Where now for the GOP?

[Workers' Friend]

Since economic responsibility is pretty much the reason why the GOP lost ... The Small Gov't people are likely to be ejected. II am not sure where, but if the GOP wants to survive, we have to be more Moderate/Populist.

[Workers' Friend]

I think they should move in a more Libertarian direction. Moderate Libertarianism can work in this country.  Like Duke said, if we focus on curtailing spending and cutting taxes for the middle class we’ll go a long way to reforming. Social issues are a bit harder, and I don’t know how they should be addressed. I don’t think the party can afford a wishy washy approach to them, they need to really pick a side. Ideally I’d be in favor of downplaying social issues, but there’s no way that would work. So, I don’t know. Hopefully the Republican strategists are a good deal smarter then me, ha ha. But the focusing on responsible economics is a good start, I‘d say, if they can actually practice what they preach for a change.

If the GOP becomes Libertarian, where does The South/Religious/Populist/Other people go?

[Workers' Friend]

I think they should move in a more Libertarian direction. Moderate Libertarianism can work in this country.  Like Duke said, if we focus on curtailing spending and cutting taxes for the middle class we’ll go a long way to reforming. Social issues are a bit harder, and I don’t know how they should be addressed. I don’t think the party can afford a wishy washy approach to them, they need to really pick a side. Ideally I’d be in favor of downplaying social issues, but there’s no way that would work. So, I don’t know. Hopefully the Republican strategists are a good deal smarter then me, ha ha. But the focusing on responsible economics is a good start, I‘d say, if they can actually practice what they preach for a change.

If the GOP becomes Libertarian, where does The South/Religious/Populist/Other people go?

Good question, and I don’t really have an answer. I’m just suggesting the route I’d like it to go. Maybe populism and social conservatism is better for the party in the long run, considering changing demographics, but if it goes any further in that direction it honestly won’t be my party anymore, to sound rude. You guys can have it then, and I mean that with no offense intended. Ha, I might just spout a Dem avi in that case. And I really don't want to do that, since it's a rather ugly shade of red.

Yeah, because if any Conservatism is hurt this year, it is Fiscal rather than Social. And there are too many Social Conservatives for the GOP to stay Libertarian. We won't be accepted into the DEMS. And without Social Issues, I'd have more in common with the DEM party instead of the GOP.

[Workers' Friend]

I think they should move in a more Libertarian direction. Moderate Libertarianism can work in this country.  Like Duke said, if we focus on curtailing spending and cutting taxes for the middle class we’ll go a long way to reforming. Social issues are a bit harder, and I don’t know how they should be addressed. I don’t think the party can afford a wishy washy approach to them, they need to really pick a side. Ideally I’d be in favor of downplaying social issues, but there’s no way that would work. So, I don’t know. Hopefully the Republican strategists are a good deal smarter then me, ha ha. But the focusing on responsible economics is a good start, I‘d say, if they can actually practice what they preach for a change.

If the GOP becomes Libertarian, where does The South/Religious/Populist/Other people go?

Unlike the guy who said "GOP should be a big tent, kick the religious conservatives out," the solution really is to have a big tent party.  The unifying message needs to be small government.  A key plank in the platform, recognized by Reagan, Fred Thompson, Ron Paul, and others, is federalism.  Religious conservatives are best served when Washington butts out of their business.  Most importantly, judges need to faithfully interpret the Constitution.  That by itself is reason for the Republican coalition to stick together.

The biggest challenge for Republicans is the dearth of effective communicators who will stand up and defend our beliefs.  I think the Bush presidency is one cause for this, as Bush himself is neither eloquent nor ideologically consistent.  Also, members of the party have been been muted in their criticism, for understandable reasons.  But above all, we need advocates who can build the party rather than Rovian tacticians who can find 51% of the vote in a given election.

Then, where would I go, as a  Gov't lover?

[Workers' Friend]

We didn't lose this election because of the Religious Right or our social conservative roots. It's seems like I'll be arguing against the idea that that cost us the election for awhile now but oh well.

I think we need a clean sweep when it comes to the "leadership" in Congress. We need fresh faces, not a mad dash to the left.

We lost because of the economic crisis. There was little we can do to stop it so let's stop thinking that we have to dump what we believe in (especially on social issues) because of a bad loss.

All that being said, I'm still sticking with the idea of taking a serious chill pill for awhile. Obviously, the leadership elections in Congress can't just be put on hold but everything else should wait a few months.

Oh I certainly agree that the main reason McCain lost was the Wall Street meltdown. Looking back, I actually believe it would've been best for him to oppose the bailout and rail against Obama and those who did want to bailout Wall Street. I was a big supporter of it at the time, but it probably wasn't the best move for McCain to agree to go along with it. This was always going to be a hard race. I agree that we shouldn't chastise the religious conservatives, but we don't need to make that the central issue of the party. We need to bring back the small government message. That is a message that resonates with a majority of Americans. It's why Obama tried to appear to be a small government moderate during the elections. We got away from that after 9/11, and now is the time we need to return to that in order to get back into relevance.

I think they should move in a more Libertarian direction. Moderate Libertarianism can work in this country.  Like Duke said, if we focus on curtailing spending and cutting taxes for the middle class we’ll go a long way to reforming. Social issues are a bit harder, and I don’t know how they should be addressed. I don’t think the party can afford a wishy washy approach to them, they need to really pick a side. Ideally I’d be in favor of downplaying social issues, but there’s no way that would work. So, I don’t know. Hopefully the Republican strategists are a good deal smarter then me, ha ha. But the focusing on responsible economics is a good start, I‘d say, if they can actually practice what they preach for a change.

If the GOP becomes Libertarian, where does The South/Religious/Populist/Other people go?

Unlike the guy who said "GOP should be a big tent, kick the religious conservatives out," the solution really is to have a big tent party.  The unifying message needs to be small government.  A key plank in the platform, recognized by Reagan, Fred Thompson, Ron Paul, and others, is federalism.  Religious conservatives are best served when Washington butts out of their business.  Most importantly, judges need to faithfully interpret the Constitution.  That by itself is reason for the Republican coalition to stick together.

The biggest challenge for Republicans is the dearth of effective communicators who will stand up and defend our beliefs.  I think the Bush presidency is one cause for this, as Bush himself is neither eloquent nor ideologically consistent.  Also, members of the party have been been muted in their criticism, for understandable reasons.  But above all, we need advocates who can build the party rather than Rovian tacticians who can find 51% of the vote in a given election.

Then, where would I go, as a  Gov't lover?

You should probably be a Democrat if you love big government. It depends which is more important to you: big government or your social values. The reason I am a Republican is because I believe in small government.

I like the Democratic principle of big government, but I can't stand Social Liberalism. I am not sure where to venture, And I don't wanna be under Obama's banner either.

[Workers' Friend]

I think the GOP should hold onto most of its core philosophies, but change its image.  I could write up a longer analysis of this eventually, but I think some of the key things to do should include:

Aggressive minority recruitment, especially Hispanics and Asians.  The latter is oftentimes traditionalist, religious, and economically climbing - Asian-Americans would be a natural addition to a GOP coalition.  The reason why they haven't been thus far is probably because the GOP is perceived to be the xenophobic, White Southern party, most Asian-American politicians are lawyers and thus consistently Democratic, and the GOP has not made the effort.

Hispanics  are a tougher nut to crack.  It's ironic that Bush and McCain butted heads with their own party over immigration but did nothing to change the GOP's image as the party of the giant wall.  This group is also economically climbing and traditionalist.

In general the GOP should be a big tent.  Run secular mavericks in the West and Baptist ministers in the South.  Discourage the primary-ing of moderates.

Anyway, you can't win by being the all-white party.  AA's are probably lost to the GOP for a decade thanks to Obama's victory, but why not go for the two fastest growing minority populations?  The GOP will probably not be able to win a national election until they can stop Hispanics from breaking 2:1 against them, but maybe they can find a way.

I support this as well, I have a few Asians friends that usually sound and/or swing Conservative.