GOP's Own Report: Voters See it "Out-of-Touch and Scary"

RNC Growth And Opportunity Project Report: Voters See GOP As 'Scary,' 'Narrow Minded'

The Republican National Committee (RNC) released its wide-ranging "autopsy" report on Monday, admitting some of its shortcomings after losing the 2012 presidential election.

Coined the Growth and Opportunity Project , the document includes market research from voter focus groups around the country.

"Asked to describe Republicans, they said that the Party is “scary,” “narrow minded,” and “out of touch” and that we were a Party of “stuffy old men.” This is consistent with the findings of other post-election surveys," the report states.

Hours before the report was live, RNC Chair Reince Priebus leveled about the GOP's struggles in an interview on CBS' "Face The Nation," telling host Bob Schieffer that the party did a "lousy job" of marketing itself.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/r ... 88974.html


A) This is not new information

This is the GOP's OWN "autopsy report", not some Third-Party effort with an axe to grind

C) "the party did a 'lousy job' of marketing itself" - These guys are STILL delusional about it being a "marketing problem", and that if they can just package the same moldy pizza in a newer shinier box, the people who think they're "out of touch" and "scary", won't notice that they still are. (And, of course, they think if they can find a few minority faces to sit on the front row for the cameras, and find one to stand up on-stage and be the spokesperson for the "shiny new box", that the people that think they're "out of touch" and "scary" will think, "Whoa! What a shiny new box!"

And then they throw the annual White Nationalist Aryan [Heterosexual] Conclave (otherwise known as "CPAC"), and over three days they trot out a series of “scary,” “narrow minded,” and “out of touch” clowns that reinforce what their own report just told them.


God, I hope they jus' keep doin' what they're doin'...

Cripes, their own members can't even see why women would vote for the GOTP:

Former GOP Rep, Sees 'Why We Don't Have More Women Voting For Republicans'

Retired Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-Ohio) opened up on Sunday about his party's struggles to procure female voters, admitting that he's not surprised by recent troubles.

In an interview with Fox News Sunday, LaTourette highlighted the 2012 Indiana U.S. Senate race as a primary example, pointing to Tea Party favorite Richard Mourdock's rape remarks.

"Mr. Mourdock, for instance, I mean -- we're supposed to wonder why we don't have the women's vote in this country when we have a candidate suggesting that a child born as a result of rape is a gift from God? I'm not wondering why we don't have more women voting for Republicans," LaTourette said.

LaTourette is not the first Republican voice to express criticism of the party's standing with women. Last Sunday, GOP strategist Steve Schmidt accused the GOP of not giving equal opportunity to women. Back in January, former Secretary of State Colin Powell echoed similar views, arguing that the GOP is operating with a "dark vein of intolerance."

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news- ... ops-future

And that was just for the Women... Here's today's hit-parade for what the Randroids have in mind for Seniors, Veterans, Military Retirees, Elderly, and Disabled (including Military Disabled):

New report highlights inequality in the Social Security debate

The Institute for Policy Studies does a tremendous service in a new report by looking at how proposed benefit cuts would impact health industry CEOs versus home health aides. Specifically, how would the industry CEOs who also happen to be leaders in the corporate lobby group Fix the Debt, which is pushing for massive new corporate tax cuts paid for with cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, compare to a typical home health aide, a worker in the fastest growing industry in the country? These jobs are among the lowest paid with the longest hours, dominated by women and minorities, with 40 percent of workers needing public assistance to supplement their income.

The report looks at the retirement security of, the CEOs of CVS Caremark and United Health, Larry Merlo and Stephen Hemsley, compared to home health aide Rhonda Straw. Merlo has a retirement fund of $46 million, and if he invested that in an annuity starting at age 65, he'd get $263,169 a month for life. If he took Social Security, too, he'd get $267,445 a month. Hemsley isn't doing quite as well, with just $18 million in his retirement account. But he'd still get $104,671 from it every month, $108,607 if he takes Social Security. Now for the home health aide, Straw, who at age 50 makes $9 per hour, 40 hours a week. She's only ever had minimum wage jobs. But she has $475 in a 401(k) account, which will net her $2 a month in retirement. With her Social Security benefits, she'll have about $2,704 per month in retirement income for the first 20 years.

Three guesses who will feel the most pain under the proposal Fix the Debt is pushing: chained CPI and raising the retirement age?

Source: Institute for Policy Studies

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/1 ... bsp-debate

But hey, Ms. Straw is one of those "47%'ers", who "refuses to take responsibility for herself, and is a 'victim'..." Right?

Oh, and how's that anti-gay, anti-marriage-equality thing working out for ya?... (You lost THAT constituency by 8% to 92%...And of course, it doesn't just include LGBT PEOPLE, it includes the mothers, fathers, brothers/sisters, aunts/uncles, and best-friends of most anyone who IS LGBT...) Good call, guys!!!

At CPAC, The Marriage Fight Is Over
Opponents of gay rights spoke to a nearly empty room, while supporters had a standing room-only crowd.

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — Cleta Mitchell, a D.C. lawyer who successfully led the charge to keep the LGBT conservative group GOProud out of the Conservative Political Action Conference for the past two years, is finding out what it means to lose a hard-fought battle.

Mitchell and the National Organization for Marriage's Brian Brown looked down from a stage at the annual, signature conservative conference whose social values they'd fought to defend to find they'd lost their troops.

"We are treated as if we are bigots," Brown complained to a largely empty room, assembled for a panel dedicated to discussing the bullying they and other conservatives say they face from the Obama administration.

"We have tolerated something in our movement for far too long: anti-gay bigotry," LaSalvia said. "Let me be clear, I do not believe that just because someone opposes same-sex marriage that that automatically makes them a homophobe. But there are, however, a few. There are a few in our movement who just don't like gay people. In 2013, that just isn't OK in America anymore."

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/at ... ht-is-over

And then we have Rob Portman...Who conveeeeeeeniently has "evolved" on his stance on gay marriage (after his son told him he was gay--two years ago)... (I guess when a Republican finally sees the error of their ways, it's "evolving", and when a Dem does it, it's a flip-flop...)

Rob Portman and the Politics of Narcissism

I'm glad that Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio has reconsidered his view on gay marriage upon realization that his son is gay, but I also find this particular window into moderation—memorably dubbed "Miss America conservatism" by Mark Schmitt—to be the most annoying form.

Remember when Sarah Palin was running for vice president on a platform of tax cuts and reduced spending? But there was one form of domestic social spending she liked to champion? Spending on disabled children? Because she had a disabled child personally? Yet somehow her personal experience with disability didn't lead her to any conclusions about the millions of mothers simply struggling to raise children in conditions of general poorness. Rob Portman doesn't have a son with a pre-existing medical condition who's locked out of the health insurance market. Rob Portman doesn't have a son engaged in peasant agriculture whose livelihood is likely to be wiped out by climate change. Rob Portman doesn't have a son who'll be malnourished if SNAP benefits are cut. So Rob Portman doesn't care.

The great challenge for a senator isn't to go to Washington and represent the problems of his own family. It's to try to obtain the intellectual and moral perspective necessary to represent the problems of the people who don't have direct access to the corridors of power.

Senators basically never have poor kids. That's something members of Congress should think about. Especially members of Congress who know personally that realizing an issue affects their own children changes their thinking.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/201 ... ssism.html

But it's nice to know that if something personally affects a GOTP Congress-critter, at least they'll have ONE area they "can relate to"....

Yeah, Froggie, "My heart really wants to believe that this country is better" than what the Neo-Cons, religious bigots, AynRandroids, Plutocrats, "I've got mine--Sorry you don't", and "trickle-down" crowd think. And because I LOVE THIS COUNTRY, I'll fight this Neanderthal obsession with dismantling it so that the rich can get richer at the expense of everyone else. And, "I hope I am right about the country I love so much", too. And the best way I know how to do that is PROTECT IT from the Right-wing that want to return it to some 1950's/"Leave It To Beaver" state that never existed.

..."And that's all I have to say about that..."

They're still OUT-OF-TOUCH, SCARY... And they don't make lipstick in sufficient quantities to make that "pig" attractive to the majority of voters.

But 44% of Americans a new record declare themselves independents so the Dems must have marketing issues too.

Yeah, that's why you lost 332 / 206 in the electoral votes, and by 3+ points in the popular vote...

But I'm sure that's an "important" statistic...somewhere.... And did your "anonymous [read: non-existent] source" give any indication of how many of those so-called "independent votes" put down "Independent" on their registrations so they would be left alone by robo-callers, and solicitors? Or that would enable them to vote in whichever primary they choose--(in the states that allow that sort of thing?) And I wonder how many people identified as "Republicans" ended up voting for Obama because they couldn't force themselves to vote for RMoney? I wonder how many Republicans stayed home because they couldn't hold their nose and vote for RMoney?

(And did you know that Captain Marvel's "secret identity" was "Billy Batson"!?.... Another irrelevant piece of information...)

Go sell stupid to someone else, Fred... We're all full up here.