Republicans have happened upon a felicitous new strategy for reviving their party from its depressed state: They need only think happy thoughts.
At a retreat for Republican leaders last month, former House speaker Newt Gingrich told them to “learn to be a happy party” and a “cheerful” one, and Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said they should be a party “that smiles.” Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal told his fellow Republicans to talk about “just how incredibly bright America’s future can be.”
In other words, Republicans will win elections if only they can stop being so dour, dammit.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor took this don’tworry-be-happy strategy seriously, and in a heavily promoted “major” speech to the American Enterprise Institute on Tuesday afternoon, he let the sun shine in.
He began with an uplifting anecdote about the Wright brothers and quoted the inspirational words of Emma Lazarus. He spoke from a lectern decorated with a foam board carrying the slogan “Making life work for more people” and brought with him some everyday folks to illustrate his upbeat philosophy, including an African American father who found a better education for his children and a girl doing well in her battle with cancer.".................
Reagan used to be upbeat and patriotic. Being positive and optimistic about the future is good for leaders to show, as long as they are being honest. Pretending to be something you aren't usually doesn't sell with voters who are paying attention.
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
Reagan used to be upbeat and patriotic. Being positive and optimistic about the future is good for leaders to show, as long as they are being honest. Pretending to be something you aren't usually doesn't sell with voters who are paying attention.
In four years when the economy is still in the dumpster and our debt is over 20 trillion, I don't want to see smiling happy faces from Republicans, I want to see serious faces of concern for the future of this country. Maybe a smiling face is something a MSM informed voter wants to see, but those of us who see the decline want serious adults to stop the madness.
But I suppose the only way for Republicans to win at this point would be to promise more rich-people-funded freebies than the Dems.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
They really don't get it. It's not about being happy, it's about being positive. It's like when they decided their number one goal was to make Obama a one term president. Really? Not fix the economy? Not protect Americans from terrorists? All we want is for them to do their jobs.
chickaree wrote: They really don't get it. It's not about being happy, it's about being positive. It's like when they decided their number one goal was to make Obama a one term president. Really? Not fix the economy? Not protect Americans from terrorists? All we want is for them to do their jobs.
Well that was one dumbass who spoke the truth in public. You can't tell me that the MAIN GOAL of every losing party isn't to hold the winner to one term.
It's just the way they say it that does the damage and gives the media a catch phrase to run with over and over. If a candidate really wants lower spending, less debt, and a smaller government, then it would only be possible if a liberal tax and spend president is gone as soon as possible.
Every Democratic politician wanted Bush to be a one term president, they just never said it on an open mic.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
The thing is that we never live in a perfect world. We have to work with people we disagree with. We have to compromise, and we have to learn to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Garbage like rejecting any spending cuts if they are accompanied by tax increases. We send our representatives to Congress to work with each other, not to form cliques. We're not in High School any more.
Seeing the recent attempts by the Republicans to change the language they use and not their platform shows that they really don't get it. They are trying to slap on a new coat of paint on the same ideology and that is not swaying enough voters to their party. Their platform alienates Hispanics, women, blacks, gays...and the GOP is slow to realize that they can't win without them. They couldn't beat President Obama with a war hero or a religious financial wizard and there was high unemployment, stagnant growth and record debt. The strategy of opposition actually hurt them and the trying to bring the Tea Party into the fold really blew up in their face. Now, they are waging an internal war that they may not be able to end pitting the fiscal conservatives against the social conservatives, with the extremes of both poisoning their brand to most potential voters that might be brought into the party. Only time will tell if they can pull out of this tailspin or if the GOP splits into two or more parties, which would really finish them off anyway.
When you plant ice you're going to harvest wind. - Robert Hunter
It was less than 3% difference in the popular vote.
If the GOP guy had only been "cooler" or more charismatic, he could have easily won. Reagan over Carter. "W" over Kerry. For low information voters, so often it is the guy they want to have a beer with.
But if the GOP really wants to win, they just need to promise more free stuff, and lower taxes on everyone. Works for the Democrats.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
The difference was around 5 million votes or 3.85%. If the GOP guy hadn't alienated many of the key demographics, he might have stood a chance. W was reelected in 2004 by only 2.76% over Kerry and actually lost the popular vote to Gore in 2000 by 0.51%. Nixon won reelection in 1972 by 23.15% and look how that turned out. You can spin it as "he only won by 3%", but he DID win, both by popular vote and electoral.
It turns out that President Obama won because he had a much better campaign structure and was tuned in to the electorate, whereas the Romney really believed that they were going to "win easily". The Romney campaign, and Fox, only paid attention to their skewed polling and were blown away when the truth became apparent on election day. Romney lived so far into the bubble that he didn't even write a concession speech and delayed the inevitable while he came up with it. When Fox called the election for President Obama, Karl Rove threw a fit and demanded that the Fox forecasters be dragged on air to explain themselves and Fox made Megyn Kelly walk to their bullpen and put them on camera. THAT'S how out of touch the GOP was.
Free stuff? It's these kind of grasping at straw statements that make voters feel that the GOP is out of touch and it showed in the election. Romney couldn't beat a Muslim from Kenya who was born out of wedlock and who's term had high unemployment and record debt. They tried to make the election about his birth certificate, his school records, his father, his pot smoking, his "socialist" views, his secret Muslim faith, his gutting of the second amendment, his spending spree, his "giving free stuff", his apology tour, his bowing to foreign dignitaries, his community organizing, his "radical" friendships, his Chicago connection, his hate for America, etc... The GOP made the election all about anyone but President Obama, but that didn't work, did it? The GOP has put up two of the worst candidates against President Obama, but in reality, they were the best that they could come up with and that says more about the GOP than it does about President Obama. We all saw the 8 months of GOP primary debates and how they all tore each other to shreds. Hell, Michelle Bachman was leading at one point and that speaks volumes. When you put up candidates like Perry, Santorum, Bachman, Cain and Romney, you aren't going to be winning many elections. When Christie spoke praise for President Obama after Sandy, the GOP all turned on him for his traitorous words and behavior. That's when many people knew that the GOP wasn't the inclusive party that the GOP was desperately trying to sell to everyone.
It was the policies and statements of the GOP that lost them this election. It was Romney's refusal to give any details of how he would accomplish what he was proposing that cost the GOP this election. It was the private statements about the 47% of takers that lost him this election. When a party says one thing and does another, demonizes half the electorate and clamps down on women's rights and thinks they should make the decisions for women and their bodies, it's not going to win elections.
If the GOP wants to win the White House, they need to come up with a better candidate with real answers to the questions instead of just depending on, "He's not President Obama."
When you plant ice you're going to harvest wind. - Robert Hunter
