Blogs and Stories
Waiting for Reagan
AP Photo
The GOP doesn’t need any more soul-searching, writes Nicolle Wallace. It needs a larger-than-life hero to lead it back to victory. Who? How about Gen. Petreaus? Or Gary Sinise?
Every where you look, there’s another Republican vs. Republican story on the news. Rush vs. Romney; Steele vs. Rush; Palin vs. GOP; GOP vs. Reagan and the “good old days”; and on and on. The media adore the storyline for its simplicity and the conflict narrative it presents. I’ve had a dozen requests over the past week to debate Democrats about the future of the GOP—a topic that I’ve so far managed to avoid because of the suspension of reality it requires. It was four short years ago that the Democrats were in a similar state of disarray after John Kerry’s bruising defeat in 2004. While there were plenty of “where do they go from here” stories about the Democrats in early 2005, I don’t remember a daily drumbeat of stories about whether the Democratic Party had become a regional party. And I don’t recall a similar volume of coverage about the Democratic Party facing a choice between remaining true to its ideals and moderating itself to appeal to independent voters.
The tortured internal debates between those who believe we should cling more tightly to our conservative principles and others who advocate applying more modern (and in many cases, more moderate) interpretations of individual freedoms are as wrenching for those of us who love this party as the film Sophie’s Choice.
In nominating Barack Obama, the Democratic Party offers Republicans all the assurance necessary that we need make no such choice. The tortured internal debates between those who believe we should cling more tightly to our conservative principles and others who advocate applying more modern (and in many cases, more moderate) interpretations of individual freedoms are as wrenching for those of us who love this party as the film Sophie’s Choice. Our first mistake was accepting this media-generated debate as legitimate. It’s a false choice that offers nothing but continued division for Republicans.
In Barack Obama, the Democrats found a politician who matched the moment. The combination of a nation’s despair and external events that made his candidacy more appealing than his experienced opponent’s turned him into a leader onto which Americans pinned their hopes for better days. Just as George W. Bush did in 2004 and Clinton and Reagan before him, Obama excited his party’s “base” and appealed to independent voters. Voters were not enamored with each of Obama’s positions. In fact, on taxes, national security, and many social issues, they were more in line with John McCain’s positions. But Obama spoke to voters’ fears, their hopes, and their disgust with a government that stopped working for the people it was formed to serve.
It’s worth rehashing all of this recent history to ensure a more honest debate about the way forward for Republicans. What we need is a leader who matches the moment and transcends the narrow debates about ideology—not because they’re unimportant, but because they are un-resolvable in a media-refereed vacuum. It’s also worth keeping in mind the words of Bonnie Tyler when we imagine the task at hand for the Republican Party:
Late at night I toss and turn and dream of what I need. I need a hero.
So, who is that hero? Republicans agree that it must be someone who can move the entire discussion into the future and away from the past. This leader must convey our party’s most essential beliefs in a way that is meaningful to all Americans: young and old; straight and gay; black and white; Spanish-speaking and Chinese-speaking; people living in cities, suburbs, and rural America, and people from coast to coast and every inch in between. Our next leader must be able to articulate a belief in America’s unique role in the world that is as relevant today as it was when our nation was founded. He or she must make clear that when the men and women of our military are on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan, and other fronts as well, our entire nation is at war, and we must live as a nation at war. We must value our freedoms and thank those who are dying to preserve it.
Our next leader must be able to talk about the benefits of capitalism and competition as vehicles for economic opportunity and a better quality of life for all Americans. He or she must restore faith in government without getting stuck in the old debate of small vs. large government, but instead focus on the benefits of a competent, frugal, accountable government that is as mindful in spending taxpayers’ dollars as American families are in spending their own hard-earned income. The man or woman who saves the Republican Party will be the person who restores our faith in an American Dream.
One Republican I know suggested that actor Gary Sinise might be our savior. According to news reports, he’s part of an underground group of conservatives in Hollywood—an act of bravery in itself. His stated belief in American exceptionalism might end up being a powerful contrast to Obama’s “American apologist” mantra. The natural strengths that an actor brings to politics would come in handy to anyone going up against Obama in 2012. We will need an effective communicator who can stand toe to toe with Obama’s eloquence.
Others suggested Gen. David Petraeus or Gen. Ray Odierno. Both have denied any interest in a run for office, but if their masterful management of Iraq is undermined in any way over the next four years, one could hope that they’d reconsider.
Most Republicans I spoke to agreed that it would take a new leader, as opposed to any one of the politicians on the national stage today rising to the occasion. Many believe our best hopes lie in proving grounds like New Jersey and Virginia, where candidates might offer a fresh playbook for winning in (now) blue America. And maybe our next hero is serving in a state legislature somewhere. That wouldn’t be the end of the world. At least we have a theme song.
Nicolle Wallace served as a senior adviser to the McCain-Palin campaign from May to November 2008. She served President George W. Bush as an assistant to the president and director of communications for the White House, as well as communications director for President Bush's 2004 campaign.
How Rich People Smoke Pot
Paul Schrodt is a writer living in New York City. He has contributed to New York magazine, Radar, and Esquire.com.
Justice Clinton?
As vice chairman of Public Strategies and president of Maverick Media, Mark McKinnon has helped meet strategic challenges for candidates, corporations and causes, including George W. Bush, John McCain, Governor Ann Richards, Charlie Wilson, Lance Armstrong, and Bono. McKinnon is co-chair of Arts & Labs, a collaboration between technology and creative communities that have embraced today's rich Internet environment to deliver innovative and creative digital products to consumers.
The GOP's New Roadmap
Nicolle Wallace served as a senior adviser to the McCain-Palin campaign from May to November 2008. She served President George W. Bush as an assistant to the president and director of communications for the White House, as well as communications director for President Bush's 2004 campaign.
Obama's Sleepy Response
Nicolle Wallace served as a senior adviser to the McCain-Palin campaign from May to November 2008. She served President George W. Bush as an assistant to the president and director of communications for the White House, as well as communications director for President Bush's 2004 campaign.
Feel Our Pain
Nicolle Wallace served as a senior adviser to the McCain-Palin campaign from May to November 2008. She served President George W. Bush as an assistant to the president and director of communications for the White House, as well as communications director for President Bush's 2004 campaign.
grlfromks
While there were plenty of "where do they go from here" stories about the Democrats in early 2005, I don't remember a daily drum beat of stories about whether the Democratic Party had become a regional party.
That was mainly because we had leaders, we had choices, and we hadn't just lost nine states that we carried in the previous election (CO FL IN IA NV NM NC OH VA)!
Republicans agree that it must be someone who can move the entire discussion into the future and away from the past
Good luck on that! Maybe your 23 percenters will be able to forget the past, the rest of us won't! bush the lesser took us down too badly to be forgotten so easily.
Spasticula
The 23 percenters are obsessed with forcing everyone back into the past... not working to build a future.
REAGAN-2009
I see nothing charismatic about Mr. Obama. Without his teleprompter, he stumbles as badly as anyone I have seen drop the ball in a speech. I am baffled as to why he carries a blackberry when he has the most secure communications systems in the world. I also feel very uncomfortable with the current administration's positions which I feel infringe greatly on American's personal liberties. Bad news travels fast and the liberal Democrats are already seeing Republicans win smaller political contests outside of the larger elections. I see a trend in the making if Republicans get back to Reagan conservatism.
The problem is not with who comes into the Republican big tent. I believe it is how the liberals get away with defining our tent. Ronald Reagan never let the left define him, and that is one of the biggest problems Republicans face today.
I will always remember watching the 1992 Democratic convention when Bill Clinton was claiming to be the agent of change...change...change. When Ronald Reagan spoke that year at the Republican convention, he said with his defining tone, "We are the change." This, in my opinion, is what the Republicans lack. The Republican Party of today lacks principles, and character while the liberal Democrats are not even on the map, yet they get away with everything. This is deplorable.
When this group of pandering Republicans went out on the road last weekend claiming to want to reconnect with Americans while distancing themselves from Ronald Reagan, in my view, they looked like a bunch of political prostitutes. This was sickening. They looked like people who would say or do anything just to get reelected. I hope Sarah Palin will rethink her position before getting too involved with this group of RINOs (Republicans In Name Only), as I see it. I wonder why the Democrats don't distance themselves from John F. Kennedy. He was more conservative than some in the Republican Party today.
The answer is simple, and Americans need to pay attention to the political climate of today, and how we seem to be moving away from the constitution and liberty. Republicans need to vote the RINOS out of office in the primaries, and return to Reagan conservatism. People of many races, political parties, and religious beliefs gravitate to character, integrity, truth, and strong leadership. Leadership that leaves you feeling secure as you go to sleep knowing nothing is going to bother you tonight, not on my watch. That was the feeling we had when Ronald Reagan was at the helm.
Many who read this post are too young to remember seeing President Reagan arguing with Mr. Gorbachev all the way to the former Soviet leader's vehicle, but I do. That took real leadership and character! And it was that same leadership and unwavering character that brought down the Berlin wall. It was that kind of character that Mr. Gorbachev remembered which brought him to President Reagan's funeral in June, 2004. Mr. Gorbachev's presence at President Reagan's funeral, especially while taking the pounding that Margaret Thatcher's tribute to President Reagan thrusted upon the former Soviet leader, spoke volumes about the respect Mr. Gorbachev had for President Reagan. That is not something you get by trying to connect with the American people just to get reelected, and it is not something you can get from a focus group or polls. It is character, standing on principle, knowing what you believe, and President Reagan was all of that.
My message to the Republican Party is to recruit candidates of character, stick with issues, don't let the left define you, and stand on conservative principles. In short I say, as President Reagan said, a political party cannot be all things to all people. Now I say to the GOP: RETURN TO REAGAN!
REAGAN-2009
I would like to add that if you believe in the principles Reagan stood for, typt GOP: RETURN TO REAGAN on the bottom of every post you make on every blog. The GOP will get the message.
Creating a third party will only get Republicans "PEROTED" by splitting the conservative vote. We cannot let this happen again.
estcruzer
Sounds like Hitler would fit the bill - and that is the problem with the Republican leadership mindset - they haven't figured out how to represent the electorate - they just represent their ideals - which they grossly misrepresent daily. Until they learn how to represent those who VOTE for them (not those who BUY them) they are not going to get the votes necessary to get elected.
Ritarita
REAGAN-
Anyone who
Begins their post
With the ridiculous
And inane
Butt-tired teleprompter issue
Receives an automatic
20 point deduction
On their credibility score.
Just thought you'd
Like to know.
muddog
Regan 2009.
1) Regan is DEAD, this is not the 80's. What the G.O.P. needs is not someone who can sugar coat a turd but someone who will call it what it is, just that, a TURD. The G.O.P. cannot BS it's way of of it's current slump. They need some new fresh faces but as long as the whacky base holds it's grip then nothing will ever change. I doubt
2) The telelpromter BS is FOX noise / Limbaugh talking points, try something new and original. Please show me more than 2 times where Obama "Blew it" when speaking, compared to the last twit that was in the white house... I attended Obama's Rally in Portland Oregon before 80,000 people, he had NO TELEPROMTER was a phenomenal speaker....
3) Regan did not bring down the Soviet Union, to even act like somehow the "Gipper" did so is LIE. Regan was good @ talking tough ( he learned that in Hollywood ) but took credit for much that was started before his tenure.
4) The G.O.P. has done all of the "Defining" all on your own, all the Dem's need to do is repeat the garbage that is spewed from the usual suspects and the work is done for us...The G.O.P. needs to quit whinning about left wing media, Nancy Pelosi and the usual talking points and take responsibility for the last 8 years and what they stand for, until then enjoy the wilderness.
Bunx05
REAGAN-
I agree with you that Reagan was a great leader. I'd actually like to point out however that first:
There were several far right conservatives that didn't agree with all of Reagan's policies. In fact that implied that he would be the end of the party. The difference was that Reagan didn't care what they or the far right thought. He listened to what the American people told him, and he didn't try to make everyone happy (kind of like Obama in a lot of ways; in fact Obama said that he studied and respected Reagan's approach to being president).
And second: the definition of conservatism that everyone tries to attach to Reagan no longer applies. Today's conservatism stems from denying some people personal liberties and having a government so small that it doesn't interfere when businesses take advantage of the system to the detriment of the people and yet so large that it can impose its military strength and will on any foreign nation it chooses.
There in lies the fundamental problem for the Republican party. There are contradictions and a loss of history among party members. I do not identify myself as a republican, but I would be happy to see a condidate who truly embodies the spirit of what the Republican party once was (note I said the spirit not necessarily the policies). I think this would at the very least create an environment of intelligent conversation among political opponents.
steff47
Good lord if this women is still waiting on Reagan she's got one hell of a wait
al-nafs
You don't understand why he carries a blackberry? Obviously you do not work in a modern business environment. Further, you probably don't understand what it means to use technology to achieve your business' or organizations' goals.
Funny that you don't feel comfortable with the current administrations incursions into personal liberties. Mainly because they haven't done anything to threaten them. How did you feel about the warrant-less wiretapping under the Bush Administration?
al-nafs
One more thing. The rest of us are living in the present, not in the past.
redshoes
Ritarita -
Just though you'd like to know
that those posters who write
like it's great poetry
look silly
ringleader
I too would like to see the Republicans in the wilderness for a while. Yet I know that if they began to realize that Nixon's Southern Strategy is obsolete, they are going to adjust accordingly. But people like Reagan 2009 gives me comfort that the Republican Party's comeback will not be coming anytime soon. I was afraid that if they realized this, it will actually cause the 23 percent to wake up to the fact that they cannot rebuild their party by by purifying it.
My forecast is that the religious extremists and white southern Republicans are going to tighten their grip on the party, and the people who are squeezed out in the process (moderate Northeastern Republicans and their Republican businessmen friends) are going to found a new political party. My guess is the Libertarian Party, and they will be attractive as well to "moderate Democrats."
asl3676
Don Henley accurately referred to Reagan as the "tired old man that we elected king".
Republicans think that Americans are stupid and don't remember all the pain and suffering the country went through in the 80's.
GOP: GO AWAY AND TAKE CHENEY WITH YOU
StopConRhetoric
I realize that when you feel most out of touch with the reality of today, you pine for the "created persona" of the past.
What Reagan had versus Obama is Reagan was a White Male. He spoke of hope and change and White's ate it up as "taking positive steps for America" when Obama speaks of Hop and Change the immediate reaction from those same people is Nazi Socialist (not sure yet how you can be both??)
Reagan tripled the deficit.
Reagan watched 243 Marine's killed in the Beirut bombing and instead of reacting with Military force, he brought the troops home.
Reagan had to sweep his 2nd term Cabinet and put DEMOCRATS into his Cabinet to save his legacy.
27 members of Reagan's Administration were indicted and convicted of crimes!! Comparatively, the number of crime convictions in the Clinton Admin. was ZERO.
From my perspective, Reagan principles were best vocalized by Cheney when he said "Reagan proved Deficits don't matter."
Beyond that, he introduced fake "Family Values." Do what I say, not as I do principle that brings us 7 - 10 GOP senators/governors a year having affairs, hetro and same sex.
Which was all part of the bigger picture of introducing Religious issues as a wedge to ensure that your sheep who oppose Abortion or Same sex marriage focus on those issues while the GOP focuses on creating deficits, moving jobs to cheap countries and Tax Cuts for the top tier...
Prior to Reagan and the Immature Political Game revolution he introduced, politics was a civil engagement of people who had opposing views but worked together...Sh-t they lived together!! Ted Kennedy and Ted Stevens, uber Con from Alaska, were room mates! If Stevens did that today his "Con" base would hang him in effigy and the small brained talking heads would be calling for him to resign.
So PLEASE let's get back to Goldwater Republicans and sweep away the failed trickle down, Evangelical theocracy joke that is the Reagan movement.
Kirbonicus
Pinning the GOP's hopes on people that have never before even shown a passing interest in running for office seems to me an act of extreme desperation.But... one could say that the GOP is wide open for someone just like that.
If it wasn't for some pesky rules, The Governator would seem in a perfect position to make the move. Yet he seems a bit too 'progressive' for the very powerful fundamentalist wing of that party (I think their common belief is that Jesus doesn't like marijuana, or liberals, ot those who like animals, or the human body, or those who like science and reason, or gay people).
The time is SO SO ripe for a third party movement... one being fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I really wish Harry Browne was still around... or Ross Perot were younger.
HuskyNan
"The time is SO SO ripe for a third party movement... one being fiscally conservative and socially liberal."
The thing is, the Republicans don't even have to be socially liberal, just more tolerant of those who hold socially liberal (or even moderate) positions. I don't care if someone is against abortion or gay marriage or whatever, I just don't want someone telling me I have to conform to their conservative views or I'm not welcome.
Kirbonicus
And that's their argument... for example, one's who think abortion is a 'sin' because of what their holy book says do not want to live quietly while abortions are happening.
REAGAN-2009
A third party will only split conservatives like Perot did in 92. We need to fix the Republican Party.
GOP: Return to Reagan
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--alcamaduslovestooread
Like John Kennedy another political untouchable, icon,etc.....
HuskyNan
"But the Democrats don't allow people to NOT believe in abortion or gay marriage rights either."
Not true. Obama has said several times that he opposes gay marriage, including during one nationall televised presidential debate. And when is the last time a Democrat claimed another Dem was a DINO or not welcome in the party (a la Spector)?
BTW, there is a difference between "believing in abortion" and being pro-choice. I think abortion is a horrible choice but if I give up my freedom of choice on abortion to a bunch of politicians, where will those politicians stop? Will they tell me what, if any, birth control to use? Will they decide I don't need plastic surgery? If I cede control of my body to those politicians it starts the inevitable "slippery slope" and I am not willing to go there.
Bunx05
alcamadus-
HuskyNan is right about the abortion issue, and it is an example of why Democratic policies can cross independent lines. You don't have to be pro-abortion to get behind the democrats on this issue. You just have to believe that it is important for a person to have that choice. For myself, I don't believe an abortion is necessarily the right thing to do (thank God I have never had to be in a situation with a woman where we had to make that choice), but if someone else, say someone's young daughter or even my own daughter, has to make that decision, I believe that she should be able to get proper medical attention for the procedure. I'll remind you that before Row v Wade, there were several deaths related to women trying to get an abortion from shifty hacks who went from town to town tearing up these women's insides. I personally don't want to have to go back to that (because even if the law says not to do it, people will find a way to go about it, and they won't care about cleanliness, proper procedures, the patients rights or anything else), and that's why I am pro-choice without being pro-abortion.
connie47
How about Gary Sinise? Aren't the Republicans the ones always barking about how Hollywood actors need to shut up and go away? Oh, wait, I forgot. They do want them to shut up, unless they're running for office as Republicans.
Kundera
No we only "bark" when lefty no nothing celebs whine and mock but refuse to back it up with running for office. 99.9% of them don't run because then they'll have to debate. They will lose everytime. It's much easier to say something on an awards show.Reagan, Arnold, Largent, JC Watts, Jack Kemp, Sen. Bunning, Clint Eastwood, Sony Bono, Gopher from Love Boat, Lynn Swann speak their Republican minds and then back it up with action and run for office.
Except for Franken and Bill Bradley, the rest are scared.
molibber
Are you saying that people who exercise their right to free speech have to run for office? How silly. There is no rule that says you have to run for office just because you have and give your opinion. Or do you think that people in entertainment have less right to express themselves than an ordinary citizen just because they have a platform?
BTiller
So then tell me when Rush, Gallagher, Beck, Hume, C. Wallace, and many more EVER ran on ANY ticket? You know it is pretty easy to sit behind a microphone or in front of a camera and preach to the masses about how anyone that isn't 1000000000% republican needs to take a hike to the other side. But they don't have to worry about getting votes, they just need ratings. Well those are easy to get when all you have to do is spend hours upon hours listening to "red meat" speeches. I mean with Rush you listen to him and at the end of his rant all you know is that somehow he wants you to believe he knows everything and everyone else that has any other opinion is wrong...... And to think he calls Obama the Messiah? And with Bech, I have never heard someone that can spend so much time talking without really having a point to it and just leave you angered. Then after he torks you off he then brings up his point to aim your faux anger at a predetermined target. I agree there are a thousand great republican voices coming from the entertainment world such as Sinese and especially Bruce Willis! But there are also republican versions of Franken that millions of people listen to EVERY DAY! That is what is killing the party, that is what is empowering liberals, that is what is keeping us off base. You didn't see Al Gore run onto Sunday TV just months out of office to blast GW about every single damn thing he did? I mean you have Sean Hannity actually spending time lambasting our president about the kind of mustard he uses on his burger? Hey I am a gun toting, god loving, pro life, small gov., independent just because I don't want to be in a party with nut jobs like those. Oh.... And on my burgers I use Dijon because I like the taste of it!
MondoBizzaro
Molibber, you'e missing the point. Kundera was not saying that since liberal Hollywood personalities frequently voice their political stances, then they must run for office. Just simply that many more outspoken Republican minded stars have backed their stances by running for office. And that is pretty sad considering that 99.9% of the Hollywood comunity are liberals/democrats.
connie47
What a can of worms you opened. Your position is complete hypocrisy, not to mention an attack on the Constitution. Do you really want a list of Republican mouthpieces who, according to your post, must never utter another word in public?
Bunx05
Did you really just throw "Gopher from Love Boat" in there? That's the funniest thing I've ever heard!
atwork
there are so many exaggerated, twisted, and plain false statements in this article, coupled with an irritatingly blind view of things, that i dont even know where to start. Daily Beast, i love that you try to include both sides of the Dem-Rep debate, but please start picking more intelligent Rep's to do that representing. who are your most popular right now, meghan mccain and this woman? i start these articles hoping to read intelligent coherent suggestions and views on the R party, and every time i walk away just annoyed at the authors.
Ritarita
Yes.
Where is Tucker Carlson
When you need him?
carouzer
atwork is absolutely right! It is great to have try to have a balanced, INTELLIGENT website where smart people actually present reasoned arguments on both side of issues. Nicolle Wallace is NOT one of those. She is the perfect represenative of her former boss--strident, supercilious and stupid.
This is the umpteenth in a series of her meaningless and poorly constructed blog entries that brings nothing new or substantive to the discussion. It perfectly reflects is what is wrong with Republicans--to date they have brought nothing new to the discussion. Gary Senise, indeed. And I suspect Generals Petraeus and Ordierno are way too smart to get involved with the current Republican mob, even if they hold conservative political views (do they? Or does Nicolle just ASSume that because they are military men they must be conservatives?).
Please, Beast, find someone who can cut through the mindless, stale rhetoric and present a reasoned and intelligent conservative viewpoint. Nicolle Wallace and her ilk are exactly the reason why the Republican party is in such a dither. "Waiting for Reagan," indeed.
This isn't the 1980's, Reagan is dead and the Republican'ts need some fresh ideas and, for a change, some reasoned thinking. No more Gingrich, Limbaugh, Cantor, Beck, Hannity, McConnell, Boehner and McCain (John, that is, not Meghan...I don't agree with Meghan on a lot of issues, but at least she isn't afraid to say what she thinks--and clearly she does think.)
Ritarita
Warren
Buffet said
When you drain
The pond
It becomes clear
Who's been swimming
Naked.
We've seen enough.
Get dressed and
Understand that
The party has been
Exposed for what
It really is.
You need a lot more
Than a new
Figurehead.
pricklypear
Warren 'buff' et. That's who.
Ritarita
pricklypear-
Where you been?
riall1
why don't you consider this. Unless the democrats mess things up (eg., another sex scandal),the republicans (as they have existed over the past 50 years) are dead. Its remaining members are fighting over the last vestiges of power like dogs growling for the last scraps of meat. financial conservatives (the only ones with any intelligence what so ever) cannot control the party because religious fanatics and idiots (rush, hannity, beck) have taken control. the party has proven itself to be mean (beyond compare ...oh this includes the love of your life....reagan who was responsible for the deaths of thousands in south america), untrustworthy (eg lying about reasons to go to iraq all the way back to iran contra, and don't forget watergate and etc, etc, etc) and completely devoid of new ideas. they are history.
ps I just wish that the daily beast would take your silly smiling face off their cover stories - i get disgusted every-time i see it.
estcruzer
That is what pisses me off about the atmosphere politics has generated over the last few decades. What really touches you, when a man commits adultery with another man or when that same man raises your taxes and sends your son to fight a war he started? What really touches you, when a man makes a mistake in his income taxes (albeit large mistake) or when he commits crimes to steal an election away from the rightful winner (Nixon and Bush 2000)? What really touches you, when a man believes that his wife should have a choice about the course of her life or when he takes your tax money and gives it to the religion of his choice - BUYING votes in the process.
What pisses me off is that Politics have misdirected us from looking at what is life changing to us (taxes, war, support for future technology vs OIL,...) and made an issue out of things that really have NO implact on our lives (someone elses sex life, religious beliefs, choice about how to plan for their future, ...).
theBUSHdemocrat
Just wanted to say . . . I love you!
pricklypear
Who gives the unborn a choice about their future?
noelverzosa
The GOP should stop claiming to be the party of less spending and small government. The American people just don't believe this anymore. A Republican-controlled congress - and President Bush - spent money like a drunken sailor. Small government? Name a Republican president that left with a government smaller that the one he began with. And don't get me started with family values!
estcruzer
Hear Hear, and they spent it on war material, the most destructive use of our tax dollars possible. It's OK to spend money as long as it lines someones pockets (who can then give some back to their favorite Republican politician) but not if it improves the life of Americans in general. Republican leadership promote taking away social security, medicare, medicaid and giving us War, WAR and more WAR.
Cforchange
I think we can all now agree that the GOP needs a charasmatic communicator - many of us knew that before the 08 bashing. Many of us recognized this in 2000. We have been speaking - but the DC crowd like you haven't listened.
The first problem is that we have the forward thinking part of the party and the majority of voters period boxed in to parts of the country where their primary vote means very little. This is how the GOP has been able to ignore obvious trends.
It's interesting that you call for an end to soul searching - I say wait a minute. If we don't need to rehab our approach, why not only did the young voter elect Obama but also register as Democrats? Something has gone very wrong with our appeal, - we've even lost the business folks. I'm not certain that the party decline has finished. I've heard of a number of GOP silent minority members declare they will end their voting careers as Independents if the GOP doesn't regrasp the concept of personal freedom and a clear separation of church and state. So don't think the party only needs to cater to the social cons, my math tells me that party will drop to 15% membership if we don't become more cooperative from within.
Nicole, you look young - what happened with recruiting? Please explain, why have we lost the youth? There's big problem number two and it's long term so if you're worried about time to correct the message, we have plenty of it.
drmarkklein
Ms. Wallace, like most Republicans with no living memory of the 1970s, don't understand Reagan's victory was the result of almost 2 decades of internal party debate and soul searching. Reagan won because America yearned for major social and economic change. Ms. Wallace is wrong believing just a charismatic political figure without a compelling new ideological message in synch with today America is enough to bring the GOP back to power.
SlimSoldier
"In fact, on taxes, national security, and many social issues, they were more in line with John McCain's positions."
.....REALLY....!!!?
Which one of Fox's opinion polls did you pull that stuff out of? You guys are f'n killing me. You guys don't get it. You lost what, nine states this time around that you won in 2004?
The American people have been HEARING your message since Reagan's lying "butt" was saying it. Thinking that you can put a new "eloquent" face on an old message doesn't change what the hell you've been saying. Your message has been.....rejected. For God's sake.....IOWA is now allowing Gay marriage for example.
You guys say you're "listening" but for Goodness sakes please start to actually "HEAR" what the people are trying to tell you. Then, craft your message around that. Instead of the other way around.
American "exceptionalism....?" What the hell makes YOU any more special than a woman your age in say....Britain? The only difference would be, the accent and where you fell out of a womb.
Climb out of that country club and Go take a walk through some of the "urban" areas of your own country. If you're scared to do that then go out to some of the rural areas of any state. Take a ride through there and look some of those damn kids in the eye and tell them about some damn "exceptionalism." Seems like the only time you give a damn about "us" is when you need somebody to go fight a war.
You either actually said or were apart of some pretty disgusting things on the campaign trail last year. Things that will never be forgotten. Same as they weren't forgotten when Lee Atwater said them damn near a generation ago. No matter how many times you guys try to act as though we don't exist, yes, we are citizens too.
Thinking you can send a new messenger out in a few years without changing your tune probably isn't going to get you any further in certain communities. This concludes my rant. Good luck to you guys.
Martyz42
The savior will never come because nothing is left for him to do. Ronny totally destroyed the middle class in America by killing the unions in the nation that the middle class had fought & died for. Ronny helped the right wing murders in South & Central America killing off thousands of innocent people while Ronny sat around lying to the American people. Ronny allowed drugs to be brought into this Country by delivered to the streets of L. A. Ronny showed the government how to steal money out of the Social Security fund & get away with it. Ronny showed a man without the slightest bit of real knowledge could fool a whole nation into thinking he new anything about anything other then how to smile & commit fraud to it's people. Lastly Ronny showed how a person could govern a a nation while half his brain was gone due to Alzheimer's. So how can you expect anyone new to come out of the halls of Hollywood or the pews of a right wing church to come out of the closet & lie to the American people again about so much & get away with it. Lastly come on folks, we had someone who tried to compete with Ronny when it came to out & out lying to the people of not only America but the world & sure enough BUSH lied to more people then Ronny so that makes BUSH the worlds greater fraud ever elected by the "STUPIDITY" & "IGNORANCE" of the totally "UNINFORMED" American people. The great communicator & the great liar are neck & neck when it comes to convincing the ignorant voters of the US that the only thing that counts is the 3 G's. god, guns & gays... Good job you two guys, you have managed to make the US not only the enemy of billions of Arab's but the laughing stock of the EU & most of the world.
Ritarita
Reagan said
That he didn't see
How anyone
Could be President
Without having
Been an actor first.
There were times
When he spoke
Truthfully.
jds8181
Hey Nicolle, while you're waiting on your new leader, why don't you run down to the store and get us another bottle of ripple?
As for Petraeus, I personally don't believe history will vindicate his role in the Iraq war as much as the Nicolle Wallaces of the world would like to think. I will agree that he did a wonderful job of stabilizing Iraq, but exactly how he did it is why I don't think it will be lasting. Anytime you put an additional 30,000 U.S. troops on the ground in a major city they're going to kick ass. Our troops are the most capable in the world. But what happens when those troops aren't around anymore? Are we just going to stay in Iraq? And if we leave, and the sectarian violence flares up again, are we going to rush right back in and stay indefinitely? At $12B a month, this is an unsustainable strategy.
The other reason, and most concerting, is the oft-neglected fact that a lot of the Sunni insurgency stopped attacking our soldiers and their civilians because we paid them not to. Recently there has been a resurgence of suicide bombings in Iraq because al Maliki did not follow through on his promise to provide more jobs to Sunnis. What's going to happen when we stop funneling boatloads of money to these insurgents? Only then will we be able to tell if Petraus' strategy is successful.
Unfortunately for Nicolle and the other Republicans, no matter how successful Petraus is, the American public is not going to forget that 8 years of Republican rule gave us 2 wars and a financial collapse not seen since another Republican President, Herbert Hoover, gave us the Great Depression. As much as they all want to throw W under the bus for this one by claiming, after they voted him into office twice, that he wasn't a REAL Conservative, we've all seen what true conservatism gives us...a more volatile world in which the economic prosperity of everyday Americans is sacrificed so the rich can pay less in taxes and eventually help raise $100 million in 100 days to the Presidential library of the poster-boy for conservatism and the Republican party...George W Bush.
Spasticula
Your party's problems are so massive that you have to first figure out your platform. Everyone hates the GOP now. And Gary Sinise is too busy reshaping his very feminine eyebrows to run for president.
allonfla
I knew it all along. You guys don't dislike Obama - you admire him and are in awe of him that you wish you had your own. Sorry, they only come along once in a few decades.
Looks like your stuck with caribou Barbie and Ken romney.
grlfromks
Since this person who will rescue the Republican Party isn't yet identified, does that mean s/he might not have the experience your party screamed was a necessity? If this person has experience, ideas and solutions and didn't offer them sooner, what does that indicate? Could it be that this person has been in a state of suspended animation until the time was right?
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.