http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-way-forward/2012/11/08/6592e302-29d8-11e2-96b6-8e6a7524553f_story.html

 

 

Charles is wrong.  The mistake Charles makes is viewing the Republican party as being conservative, and that is the problem.  It is not.  It is the party that constantly looks at every liberal idea, and in a complete reactive mode, proposes giving you precisely half of what the Democrats offer.  That's supposed to sway votes?

For too long the Republican party has simply been an avenue to avoid having to deal with the Democrat apatratus. That was why Romney went Republican to run for senate, Governor, and eventually, President. He is moderate, at best. He is the example of a "republican" Democrats supposedly could vote for.

But, who did Democrats vote for? Who did the moderates vote for?  If the strategy Romney pursued was correct, he should have won in a landslide, as McCain should have.  Bottom line, this strategy of trying to out moderate the Democrats is fools gold.  Always will be. 

Many have said that the eelction is a popularity contest, kinda like High School.  The Republicans pull up to the dance in their parents chevy wagon, the Democrats pull up in a brand new Corvette their parents bought for them.  Which car is going to be more attractive to the cheerleaders?

The Republicans don't need to borrow a corvette, they need to skip the dance, forget about hanging with the cool kids who will never accept them, and work on their future.

Here's what needs to happen.  Conservatives need to leave the party and form a third party.  Or, more honestly, the moderates in the party need to go home, their home is the Democrat party. 

The Republican establishment has treated the conservative movement like a part of the family that grew up on the poor side of the tracks.  They invite them to Thanksgiving, and pray the don't actually show up.

Well, time to not show up, conservatives.  time to do our own thing.

 

 

Who cares about the GOP ! All they have to do is get out the way. America Has Spoken !

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Conservatives cut themselves out of the G.O.P. and form a third party?  Then you guarantee the Democrats win for the next generation or so.

Do you really think that Romney did not win because he was not conservative enough?  Do you think that more of the young, women and minorities would vote for someone still more conservative than Romney?  Ryan was more conservative and he could not even win his home state. 

That "I'm right, the rest of the world is wrong" ideology is making it quite difficult for you to think this out.

In response to nhsteven's comment:

The GOP is the party of angry white men. Their time has past. They leave a sad legacy of hate, greed, hypocrisy, intolerance, war mongering, racism and religious fanaticism.

In response to Reubenhop's comment:

No, conservtives win.  In fact, it is a win-win.  The Democrat party would become flooded with the moderates  , meaning the Democrats would no longer be able to nominate the ee for the past few cycles.

I view that as a win-win for America.

In response to AlleyCatBruin's comment:

Drop the scales from your eyes.  You are describing your party and Obama to a "T".

The Republicans, to the extent they are anything is a party of wanna-be's.  If you want to use this election as a measure, nearly half the country voted republican.  that includes a lot of women and minorities.

This post has been removed.

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Ofcourse you do!LOLOLOL

In response to AlleyCatBruin's comment:

That's your problem, Alley.  You can't think outside your catbox.  Do I think the Republicans will follow my advice?  Only if they want to win.  The way to win is twofold:  Make the Democrats more moderate, ie. absorb the Republican establsihment, and letthe conservatives stand on their own.

I call that a win-win.

Your position will be stolen from you like a thief in the night.  you won't even know it is gone.

 

In response to skeeter20's comment:

I think there's some merit to this idea - the tea party crowd, like them or not, are honest about their ideas.  They want to stop all spending on social programs and entitlements, they want to protect gun rights, make abortion illegal, and deport anybody in the country illegally.  They favor military spending, and are hawkish on foreign policy.

But if you ran a tea party candidate third-party for President, (s)he would likely win 20 of the 23 states that Romney won.  The tea party is what creates all these automatic red states for the republicans - if you want proof, overlay the electoral map with the primary map, and you'll see that the blue states, that could never deliver a president, are the states that got to choose Romney.  The red states, that actually did their job, voted for Santorum or Gingrich, primarily.

Then the moderate Republicans could say the things they actually believe - that they don't want to get rid of government entirely, that FEMA is important, that the health care system was and is still broken and unsustainable, and that social programs are important, but that we need sensible reform.  As a liberal, there are things about the party that I don't like - I'm not a big fan of unions, particularly public unions, and pension reform is one of the most pressing needs our country faces.  I'd love for a candidate to come in and say we're going to do an efficiency review of every department to make sure gov't employees are paid a wage comensurate with the private sector, and doing comparable quality and quantity of work.  That kind of moderate Republican candidate could attract Dems, but not if he's talking out the other side of his mouth to the tea party crowd.

I think a third party would have a lot fewer people holding their noses when casting their ballots.

 

In response to slomag's comment:

+1

In response to jmel's comment:

Right jmel America did speak and a majority said we don't want the GOP getting in the way. Do you know that more Americans ,almost a half a million ,voted for House Democrats than they did House GOP? The only reason why the GOP kept control of the House was gerrymandering.

This post has been removed.

In response to AlleyCatBruin's comment:

You are a one -dimensional thinker.

Consider the impact to the extreme left if certain key elected republicans defected tothe democrats.  What happens to the democrats?  they become more moderate, and will as a result will elect more moderate candidates.

Moderates, if they really are moderates, and not just LOL (liberals without label) would see the benefit of this plan.

Unlike you, I am not wedded to a party, but towards the health and wealth of this country.

I think you could actually break the GOP into three camps - the moderates, the tea party, and the libertarians.  The moderates could cut into the right side of the Dem base and the libertarians could cut into the left side of the Dem base.  

The tea party has to be really angry right now - they stand helpless as the blue states pick their candidate, then watch as he transforms into a Dem in the 30 days before the election.  

If you had an official tea party third party right now, 80 percent of Republicans in the senate would flip.   They're all in deep red states and would never survive a challenge.  McConnell in KY?  The Senate minority leader?  The tea party could have some degree of power - not a majority, but at least somebody who represents their views.

Nothing would be better for the country than the demise of the two-party state.

In response to slomag's comment:

Interesting.  That may be what is needed, for the TEA party to cause the "moderate" republicans to flip to the democrats.  I see that as a win, as the Democrat party will by sheer force become at least as moderate as the republican party was, and isolate the liberals to the fringe of the Democrat party.

I am not locked to party affiliation like many here.

All the GOP can do is try to force Obama and Reid to the middle and prevent far left policies as much as possible.

Its the way it's intended to work by the way.

If Obama leads; we will have a working govt; if, he doesnt we will have gridlock for 4 more years.

You can continue to blame the minority party.

 

In response to tvoter's comment:

For many in the GOP (and here), even the 'middle' is too far to the left.

Why should they not have to budge themselves in order to compromise...?

It still takes two to tango.

 

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

I disagree.  If anything, Romney staked out a postion solidly in the middle.  Obama was way to the left.  The Republican party in general has distanced themselves from the right.

Like it or not (I happen to not like it), the Repbulcans sit squarely in the middle, and OBama a bit to the left.

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Romney was an imperfect candidate but grudgingly got my vote.  A more conservative candidate would have lost more traditional GOP voters, as a would have sat it out.

As per my post the other day the GOP must evolve to remain viable.  The conservative social positions alienate too many diverse factions of voters who would support the GOP position on smaller federal governement, local control, individual rights while supporting a strong private sector.

You can't alienate 2/3 of the women, 75% of Latinos and 90% of GLBTs and expect to win,..the math doesn't work.  Many voters have hot button issues that cause them to vote against, and the GOP was successful in finding them.  But if the GOP drops some of its restrictive traditional social platforms and develops a pragmatic problem solving immigration platform; they can win on the big picture view of governace.

In response to jmel's comment:

Then I guess the GOP went with a pretty sh!tty candidate, eh?

This post has been removed.

[/QUOTE]

I disagree.  If anything, Romney staked out a postion solidly in the middle.  Obama was way to the left.  The Republican party in general has distanced themselves from the right.

Like it or not (I happen to not like it), the Repbulcans sit squarely in the middle, and OBama a bit to the left.

[/QUOTE]

 

Of course you disagree.  But that is just your ideology talking.  The facts say different.  Obama won the election in a two man race.  Obama won more of the middle than Romney.  Get it?