Republicans need to distinguish themselves more if they want to retain voters
By Jason Gillman on October 28, 2009 2:40 am / 5 comments
I wanted to attend the Speak Up, Speak Out forum concerning political identities as a Democrat or Republican.
But, unfortunately, I couldn’t due to class conflicts. With that said, the Central Michigan Life story previewing the event pretty much told me what I expected: Many Republicans can’t differentiate themselves from the Democrats.
The GOP Web site makes a slew of claims contradictory within themselves to those whose best known members pretty much kicked out the door.
For example, the site claims people know how to handle their money better than government.
I too believe that individuals can manage money better than Uncle Sam, but how do the Republicans act in practical application?
They gave us a $700 billion bailout that is leveraged on our kids’ future earnings signed by a Republican president.
When you have a Republican president claiming he is “abandoned free market principles to save the free market system,” what is there to differentiate themselves from the Democrats?
It should not be any surprise why the Republicans lost back in November, and it is not because they didn’t go for the moderate vote.
Rather, it is because the small-L libertarians, who might have normally voted Republican, couldn’t find the differentiation between a candidate who sponsored legislation assaulting free speech (McCain-Feingold) and a candidate who made hollow promises of “hope and change” and socialized medicine.
Bob Barr got their votes.
Then, of course, there’s the whole thing with Newt Gingrich hopping on the “We need to do something to stop global warming now!” bandwagon. Ok, Newt. Are you writing for the Daily Kos now?
Don’t get me wrong, there are those with the Republican label that actually stand for limited government and free markets — Ron Paul and Jack Hoogendyk are two that come to mind — but, unfortunately, a majority of the Republicans out there bear no real differentiation from the leftists.
Contrary to what some net commentators think, who don’t even have the courage enough to write a letter under their name, I happen to fall into that “small-L” libertarian category.
Yes, Virginia, I did call out Bush on his bailout.
Many Republicans clamor the party needs to take a “big-tent” approach. That’s ridiculous. That approach inherently means the party does not have any core principles on which it distinguishes itself.
If that’s the case, I might as well vote Libertarian. Then I at least know that I’m not getting some rino like Olympia Snowe.
If the Republicans put up another candidate like John McCain for president in 2012, I’ll be voting Libertarian. If the party wants to win, it needs to get back to the principles of limited government instead of trying to appease the leftists.
We saw what appeasement got us in World War II.
Like us on Facebook
Recent Comments
- : no, this girl is insane. i went to high school with her. she…
- irish8517: While rate my professors is a valuable tool it should be tak…
- michmediaperson: Shapiro is wrong. Isn't RateMyProfessor, the report card st…
- Kellie: We miss miss you Carolyn. You still are remember on the socc…
- anonymous: I know this girl was in the wrong, but, put yourself in her …
AD LINKS
• Is your baby graduating CMU? Place a personal greeting and photo in CM Life's Baby Graduates special pages. Download the form here
• Contact local movers in Mount Pleasant to help with all of your moving needs.
• Download Campus Cash Coupons!
• Search for local apartments
• Add your link here
5 Comments
I’m all for a split in the Republican Party instead of a reasoned moderate approach. Sure, the Republican’s most consistent voters are very conservative, but it’s the center in this nation that decides elections. Keep heading right, keep bringing assault rifles to rallies, and keep Sarah Palin at the top of your list, because this President will need another term to enact his agenda.
Congrats on a column that isn’t filled with URLs. This is actually a more principled and well-thought out (though erroneous) column. I’m not sure whose talking points you’re echoing (calling McCain-Feingold a limit on free speech is the sort of thing that people with millions of dollars and a media outlet are likely to do), but at least you’re a bit more articulate in regurgitating them.
Joe M,
Funny about your bit regarding assualt rifles but you seem to forget about the Black Panthers taking over the polling booths of a Philly voting precinct… Oh wait, you wouldn’t know about that because Keith Olbermann didn’t go off on it in one of his many rants that somehow result on X Republican labeled “worst person in the world”. Politics hypocrocies crack me up.
First, George Bush was never a “conservative” at his core. Peggy Noonan said it well, the Republicans need a big tent where we can compromise or be tolerant on fringe issues, but must all be rooted in the core principals of lower taxes, smaller government, and fiscal responsibility. The Repubs were AWFUL under Bush when it came to fiscal constraint, which turned off the base. Unfortunately, Repubs are STILL in the wilderness without a true leader of the cause. Palin isn’t it, neither is Newt. The only reason Rush, Hannity, and Beck get so much airplay is that they are unintentionally filling the leadership vacuum that exists. The teaparties showed that there is a movement… but it lacks a leader.
I don’t even have a television, dave. As for voter intimidation, I’m against it in any way shape or form. The vote is sacred and speech that intimidates is an abomination. But don’t pretend you fail to make a distinction between one man carrying a night stick while shouting things at voters and carrying an assault rifle to a venue where the President is speaking.
My point was that the fringe right elements (just like fringe left elements) turn people away from the Republicans. In my estimation, that’s a good thing for the Democrats– it allows their Big Tent to work, which means that the Progressive Caucus has influence. Now, I’m way to the left of the Dems, but they have to do the job of representing me at the moment because candidates with ideologies I like are unelectable in the present system. The wackos that the Republican surrogates like Rush and Hannity (both of whom I listen to regularly on the radio) court are the ones running moderates off.
If there is anything dumber than a Democrat or a Republican – it’s when they work together.
You people are segmenting of your mind and being led by your parties straight to hell. Neither of them care about you, your well being, your family or your country. Because they are large conglomerates – they can’t have specific approaches to every situation or even consistent view across the entire party. Thus signaling the futility of joining or trying to mantain your views with a party.
The only things that tend to be true (well not anymore) is that Conservatives (supposedly) want a smaller federal government and Liberals (supposedly) was a large federal government. The last Republican in office enlarged the size of the federal government by at least half if not more. This current democrat goes back on all of his promises and does nothing but waste money.
Of course money is nothing but worthless paper, political parties are nothing but a waste of our intellect and candidates from all sectors want nothing but more for themselves/less for everyone else.
The only things their good for – is to get people pissed off at one another without sound reason, knowledge of the opponent or rationality. All we have is our little depreciated connotations. Which amount to nothing.
Make up your own mind.