Main | Toxic Conservatives & GOP Decline »

March 16, 2009



I'm intrigued, and I'm not a single-issue voter. I am, however, concerned about clarity. It isn't clear to me what your interest is. I think we need some clarity on core ideals we'd like to see in a 'big tent' approach to the next election. That necessarily means some people will either exclude themselves or be excluded by the values & goals of this organization.

I thought McCain was fatally wounded - from the start - by his ideological overlap with Hilary. It was only the addition of Sarah that made it a fight. She pulled the conservatives back into the party - good chance many would have otherwise sat out the election. And I think Obama won ONLY because he was able to outspend McCain 6:1. Had they had equal funding, I doubt Obama would now be President - and McCain would owe a big debt to Sarah.

That said, we really need to know how the Republicans are NOT the Democrats. A clear articulation, and key differences, will draw many more people from the demographics McCain lost, Bush frittered away, but Reagan originally drew. (This is not a mindless plug for Reaganomics - but I don't think he can be summarily dumped either. His vision was clear, distinct, and different from his opponents - and it worked. There are lessons to be learned there, and platforms to be kept.)

So, ideology is important. Not simply "vote Sarah" as a personality cult thing. I'd like to know why you too think Sarah is the right candidate. What does she stand for that's appealing to you, and that will appeal to the majority?

Stephen R Maloney

I'll respond more later. Sarah stands for freedom, tolerance, and economic opportunity -- her words. She also stands for integrity and energy independence. I believe that people vote on personality, not on "issues" as we wonks usually describe them. They also vote for deep psychological reasons as Shelby Steele recently pointed out in his essay portraying the 2008 election as mainly reflecting expiation of guilt felt by whites over the past mistreatment of Blacks. That was a factor Republicans barely acknowledged (or understood), and one they didn't really confront effectively. Democrats, back to FDR, largely believe in a dependency society. Republicans believe in a maximum degree of independence. The questions you raise are good ones, and I don't have all the answers. Answers from those who do will be gratefully accepted. :-)


We're largely in agreement. My concern, growing over the last decade, has been that the "maximum degree" of independence is too much a shifting set of parameters, it's no longer tethered to a core notion - or not well tethered, or not consistently, or something. That is, it is not clear to me that what is pragmatically understood as "maximum" today contains as much independence as we took for granted in, say 1960 (not to mention earlier). I'd like to see some, perhaps in-house, conversation about the founders' sensibilities on that and other issues - as a way to adjust our vision beyond immediate political realities and assumptions.

We do need good, electable "packages," but they need to have "content" that aligns with the Republican values you summarized in a way that strengthens and expands freedom, tolerance, opportunity, integrity, energy independence, etc. I don't want to elect someone who's electable but likely to compromise on the wrong issues. (I suspect McCain lacked conservative support because he looks like the wrong kind of Republican - whereas Sara looks like the right kind, and made it acceptable for conservatives to re-engage with McC. The chatter was around the hope that she would be able to influence him if she was the reason he got elected.)

Stephen R Maloney

Even though I hear Sarah Palin has some issues with Lorenzo Benet's book about her ("Trail Blazer"), it gives great insight into her early life and her parents. They lived in Skagway, 100 miles north of Juneau. It was a very isolated community -- children thought bananas had black skins because that was the only way they ever saw them. Sarah's father taught her (at age 4 & 5) how to box, and she used to box against her older brother, Chuch, among others. The kind of rugged idividualism she learned and still practices is foreign to most of us in the "lower-48." If for some reason the grocery store closed, we'd probably starve to death. In Skagway, there really wasn't any food store as we know them. If they wanted meat or fish, they had to shoot or catch it. The job of the liberal Democrats is easier than ours. Their motto seems to be: "Open your mouth real wide, little bird, and we'll put a worm in it." The notion that ultimately we're responsible for ourselves and our families (to the degree we're able) is foreign to the Left. The problem is that socialist societies (France, Great Britain, Germany) have low economic growth and high unemployment, but they have "great benefits." Anyway, the issues you raise are the ones we'll grapple with in the months and years ahead. Today's article on J.D. Hayworth shows the problem with the hard-right approach. It attracts conservatives, but it doesn't appeal much to anyone else. I've said of John McCain, who has known some tough guys in his life, that Sarah is probably the toughest, most dedicated person he's ever met. She doesn't sleep very much, getting up just about every morning at 4 a.m., checking the Internet, making sure the younger children are okay, and then heading off to the office at 7 a.m. I believe Sarah mystifies John McCain. A spoiled child like Meghan McCain has no understanding of unspoiled Sarah.


I don't think it would be wise for the Republican party to keep heading down this PC path trying to get the minority vote. Its now going to work. Not in this life time anyways. I grew up in an inner city (Newark NJ), I lived in a 99% minority city from the Mid 1970's to early 1980's. So Dudes stop it already, I can tell you all that there is NOOO waaay you will EVER pull a bulk of the minority vote. Not going to happen.. So in my opinion to attempt to pull votes from inner cities and minorities is a Big waste of money $$. Dem's. & Rep's. have different values & princliples so unless you all as Reps. change up on your views and try to be more giving away and liberal then you will lose more votes from your own base than gain them. You will NEVER pull a big enough chunck of the minority vote so stop it already - your wasting resources.
Also, I grew up a Dem. so if you want more votes then you need to grass roots it 100% - #1. You need Money, #2. you need Workers & #3. You need Volunteers and its time for the big fish in the Rep. Party to START doing all this NOW. Before you know it 2 years will fly by and you betcha Rahme E., Pelosi & Pals are starting now for 2010 (smaller) & 2012 Elections.
If you want to bend, then bend with the people who Will vote for your party. Reach out and find the poor who will vote Republican and they ain't in the cities and thats a fact Jack!
First, The Republicans need to get into rural areas. This IS WHERE YOUR BASE IS. You have many people in this country who DO Not vote - You must Find them! Most have big families, are of lower income and they are caucasian. The Rep. party needs to find these people, (you do that with the census and on foot). You need to help them register (Now) like ACORN-did in the inner cities. You dont think for one minute that Acorn went out to find the folks I'm talking abvout, do you? Truth hurts but its true. The Rep. voters are in the Rural areas, the South, western PA, Ohio, Nebraska, Kentucky, Get Up in them Appalacians.. Etc.
Second - The Census is Very important because that tells you were the demographics of people are. Census, Census, Census... He who controls the census will win the election - Very important.
Third - when you find and register new voters you need transportation for them. Dont just forget about them! Stay on em... Buses, Buses and More Buses.. Help them get to the polls.. you need boots on the ground - walk em ther if you have to.
Fourth - to win you need an alliance with the Nationalists, Libratarians, etc... Get with these Ron Paul folks. I've spoken to Ron Paul voters and yes he's not perfect but who the heck is... theres power in numbers and his people are loud, hard working and they show up... Work with him!! I think there is common ground there but Mr. Paul needs to come out Full on from the beginning and stand behind a Romney, Palin, Jindal, or whom ever..
Next - these Hollywood Stars for the next election as soon as they strep up and open thier mouths they need to be put down. The Rep. need to hire an in your face, foul mouthed, non-backin down street speaker. This person needs to start now and get the gots on the stars with the mouths.. get the goods on em now. Start holding up protest signs NOW when stars appear on these red carpets... like an example, signs could read, "Hey You old Hag you cant sing"... and boo them. Oraganize and start doing it now so that in 2 years they wont open thier mouths..
These are just a few ideas, opinions, pass them along. Sometimes a dose of reality goes along way.
Also dont forget the teachers Union & teansportation Unions "It's a must we need to bust"...
These are just my opinion's, maybe the Rep. can use the ideas and maybe they'll get what they need to do... its hard work.
P.S - The college voters (start checking those out now) many of these kids who voted probably dont live in the states they voted in... Do these collge's & Univ. receive Fed. or State aid if yes then they need to check thier local student voting habits... These kids voting in states they dont live in needs to stop and you should have an address to vote...

Clean it up Now or else next election your gonna have the same problems..

Grass roots - get them buses, ready!

Just my opinons...

Stephen R Maloney

"Humankind cannot bear very much reality." (poet T.S. Eliot) We may not like the expressed attitudes of some voters -- or many voters -- but if we ignore them we will become a tiny, regional Party. Ronald Reagan faced reality, as in his "80%" dictum, and he won the presidency twice by huge margins. Nowadays, I realize, Reagn would be characterized many (are you one?) as a "RINO."

Pat, as the Declaration of Independence says, this country is governed "of, by and, for THE PEOPLE." It is not a government "of, by, and for people exactly like us." Ignoring that simple point means, unfortunately, that we position ourselves for defeat in every important election. Why didn't you deal with that rather difficult problem? We cannot win elections by appealing only to one-third of American voters. If we win a majority of the "angry white males," that doesn't give us nearly enough votes to prevail in elections. If we basically reject huge blocs of voters then our actions fit the definition of insanity -- "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

The comments to this entry are closed.

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter
    Bookmark and Share
    Blog powered by Typepad