closest candidate that has a chance of winning...then we wind up with Obama, Reid, and Pelosi.

People complain about the candidates that are put forward each time but they have nobody to blame but themselves and nothing to blame but the apathy of their neighbors.

Electorates shift. In the 60's and 70's the electorate went more liberal. Nixon tracked that way. Look at the environmental laws that Nixon passed. In the 80's and early 90's the electorate shifted right. Clinton triangulated. After W our nation lurched to the left. The party's establishment knows where the GOP needs to go but they aren't the leaders of the party. I would argue that the true leaders of the party are the media personalities. Rush Limbaugh could convince a very large segment of the GOP to be for abortion and taxes if he wanted. He could convince people to vote that way for the good of the party. He's not any ballot though. He prides himself on being a conservative first and a Republican 2nd. He doesn't have to win one election. What happens when your electorate and your true leaders are not on the same page. You get the modern GOP.

(09-18-2014 09:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Torch, would you agree that the basic problem is that republicans lack a message?

Their candidates aren't great communicators because the don't have anything to communicate. They can't do the Debbie Wasserman Schultz and shift every uncomfortable question to a soliloquy about something else, because they don't have the something else.

Republican candidates are not going to win miss congeniality contests with democrats because the media will see to it that they don't. They need to take winning issue positions and communicate them. Again, that's what Newt did in 1994. But that's a two step process. Step 2 is communicating the ideas. Step 1 is having them. And you can't do step 2 until after you do step 1.

And frankly, until republicans come up with that message I don't see them as much better than democrats. Different, and sufficiently different to cause gridlock, which is far better that either side getting its way right now.

Owl, you're arguing two entirely different issues here.

1) First you say the Republicans don't have a message.

2) then you say the "Media sees to it they don't". In other words, they have a message that the media won't let out?

I've made this argument before (and I just picked one minor option here).

Republican Message: We don't want tax payers to pay for your birth control in their health care. Pay for your own.

Democrats get out and say "Republicans don't want you to have birth control!".

Republican can shout til they're blue in the face... "that's not what my message was, I said...Pay for your own birth control"


Media; Democrats are saying that Republicans don't want you to have birth control.
Republican: That's not what I said .. i said....
Media; So why don't you want people to have birth control?
Republican: If you'd listen..
Media: I mean the Democrats say you don't want people to have free choice. How can you be so cruel?
Rep: We actually said..
Media: I'm sorry, we're out of time...

Owl, I'm just curious: you write:

Quote: Democrats are much closer to me on social issues.

So which Social issues? Gay Marriage? Abortion? Welfare? Drug Legalislation?

In this case, I'd say can you be VERY specific as to where you stand on the social issues. And then point to me exactly where the Republican party differs from you?

Quote: No republican has ever lost to any democrat because of the libertarian vote in any jurisdiction where I have ever voted,

It may not have happened in your jurisdiction, but there have been plenty of cases in the past few years where the 3rd party vote tally has made the difference, and honestly I'd wager if those 3rd party candidates weren't there, and the voter actually looked at the candidates other than the "R", "D", or "L" next to their name, they'd find themselves in agreement more often than not (not always) with the "R" candidate over the "D"