Michele Bachmann Gone!

[3rdnlng]

I don't have a problem with social conservatives, there is obviously a large constituency who wants to have their voices heard, where I have a problem with some social conservatives is when they begin to say bat schitt crazy loony tune comments that hurt the conservative movement. Let's put it this way, and this is a fact that some of you fail to grasp, which is BRAND MATTERS! There is a huge branding issue with the GOP, young people and non whites generally don't like Republicans. Right or wrong, they think they are the party of non-science, the party that protects the rich and the party that generally speaking doesn't care about the poor and non-whites. That's their view, not mine. So it's important to re brand the party so that they can win state wide and national elections, so that they can implement their economic conservative agenda. Doesn't mean you have to give up your conservative economic principles, at all, just means you have to be politically smarter. For instance, get more in tune with people outside of your main constituency, which primarily consists of mid to older aged whites. Communicate more effectively your economic message, the conservative economic message is a stronger one to make than the liberal one. Don't just talk about debt reduction, talk about growth, a la Jack Kemp. Reforming the tax code, communicating how more economic opportunities can arise so that you can climb up the social economic latter under conservative leadership. Stay away from the social issues. It's a political loser on the national level... The times are changing, and the party that doesn't change with the times, will get left behind. Like it or not, politics matter.

 

So, in other words you are saying "be like the Tea Party"?

[PearlHowardman]

I don't have a problem with social conservatives, there is obviously a large constituency who wants to have their voices heard, where I have a problem with some social conservatives is when they begin to say bat schitt crazy loony tune comments that hurt the conservative movement. Let's put it this way, and this is a fact that some of you fail to grasp, which is BRAND MATTERS! There is a huge branding issue with the GOP, young people and non whites generally don't like Republicans. Right or wrong, they think they are the party of non-science, the party that protects the rich and the party that generally speaking doesn't care about the poor and non-whites. That's their view, not mine. So it's important to re brand the party so that they can win state wide and national elections, so that they can implement their economic conservative agenda. Doesn't mean you have to give up your conservative economic principles, at all, just means you have to be politically smarter. For instance, get more in tune with people outside of your main constituency, which primarily consists of mid to older aged whites. Communicate more effectively your economic message, the conservative economic message is a stronger one to make than the liberal one. Don't just talk about debt reduction, talk about growth, a la Jack Kemp. Reforming the tax code, communicating how more economic opportunities can arise so that you can climb up the social economic latter under conservative leadership. Stay away from the social issues. It's a political loser on the national level... The times are changing, and the party that doesn't change with the times, will get left behind. Like it or not, politics matter.

 

You nailed it.

 

When I went on-line last August and discovered that Mitt Romney selected a white male as his VP I knew right then and there that he lost the Presidential election.

 

If the GOP were more friendly to women they would win a lot more elections.

[Magox]

You nailed it.

 

When I went on-line last August and discovered that Mitt Romney selected a white male as his VP I knew right then and there that he lost the Presidential election.

 

If the GOP were more friendly to women they would win a lot more elections.

While I appreciate the facetiousness of your post, cosmetic changes to the party aren't what is needed.

[3rdnlng]

You nailed it.

 

When I went on-line last August and discovered that Mitt Romney selected a white male as his VP I knew right then and there that he lost the Presidential election.

 

If the GOP were more friendly to women they would win a lot more elections.

 

 

Are you being sarcastic or are you just showing the extent that the media and liberals have corrupted your thinking?

[PearlHowardman]

Look, a 7th grader could have figured out that Romney need a woman VP candidate.

[Magox]

So, in other words you are saying "be like the Tea Party"?

Sorta, their economic message is decent, but they are too obsessed with short-term debt reduction. While deficit reduction is very important, it's not seen nearly as important as economic growth, or one's own personal employment situation. For a lot of people, they know having too much debt is a bad thing, but they really don't understand how. They hear that it's harmful, yet they don't really see the effects of it, whereas economic growth and jobs is something that they tangibly see and feel. Now I'm not making an argument to abandon debt reduction, it's a very important issue and one that if debt gets out of control, will have huge ramifications to it. What I'm saying is that the party should talk about growth and jobs first and foremost, and then communicate it effectively in how that can improve one's personal situation, more so to the lower and middle class, and that it could give you more opportunities in climbing the economic latter. And then Segway that in how pro growth policies, while eliminating wasteful programs and having a clear vision on entitlement reform will help lead this country to long-term economic sustainability. And since we are (or at least I am) talking about brand, the tea party has a big branding issue. Again, right or wrong, public opinion on the tea party has consistently been in the deep red over the past couple years, although they have recently received a bump, I'm guessing because of the IRS deal.

[3rdnlng]

Sorta, their economic message is decent, but they are too obsessed with short-term debt reduction. While deficit reduction is very important, it's not seen nearly as important as economic growth, or one's own personal employment situation. For a lot of people, they know having too much debt is a bad thing, but they really don't understand how. They hear that it's harmful, yet they don't really see the effects of it, whereas economic growth and jobs is something that they tangibly see and feel. Now I'm not making an argument to abandon debt reduction, it's a very important issue and one that if debt gets out of control, will have huge ramifications to it. What I'm saying is that the party should talk about growth and jobs first and foremost, and then communicate it effectively in how that can improve one's personal situation, more so to the lower and middle class, and that it could give you more opportunities in climbing the economic latter. And then Segway that in how pro growth policies, while eliminating wasteful programs and having a clear vision on entitlement reform will help lead this country to long-term economic sustainability. And since we are (or at least I am) talking about brand, the tea party has a big branding issue. Again, right or wrong, public opinion on the tea party has consistently been in the deep red over the past couple years, although they have recently received a bump, I'm guessing because of the IRS deal.

 

The left has consistantly tried to brand the Tea Party as racists, far right evangelicals, and any extreme they can think of. Simply put, if you read the various Tea Party mission statements you will find that they explicitly state that they take no position on social issues. They are concerned with national debt and are big on the Constitution.

[Magox]

The left has consistantly tried to brand the Tea Party as racists, far right evangelicals, and any extreme they can think of. Simply put, if you read the various Tea Party mission statements you will find that they explicitly state that they take no position on social issues. They are concerned with national debt and are big on the Constitution.

While all this may be true, whatever the case may be, they have an image issue, and it's incumbent upon tea party leadership to improve that image....If they decide to ignore this reality, the tea party for the most part will become a part of the party that wins in only gerrymandered districts and conservative states.

[John Adams]

I don't have a problem with social conservatives, there is obviously a large constituency who wants to have their voices heard, where I have a problem with some social conservatives is when they begin to say bat schitt crazy loony tune comments that hurt the conservative movement. Let's put it this way, and this is a fact that some of you fail to grasp, which is BRAND MATTERS! There is a huge branding issue with the GOP, young people and non whites generally don't like Republicans. Right or wrong, they think they are the party of non-science, the party that protects the rich and the party that generally speaking doesn't care about the poor and non-whites. That's their view, not mine. So it's important to re brand the party so that they can win state wide and national elections, so that they can implement their economic conservative agenda. Doesn't mean you have to give up your conservative economic principles, at all, just means you have to be politically smarter. For instance, get more in tune with people outside of your main constituency, which primarily consists of mid to older aged whites. Communicate more effectively your economic message, the conservative economic message is a stronger one to make than the liberal one. Don't just talk about debt reduction, talk about growth, a la Jack Kemp. Reforming the tax code, communicating how more economic opportunities can arise so that you can climb up the social economic latter under conservative leadership. Stay away from the social issues. It's a political loser on the national level... The times are changing, and the party that doesn't change with the times, will get left behind. Like it or not, politics matter.

 

Home run post. Reagan's big tent is a failure in 2013. The Tea Party's image is a mess--it has no appeal to minorities, little to women, and minimal appeal to the young. When Palin and Bachman (and others) became self-proclaimed Tea Party leaders, the party's message started to blur.What started as a focused movement got tied to Bachman and her ilk--who were pushing a broader agenda that included social crap--and that social crap alienates a lot of non white and younger voters. It also is raw meat to the media lion.

 

The TP's whole leaderless party idea was interesting but not a long term strategy for success. Parties need cohesion and leaders, not marchers who leave behind clean parks. The TP also needed leaders to say, "Thanks Michelle Bachman, we appreciate your support, but we don't give a rat's ass about your social stuff." Instead she was perceived as a TP leader and the TP became synonymous (wrongfully) with her and some of her crazier views.

 

Trying revive the Tea Party image is a waste of time. The support "bump" isn't going to make inroads along any of the demographics needed.

Edited May 31, 2013 by John Adams

[IDBillzFan]

Sorta, their economic message is decent, but they are too obsessed with short-term debt reduction. While deficit reduction is very important, it's not seen nearly as important as economic growth, or one's own personal employment situation. For a lot of people, they know having too much debt is a bad thing, but they really don't understand how. They hear that it's harmful, yet they don't really see the effects of it, whereas economic growth and jobs is something that they tangibly see and feel. Now I'm not making an argument to abandon debt reduction, it's a very important issue and one that if debt gets out of control, will have huge ramifications to it. What I'm saying is that the party should talk about growth and jobs first and foremost, and then communicate it effectively in how that can improve one's personal situation, more so to the lower and middle class, and that it could give you more opportunities in climbing the economic latter. And then Segway that in how pro growth policies, while eliminating wasteful programs and having a clear vision on entitlement reform will help lead this country to long-term economic sustainability. And since we are (or at least I am) talking about brand, the tea party has a big branding issue. Again, right or wrong, public opinion on the tea party has consistently been in the deep red over the past couple years, although they have recently received a bump, I'm guessing because of the IRS deal.

 

They are receiving a bump because after years of hearing batschitt crazy Republicans talk about what a bad idea it was going to be to put a community organizer in charge of the country, they are now realizing it wasn't batschitt crazy and Barack Obama is so far out of his league that he's left to do mop-up mid-term campaigning and baby kissing so he doesn't lose everyone at the same time.

 

That said, your comments above are spot on. While we can talk about the reasons Barack Obama won in 2008, you can't have that conversation without bringing up the fact that he ran against a guy who reminded America of a Tim Conway character. And the right person needs to stop relying on high-profile speeches in high-profile venues and get into the cities where the pain is. You'll never win if you don't go where the real pain is.

[Gene Frenkle]

I don't have a problem with social conservatives, there is obviously a large constituency who wants to have their voices heard, where I have a problem with some social conservatives is when they begin to say bat schitt crazy loony tune comments that hurt the conservative movement. Let's put it this way, and this is a fact that some of you fail to grasp, which is BRAND MATTERS! There is a huge branding issue with the GOP, young people and non whites generally don't like Republicans. Right or wrong, they think they are the party of non-science, the party that protects the rich and the party that generally speaking doesn't care about the poor and non-whites. That's their view, not mine. So it's important to re brand the party so that they can win state wide and national elections, so that they can implement their economic conservative agenda. Doesn't mean you have to give up your conservative economic principles, at all, just means you have to be politically smarter. For instance, get more in tune with people outside of your main constituency, which primarily consists of mid to older aged whites. Communicate more effectively your economic message, the conservative economic message is a stronger one to make than the liberal one. Don't just talk about debt reduction, talk about growth, a la Jack Kemp. Reforming the tax code, communicating how more economic opportunities can arise so that you can climb up the social economic latter under conservative leadership. Stay away from the social issues. It's a political loser on the national level... The times are changing, and the party that doesn't change with the times, will get left behind. Like it or not, politics matter.

There's a lot of evidence to back a lot of that up. I agree, if the GOP stuck to economic policy issues instead of trying to legislate morals at every turn, they'd be a much more attractive option than the Dems in a lot of ways. The trouble is, they just can't seem to help themselves from venturing into those areas. Especially in the South. Even the Tea Party, which is obnoxious because it was allegedly founded on strictly economic principals. The GOP is currently far too intolerant to be inclusive.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Yeah, because the lack of morally conscious people have done such a fine job managing our government, or winning elections for the Rs recently.

 

Like anything else, this argument lacks balance. You make it too many times, and push the pendulum to far to one side, and you get the inevitable swingback that makes you wrong, and look foolish.

 

Why elect candidates that seek to placate the morally and intellectually vacuous left? Why not elect those who educate them, and also to help them to grow up a little more, and understand that rainbows and unicorns do not = governing in a real and dangerous world?

 

Why would you bother making such an absurd strawman?

 

I take no issue at all with folks on the right, or left for that matter, holding to a personal morality; or even using a pulpit of power to speak to that personal morality.

 

What I take huge issue with, and will never support at the ballot box, are those who declare their own morality to be superior and then attempt to legislate it. i don't disagree one bit with your "educate and lead", but education and leadership only equates to government coersion in Orwellian nightmares.

 

If your ideas are superior, and you possess the ability to lead, argue your morality, and let the people follow you.

 

Put the power of the state behind you, and you're nothing but a new Mao.

[IDBillzFan]

What I take huge issue with, and will never support at the ballot box, are those who declare their own morality to be superior and then attempt to legislate it.

 

Then you'll really love this story.

 

http://www.huffingto...kusaolp00000003

 

The California State Senate on Wednesday passed a bill that would strip the Boy Scouts of nonprofit status in California because of the group's anti-gay discrimination.

 

The bill, introduced by Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Long Beach), would revoke the tax-exempt status of all California youth groups that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. The legislation received wide support in the Senate, passing 27-9 -- the first lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender-related bill to pass the Senate with a two-thirds majority.

 

The Boy Scouts of America ended its longtime ban on openly gay scouts earlier this month, but the 103-year old organization continues to bar gay scout leaders.

 

"While the Boy Scouts of America took a step in the right direction to include LGBT youth, the standing ban on LGBT adults is premised on absurd assumptions and stereotypes that perpetuate homophobia and ignorance," Lara, who became the first openly gay person of color elected to the state senate in 2011, said in a statement. "Equality doesn't come with an expiration date and we shouldn’t allow discrimination to be subsidized; not in our state, not on our dime."

[jjamie12]

The left has consistantly tried to brand the Tea Party as racists, far right evangelicals, and any extreme they can think of. Simply put, if you read the various Tea Party mission statements you will find that they explicitly state that they take no position on social issues. They are concerned with national debt and are big on the Constitution.

The only issue with this is that, no matter what is in any of the various Tea Party mission statements, they are backing people that are absolutely taking positions on social issues, oftentimes in a really clumsy and alienating way to people who might otherwise vote for those people. People will always associate any 'party' with the people they back. The Tea Party is no exception to that.

[Magox]

"Minnesota businessman Jim Graves, a top Democratic recruit who had been planning a rematch against Rep. Michele Bachmann next year, abruptly suspended his campaign Friday morning — two days after Bachmann announced she wouldn’t be seeking reelection.

Graves, who nearly knocked off Bachmann in November, launched his campaign last month and was in Washington last week to meet with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. He released a poll showing him with a slight lead over Bachmann in a 2014 rematch. But with the controversial Bachmann out of the race, Graves faced an even tougher path in a conservative suburban Twin Cities district broke for Mitt Romney by nearly 15 percent."

 

Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz2Ut6x4gaw

Edited May 31, 2013 by Magox

[TakeYouToTasker]

Then you'll really love this story.

 

http://www.huffingto...kusaolp00000003

Restrictions on the freedom of association are always an abomination.

[TheMadCap]

The only issue with this is that, no matter what is in any of the various Tea Party mission statements, they are backing people that are absolutely taking positions on social issues, oftentimes in a really clumsy and alienating way to people who might otherwise vote for those people. People will always associate any 'party' with the people they back. The Tea Party is no exception to that.

 

No, read John Adam's post (#49) above. Tea Party isn't endorsing them, it is more like they are claiming association with the movement. One huge mistake they made was not making it clear that Bachmann, Palin, etc do not speak for the party...

[GG]

No, read John Adam's post (#49) above. Tea Party isn't endorsing them, it is more like they are claiming association with the movement. One huge mistake they made was not making it clear that Bachmann, Palin, etc do not speak for the party...

 

As well as Engle and that witchie woman from Delaware.

[Telepathic]

Sorta, their economic message is decent, but they are too obsessed with short-term debt reduction. While deficit reduction is very important, it's not seen nearly as important as economic growth, or one's own personal employment situation. For a lot of people, they know having too much debt is a bad thing, but they really don't understand how. They hear that it's harmful, yet they don't really see the effects of it, whereas economic growth and jobs is something that they tangibly see and feel. Now I'm not making an argument to abandon debt reduction, it's a very important issue and one that if debt gets out of control, will have huge ramifications to it. What I'm saying is that the party should talk about growth and jobs first and foremost, and then communicate it effectively in how that can improve one's personal situation, more so to the lower and middle class, and that it could give you more opportunities in climbing the economic latter. And then Segway that in how pro growth policies, while eliminating wasteful programs and having a clear vision on entitlement reform will help lead this country to long-term economic sustainability. And since we are (or at least I am) talking about brand, the tea party has a big branding issue. Again, right or wrong, public opinion on the tea party has consistently been in the deep red over the past couple years, although they have recently received a bump, I'm guessing because of the IRS deal.

 

[jjamie12]

No, read John Adam's post (#49) above. Tea Party isn't endorsing them, it is more like they are claiming association with the movement. One huge mistake they made was not making it clear that Bachmann, Palin, etc do not speak for the party...

If what you say is true then why didn't they 'make it clear'? I don't buy the idea that Bachman and Palin hijacked the Tea Party. If the 'Tea Party' didn't like them, I'm quite confident 'they' would have made those feeling clear, and in a very public way. It's not like these folks are afraid to speak their mind...

The problem is that the Tea Party's general platform on economic matters is very rigid (which is fine) with little room for compromise (Really smart people might even argue that 'compromise' is what got us in the 'debt mess' in the first place). It's not surprising, though, that people who are generally rigid in their thinking on economic matters would also be generally rigid in their thinking on social issues, as well. Throw in the general notion that Fiscal Conservatives tend to be (note I said 'tend', I didn't say that all) Socially Conservative and, voila -- You've got rigid social conservatives representing the Tea Party, alienating lots of people with their perceived crazy.

 

I understand why you and 3rdnlng and a few others *want* the Tea Party to be what you want it to be, I just think you'd have better luck with the Libertarians.

Edited May 31, 2013 by jjamie12