National Council for a New America?


So which is it Jon?  The world as you see it or as Mitt sees it?

The event seemed more like the opening Town Hall meeting of Primary 2012 with all the usual faces the voters have rejected.  They call it re-branding the GOP, but when are they going to get it, chasing the brand leader always leaves you facing the donkey’s … well you know where that goes.

Here’s what sounds disingenuous.  Compare Senator Kyl’s attitude as expressed with the words coming out of Mitt and Jeb’s mouth’s.   To explain, we’ll visit the recent past.

Understand what the role of the state party is [he means the grassroots right?] … the role of the state party is to elect Republicans to office.  [He means if they uphold the Party Platform or not] Period. The role of elected officials is to take positions on issues … [the state party exists] to register voters. They need to raise money for the candidates. They need to get-out-the-vote on Election Day.  [Do you see where he puts the thoughts and interests of the people he expects to renew his employment contract?]

Senator Jon Kyl exhibiting his contempt for anyone daring to have an opinion on an issue, especially if they are active members of his own party.  Here’s the full interview from 2007 when Kyl was throwing his weight behind Lisa James in an effort to oust Randy Pullen as State Party Chairman.

“When the party itself got involved in the illegal immigration issue, it seemed to me that it exceeded its role because, clearly, Republicans were divided. It’s just not a proper role for the political party to get into.” [Doesn’t matter that his views are at odds with 80% of the country’s voters]

Senator Kyl contends the party exists to get Republicans elected, period.

This brings us to Mittens and Jeb … minus Sarah Palin of course [did you notice they invited her only after Rush Limbaugh mentioned her absence?]

GOP Leaders Begin

Effort to Re-energize Party

So here’s the conflicting statement:

“We have the opportunity instead to come from the grass roots and listen to the people and to look at different options for different strategies by listening to the people of America and having different voices and different Republicans and different leaders step forward and that’s what we are going to do,” he said. “We are not going to have just one idea that comes from one place.”  [Mitt Romney]

Of course, is this another name for the Republican Big Tent Shadegg was talking about?  What are ‘different’ Republicans?

Is this the new brand look?


Comments

  1. Conservative does not mean Republican says:

    VV,

    If you had your way, the party would wither faster than a flower in the Arizona summer. I believe in ideological fidelity. It is a critical part of conservatism. However, if the Republican brand image is to recover, we do have to have different voices in the party. The perception in America right now is that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity give marching orders to the party. Would it hurt to have a more diverse base of leaders? Is it bad that a more moderate Republican like Michael Steele is the GOP chairman? I don’t think so. It shows that we are able to tolerate differences of opinion within a certain range.

    Too many Republicans have been hell bent on making illegal immigratition the litmus test for “true conservatives.” Where has that taken the party? Absolutely nowhere. How did the immigration candidate, Tom Tancredo, perform in the primaries? He made a fool out of himself. If you want the party to become a one-trick pony with its main focus on immigration, why not form a new third party- the “Illegal Alien” Party perhaps?

  2. “This brings us to Mittens and Jeb … minus Sarah Palin of course [did you notice they invited her only after Rush Limbaugh mentioned her absence?]”

    Yes, I did – which means we have confirmation of who controls the Republican Party – the lunatic fringe. I just spent the last 10 minutes listening to him (which is about as much as I can stand before his egotism raises the gorge in the back of my through), and he basically admitted to loving being feared.

    He tried to claim it as “well, that means I’m presenting a relevant opposition to Obama, etc.” but it’s a dangerous narcissism which causes him to say the things he does (and Bachmann, Beck, etc). Sure it gets attention, and it also drives people to the Democratic Party at best, and at worst, make them independent.

    Keep boiling down the party to it’s purest elements, and you’re on a fine path to becoming some sort of Bizzaro Confederacy.

  3. Veritas Vincit says:

    Actually, the numbers do not indicate anyone is being *driven* to either party.

    The only *party* that has been growing substantially is the “non-of-the-above” Independents.

    Kyl’s vision is a top down driven party; what we hear Mitt and Jeb talking about is more of a socially softer bottom up driven party.

    Question: Which is it?

  4. Veritas Vincit says:

    This thread is *not* about Rush Limbaugh or immigration. Its about two visions of what Republican means and how its managed.

  5. Jim Small says:

    I just wanted to clarify that the interview you quote from was originally printed in the Arizona Capitol Times, not the blog you linked to.

    http://www.azcapitoltimes.com/freestory.cfm?id=6237

    Thank you.

    Jim Small

  6. You sure about that, VV.

    From the National Journal (not exactly a liberal rag):

    Combined Gallup data showed a 1-point Republican edge for 2003, while the two parties were exactly even in 2004. Then the great divide began.

    Democrats pulled to an 8-point advantage for the calendar year 2008, with a 7-point edge for the fourth quarter of 2008: 35 percent Democrat, 28 percent Republican and 35 percent independent.

    Indeed, since the fourth quarter of 2006, Republican Party identification has consistently remained below 30 percent. When those who profess they are independents are asked if they lean to one major party or the other, and those preferences are factored in, the Democratic advantage balloons to 13 points, 52-39 percent.

    Full story here:

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/ot_20090505_8759.php

    Hannity always refers to Rove as “The Architect”. You all might want to look at what Rove built, and what you are now consigned to.

  7. Veritas Vincit says:

    Klute, you are using a snapshot of one Administration during an unpopular war.

    Extend your data out over time say from 1976 to 2006 and watch the numbers fluctuate like a dance.

    From 1928 to 1944 the Democrats ruled America, then things shifted again.

  8. azmesan says:

    The Party is leaving the people not the people leaving the Party. My views haven’t changed, I’m still for smaller government, lower taxes, financial reponsibility, etc.

    The problem is our elected officials have stopped listening to the citizen that elected them.

    Our elected officials have left us.

    Under the Republican control the government grew, financial responsibility went out the window, and freedoms were lost.

    and We are now complaining about the Democrats.

    The Republican and Democrats have become one. We are no long left or right on the scale. We are only up or down on a line as we slide to total government control.

    It is time for new blood in Washington and I’m not talking about the Obamas of the world. We need people with an understanding of the constitution.

  9. And if you had a time machine and we concerned about party makeup from 1976 to 2006, you could do something about that.

    But we’re talking about going forward, and the foundation the GOP is building the future of the party on is that *extremely* unpopular administration and the unpopular war they championed. An administration that is also not going away – Rove is Fox almost every day; Cheney, unsatisfied with almost destroying the party keeps coming back to finish the job. The GOP is consulting people like Dana Perino and Ken Mehlman. Condi Rice is quoting Richard Nixon, post-Watergate. It’s a dammed freakshow.

    Beyond that, who’s the face of the party? Palin, whose life resembles an episode of “Cops… in Wasilla”? Limbaugh, who demands such orthodoxy that elected officials feel the need to apologize after even the most mild criticisms? Steele, who is a national punchline and whom the party is attempting to strip of power? Gingrich, who left the public eye in disgrace? Bachmann, who should be fitted for a full tin-foil ensemble? Romney, who couldn’t beat the one-two punch of McCain-Huckabee?

    Tell me, which one of these – or any of the party’s people jockeying for power – actually resonates with the American people? Because so far, the bones you’re rolling are coming up snake-eyes.

    You’re driving moderates out of the party. You’re alieniating whole parts of the country. You had the reins of power from ’98 to ’06 (perhaps even further back to ’94), and what people remember are the massive deficits, the change of mood in the country from loyal oppositionry to “us vs. them”, and two grinding, bloody wars (only one of which was actually necessary).

    Maybe the wilderness will be good for the GOP.

  10. I say it is time to tell
    Senators Kyl and McCain that they work for us and we will decide what we want our party to look like. It will be a cold day in Arizona before you will see me work for either of them. It takes a lot of nerve to say that the party is not to stand up for the party platform and just blindly support anyone who calls themselves a Republican.

  11. Veritas Vincit says:

    There is little product differentiation between the two major parties; hence the growth of the Independents.

  12. Veritas Vincit says:

    Klute, should we talk about Pelosi, Feinstein, Schumer, Barny Frank and the rest of the radical democratic freak show?

    That’s the problem – both parties have become a caricature of themselves in a 30 second sound bite.

  13. At the national level the GOP’s problem is how to remove the mark of the disastrous George W. Bush Presidency. I know many on this board will say he wasn’t a real conservative, etc., but the truth is the American public views him and the GOP Congress he worked with as the actual embodiment of conservatism as a political philosophy and governing method. They have completely lost faith in conservatism’s and by extension the GOP’s ability to lead in foreign affairs, domestic affairs, economic affairs, etc.

    As I mentioned many, even some of the well-know political figures, will say Bush didn’t govern in a conservative manner, but the truth is the past eight years have been spent defending every ruinous policy of the administration – from the completely unnecessary Iraq invasion, to the total failure to have any kind of domestic agenda which he ran on as “compassionate conservatism.”

    Every single one of the national GOP leaders mentioned in the articles linked to including Romney, Boehner, McConnell, Palin, Jeb Bush, are tainted with this and the only way the GOP is going to get “re-energized” is when it has leaders who don’t remind people of the GOP Bush years. It will also probably come through some final confrontation between the religious and fiscal conservative agendas. I see this as very similar to what happened after Carter with the Democrats. Not until Clinton did they have someone who had nothing to do with that time period and by largely jettisoning the economic left agenda he appeared to be carving a new path although it was mostly aligned with many conservative principles of Reagan and only deviated in some social issues.

  14. Mad Gramma B says:

    “Today we find an improvident Republican Party lost in the political wilderness. As the GOP seeks to find its own Promised Land — a return to majority leadership — it has, to its own detriment, rebelled against the core conservative principles solemnized within its own party platform. … The American people must demand much more. Many have forsaken the GOP because it first forsook them. Yet the party’s ideologically emaciated leaders remain oblivious to the obvious. If the GOP wishes to reverse its spiral into the abyss of irrelevancy, it must, in word and deed, make a bold, unapologetic return to the fiscally and socially conservative policies that fueled the Reagan revolution.” by Matt Barber
    “A ruling intelligentsia (indeed an oxymoron, emphasis mine ), whether in Europe, Asia or Africa, treats the masses as raw material to be experimented on, processed, and wasted at will”. –Eric Hoffer .
    THE REAL AGENDA IN A LIBERAL GOVERNMENT IS A SUBVERIVE SOCIALISTIC AGENDA
    While operating hundreds of major fronts in every field including science, medicine, politics, media, education, religion, environmental issues, civil rights, racial platforms, taxation, government policies and giving status and rights to illegal aliens and exploiting minority groups, leftists continue to exploit our Constitution. By using so many ploys, cleverly based on the specific appeal to teachers, writers, lawyers, judges, women, minorities and the most impressionable, our youth they attack us from within. The Free speech Amendment exploited negatively by eliminating God on one hand and embracing vulgarity, pornography and anti American statements more treasonous and more dangerous than any of the foreign enemies we face today.
    Mr Watts said, Republicans Are No Better!
    “Republican voters, by avoiding “the will” to do anything is as nonsensical as saying “I want a bath, but I don’t want to get wet.” The excuse du jour –“What can I do?”, “I had a scheduling conflict”, “I am sooo busy”, I have other very important things I have to do!” — is the equivalent of “my dog ate my homework.” All of us, in life, make time for things that are important to us. It’s a matter of priorities, is our country worth our time? Then use your time actively working to change what is rotten in government by going to your district meetings. Keyboards don’t change politics grassroots people do.

Speak Your Mind

*