|
Title: "Saving the Republicans: The 'Young Guns' Go For It" Post by: paul718 on August 05, 2009, 06:35:30 PM Since November, I've heard Newt Gingrich and other GOP heavy-hitters talk about the Republican governors as the GOP's best pool of talent. I haven't agreed. I truly believe the House is where our leader(s) will come from. Here's an article from the July 26th-31st issue of The Economist anointing Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, and Kevin McCarthy as the ones to lead the GOP out of its slump. As chairman and grand poo-bah of the Paul Ryan Fan Club, I thought I'd share it with you. :P
Quote Saving the Republicans The Young Guns go for it Jul 23rd 2009 | WASHINGTON, DC From The Economist print edition Two possible candidates to lead the party out of the wilderness POLITICIANS capable of renewing the unpopular and demoralised Republican Party are hard to find in the Senate, where they cannot even mount a filibuster these days. Neither do state governors promise much: scandal, resignation and botched appearances on the national stage have hurt the ambitions of South Carolina’s Mark Sanford, Alaska’s Sarah Palin and Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal respectively. So conservatives seeking saviours are increasingly alighting upon the House of Representatives, and especially the youthful duo of Eric Cantor, the Republican whip, and Paul Ryan (pictured above), the party’s senior member on the budget committee. Both represent swing states: Mr Cantor, 46, is from Virginia, Mr Ryan, 39, from Wisconsin. Both leapfrogged older stalwarts to get their current posts (Mr Cantor is the most senior House Republican after the minority leader, John Boehner, who is 59). Along with Kevin McCarthy, a representative from California, they run the Young Guns, a team of House Republicans devoted to helping favoured candidates get elected. Neither man is widely mooted as a presidential candidate, at least not yet. Conservative pundits initially regarded Mr Cantor, a prodigious fund-raiser and peripatetic campaigner reportedly considered as a running-mate by John McCain last year, as the obvious leader. Mr Ryan, a prolific source of policy ideas, was considered the thinker. More recently, however, Mr Ryan has come to be seen by many as the more natural front-man. But whatever the division of labour, it is not hard to see the two men’s usefulness to their party. Their determination to produce alternatives rather than mere opposition to Democratic policies should help to prevent the Republicans from being typecast as the party of “no”. And they are generally more mindful of the tone they strike than older, grouchier Republicans. Mr Ryan’s political hero is the late Jack Kemp, the soul of sunny conservatism. Both are also conversant with life outside the conservative bubble. Mr Cantor, the only Jewish Republican congressman, has a wife who hails from a prominent Democratic family (“a mixed marriage”, he calls it). Mr Ryan is one of the few senior House Republicans to represent a competitive district in a swing state. His district, won by Barack Obama in the presidential election, contains lots of union members. But if a Republican recovery requires a centrewards shift in some of the party’s economic thinking, the two men seem less plausible agents of change. For if their dynamism is evocative of Newt Gingrich’s mid-term revolution of 1994, so too is their zeal for small government. True, a “road map for America’s future”, published by Mr Ryan last year, included ideas for broadening health-care coverage. But it focused on steep cuts to taxes and entitlements. Budding congressmen seeking the support of the Young Guns must demonstrate a commitment to shrinking the state. All this is more coherent than the big-government conservatism of the Bush years. Mr Ryan understandably defines himself against the profligate House Republicans of that era. But whether this is enough to win back floating voters is unclear—despite gathering worries about the deficit under Mr Obama. Both men have devoured the recent slew of books attempting to sketch a path back to power for the Republicans. But their authors, including David Frum, Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam, agree that the party needs to become more open-minded about government intervention if it is to address popular worries, such as the environment and the stagnation of middle-class incomes. Democrats are frustrated that Mr Ryan in particular is being defined more by his amiable personality than his conservative take on economics. That may not last as he comes under more scrutiny. There are also obstacles to Mr Cantor and Mr Ryan from within. Some older Republicans are resentful of their rapid rise and their hostility to Washington orthodoxy, including the pork-barrel culture. But if the party is serious about leaving the wilderness, it cannot be choosy about who leads them out. Title: Re: "Saving the Republicans: The 'Young Guns' Go For It" Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 05, 2009, 07:27:16 PM Since November, I've heard Newt Gingrich and other GOP heavy-hitters talk about the Republican governors as the GOP's best pool of talent. I haven't agreed. I truly believe the House is where our leader(s) will come from. Here's an article from the July 26th-31st issue of The Economist anointing Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, and Kevin McCarthy as the ones to lead the GOP out of its slump. As chairman and grand poo-bah of the Paul Ryan Fan Club, I thought I'd share it with you. :P Quote Saving the Republicans The Young Guns go for it Jul 23rd 2009 | WASHINGTON, DC From The Economist print edition Two possible candidates to lead the party out of the wilderness POLITICIANS capable of renewing the unpopular and demoralised Republican Party are hard to find in the Senate, where they cannot even mount a filibuster these days. Neither do state governors promise much: scandal, resignation and botched appearances on the national stage have hurt the ambitions of South Carolina’s Mark Sanford, Alaska’s Sarah Palin and Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal respectively. So conservatives seeking saviours are increasingly alighting upon the House of Representatives, and especially the youthful duo of Eric Cantor, the Republican whip, and Paul Ryan (pictured above), the party’s senior member on the budget committee. Both represent swing states: Mr Cantor, 46, is from Virginia, Mr Ryan, 39, from Wisconsin. Both leapfrogged older stalwarts to get their current posts (Mr Cantor is the most senior House Republican after the minority leader, John Boehner, who is 59). Along with Kevin McCarthy, a representative from California, they run the Young Guns, a team of House Republicans devoted to helping favoured candidates get elected. Neither man is widely mooted as a presidential candidate, at least not yet. Conservative pundits initially regarded Mr Cantor, a prodigious fund-raiser and peripatetic campaigner reportedly considered as a running-mate by John McCain last year, as the obvious leader. Mr Ryan, a prolific source of policy ideas, was considered the thinker. More recently, however, Mr Ryan has come to be seen by many as the more natural front-man. But whatever the division of labour, it is not hard to see the two men’s usefulness to their party. Their determination to produce alternatives rather than mere opposition to Democratic policies should help to prevent the Republicans from being typecast as the party of “no”. And they are generally more mindful of the tone they strike than older, grouchier Republicans. Mr Ryan’s political hero is the late Jack Kemp, the soul of sunny conservatism. Both are also conversant with life outside the conservative bubble. Mr Cantor, the only Jewish Republican congressman, has a wife who hails from a prominent Democratic family (“a mixed marriage”, he calls it). Mr Ryan is one of the few senior House Republicans to represent a competitive district in a swing state. His district, won by Barack Obama in the presidential election, contains lots of union members. But if a Republican recovery requires a centrewards shift in some of the party’s economic thinking, the two men seem less plausible agents of change. For if their dynamism is evocative of Newt Gingrich’s mid-term revolution of 1994, so too is their zeal for small government. True, a “road map for America’s future”, published by Mr Ryan last year, included ideas for broadening health-care coverage. But it focused on steep cuts to taxes and entitlements. Budding congressmen seeking the support of the Young Guns must demonstrate a commitment to shrinking the state. All this is more coherent than the big-government conservatism of the Bush years. Mr Ryan understandably defines himself against the profligate House Republicans of that era. But whether this is enough to win back floating voters is unclear—despite gathering worries about the deficit under Mr Obama. Both men have devoured the recent slew of books attempting to sketch a path back to power for the Republicans. But their authors, including David Frum, Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam, agree that the party needs to become more open-minded about government intervention if it is to address popular worries, such as the environment and the stagnation of middle-class incomes. Democrats are frustrated that Mr Ryan in particular is being defined more by his amiable personality than his conservative take on economics. That may not last as he comes under more scrutiny. There are also obstacles to Mr Cantor and Mr Ryan from within. Some older Republicans are resentful of their rapid rise and their hostility to Washington orthodoxy, including the pork-barrel culture. But if the party is serious about leaving the wilderness, it cannot be choosy about who leads them out. I generally agree with the Young Guns on where I want the GOP to go. Wherever we go on all the other issues I am convinced that at the core shrinking the size of the state is an important element no matter what. I think they left out yet another figure or potential competitor, although slightly older and that is Mike Pence. I beleive the four of them together have one heck of a future in the party and I beleive the success of further defeat of the GOP will be determined by how successfull they are. Like the young guns, Pence also differentiates from the Bush ere Big-gov't conservatism. Unlike the Young guns who preferred to keep quiet and work there way up to a point where they would have the power to do something, Pence spoke out frequently coming in only second to Jeff Flake as a nuisance to the leadership and yet still managed to get appointed as head of the Conference 3rd most powerful position. Title: Re: "Saving the Republicans: The 'Young Guns' Go For It" Post by: paul718 on August 05, 2009, 07:41:05 PM I generally agree with the Young Guns on where I want the GOP to go. Wherever we go on all the other issues I am convinced that at the core shrinking the size of the state is an important element no matter what. I think they left out yet another figure or potential competitor, although slightly older and that is Mike Pence. I beleive the four of them together have one heck of a future in the party and I beleive the success of further defeat of the GOP will be determined by how successfull they are. Like the young guns, Pence also differentiates from the Bush ere Big-gov't conservatism. Unlike the Young guns who preferred to keep quiet and work there way up to a point where they would have the power to do something, Pence spoke out frequently coming in only second to Jeff Flake as a nuisance to the leadership and yet still managed to get appointed as head of the Conference 3rd most powerful position. Oh, absolutely. I'm a Pence fan as well. My only guess as the why The Economist left him out is because he comes off as less cerebral, and more of a "politician", than the other three. Pence also tends to drift into moral territory every so often, an area most agree that the GOP should try to avoid. Title: Re: "Saving the Republicans: The 'Young Guns' Go For It" Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 05, 2009, 08:05:48 PM I generally agree with the Young Guns on where I want the GOP to go. Wherever we go on all the other issues I am convinced that at the core shrinking the size of the state is an important element no matter what. I think they left out yet another figure or potential competitor, although slightly older and that is Mike Pence. I beleive the four of them together have one heck of a future in the party and I beleive the success of further defeat of the GOP will be determined by how successfull they are. Like the young guns, Pence also differentiates from the Bush ere Big-gov't conservatism. Unlike the Young guns who preferred to keep quiet and work there way up to a point where they would have the power to do something, Pence spoke out frequently coming in only second to Jeff Flake as a nuisance to the leadership and yet still managed to get appointed as head of the Conference 3rd most powerful position. Oh, absolutely. I'm a Pence fan as well. My only guess as the why The Economist left him out is because he comes off as less cerebral, and more of a "politician", than the other three. Pence also tends to drift into moral territory every so often, an area most agree that the GOP should try to avoid. Agreed but I have seen him on economics. He does need to learn to keep focused better. Title: Re: "Saving the Republicans: The 'Young Guns' Go For It" Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on August 05, 2009, 08:11:51 PM I like Pence more than Cantor or Ryan, but that may just be because I know his daughter. I think he's more likely to be a factor in 2012, given the ages of Cantor and Ryan.
Title: Re: "Saving the Republicans: The 'Young Guns' Go For It" Post by: Democratic Hawk on August 06, 2009, 02:12:52 PM Young Guns or not they are still beholden to the same failed reactionary dogma of their elders
Until such time as Republicans lead their party towards the sanity of its moderate midwestern and northeastern roots, the party both deserves, and needs, to die Title: Re: "Saving the Republicans: The 'Young Guns' Go For It" Post by: paul718 on August 06, 2009, 02:21:51 PM Young Guns or not they are still beholden to the same failed reactionary dogma of their elders Until such time as Republicans lead their party towards the sanity of its moderate midwestern and northeastern roots, the party both deserves, and needs, to die I don't get this. While we can expect the delivery and specificities to change, the underlying political theories will not. They are "conservatives" for a reason. Tell me, what was so dynamic and fresh about the ideas of Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama? Title: Re: "Saving the Republicans: The 'Young Guns' Go For It" Post by: Democratic Hawk on August 06, 2009, 03:22:31 PM Young Guns or not they are still beholden to the same failed reactionary dogma of their elders Until such time as Republicans lead their party towards the sanity of its moderate midwestern and northeastern roots, the party both deserves, and needs, to die I don't get this. While we can expect the delivery and specificities to change, the underlying political theories will not. They are "conservatives" for a reason. Tell me, what was so dynamic and fresh about the ideas of Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama? I just know this much. I'll take the pragmatically center-left Obama over the last eight years of governance with all the finesse of an idiologically-driven cackhanded inept, aided and abetted with no checks and balances from within the congressional GOP whatsoever. All they appear to be atoning for, on the part of George W Bush, is the spending! President Barack Obama owes his success to, overwhelming support from moderate voters and Speaker Nancy Pelosi owes her gavel to the electoral success of moderate Democrats - and that is why they can't lead from the left. We all know that within the Democratic "big tent" there are forces of restraint from within. Indeed, they are those such as Michael Lind - a progressive populist of the 'New Deal' tradition - who fear that Obama and other Democratic leaders are prisoners to the "cult of neoliberalism" Finally, you can't expect a pragmatic Christian Democrat, to view some radical rightwing party, like the Republican Party, particularly, favorably. And the proposed House Republican spending 'freeze' and tax cuts are, from where I'm sitting, very radical. Not to mention those on the Right who persist in smearing the president with all of that "socialist", "radical", "Marxist", "birther" nonsense Title: Re: "Saving the Republicans: The 'Young Guns' Go For It" Post by: paul718 on August 06, 2009, 03:36:10 PM Young Guns or not they are still beholden to the same failed reactionary dogma of their elders Until such time as Republicans lead their party towards the sanity of its moderate midwestern and northeastern roots, the party both deserves, and needs, to die I don't get this. While we can expect the delivery and specificities to change, the underlying political theories will not. They are "conservatives" for a reason. Tell me, what was so dynamic and fresh about the ideas of Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama? I just know this much. I'll take the pragmatically center-left Obama over the last eight years of governance with all the finesse of an idiologically-driven cackhanded inept, aided and abetted with no checks and balances from within the congressional GOP whatsoever. All they appear to be atoning for, on the part of George W Bush, is the spending! There's no evidence of Obama being either pragmatic or center-anything during his time in Congress. Quote President Barack Obama owes his success to, overwhelming support from moderate voters and Speaker Nancy Pelosi owes her gavel to the electoral success of moderate Democrats - and that is why they can't lead from the left. I think you're overestimating Obama's victory among moderates. There was a huge anti-Republican vote, Obama's flawless campaign, McCain's flawed campaign, Sarah Palin, and the all-around electricity that was "Obama". You're right about Democratic power being attributed to moderates. Good work by the Dems, and I wish the GOP was as effective. But Pelosi is not a moderate and is a face of the party. Quote Finally, you can't expect a pragmatic Christian Democrat, to view some radical rightwing party, like the Republican Party, particularly, favorably. And the proposed House Republican spending 'freeze' and tax cuts are, from where I'm sitting, very radical. From where a lot of people are sitting, an $800B spending bill and single-payer health care are very radical. Quote Not to mention those on the Right who persist in smearing the president with all of that "socialist", "radical", "Marxist", "birther" nonsense Have Ryan or Cantor said those things? Title: Re: "Saving the Republicans: The 'Young Guns' Go For It" Post by: Mint on August 06, 2009, 03:43:20 PM Young Guns or not they are still beholden to the same failed reactionary dogma of their elders Until such time as Republicans lead their party towards the sanity of its moderate midwestern and northeastern roots, the party both deserves, and needs, to die Why should the Republicans revert to the same failed strategy of 'me too'-ism that they had during the mid-20th century? Particularly when so many in the party want it to be more conservative and polls show that Americans are more conservative on issues like bail outs or amnesty than their leaders? Becoming a more center left party in this climate, particularly when Obama's domestic policies are losing ground in poll after poll in large part to concerns over massive spending and government power, makes no sense. It's equivalent to all those people who said the Democrats in the mid-2000s should run on a pro-war 'moderate' platform if they wanted to beat Bush (although you'd favor that too no doubt). |