Gingrich: GOP ‘Incapable Of Competing’ Against Hillary Clinton In 2016

[LisaA]

Yeah sure…Akin is such a stupid moron and never should have gotten a platform. But the geniuses of McCain and Romney always win eh? How’s that workin for ya.

BTW that dummy Sharon Angle got 45% of the Vote in her state while the “genius” Romney got oh geee wow 45% in Nevada in 2012.

Austenboston you aren’t usually a strawman specialist but I don’t think your arguments hold up well. Don’t forget the drag down of the entire Republican brand by the likes of O’Donnell, Angle, Akin and Murdouck.

It’s not fair that Democrats can nominate corrupt pols, soon to be felons and those with serious but undiagnosed mental illnesses and not destroy the “D.” I guess Dems are more tolerant of human foibles. But it’s the reality we live in thanks to the media. The Dems seized the silly notion of a “war on women,” helped by Stephanopolus who started the whole debate with a question about contraception that Santorum blundered into–thereby opening a huge can of worms that was never contained.

I don’t think there was any hope for McCain going up against the first (half) black candidate in a country that had serious Bush fatigue. But Romney coulda, shoulda won and I think it was more the failure of the campaign than the candidate in this instance.

Do tell me you think Santourm, Gingrich, Bachmann, Cain, Perry or Paul would have done better than Romney.

Lisa

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

nationalreview.com/articles/335404/rnc-s-fix-it-committee-interview

Reince Preibus say the RNC might limit number of republican presidential primaries in 2016

Scott LaFrance says that the RNC should fire Rence Prebius for gross incompetence.

 

[austenbosten]

Austenboston you aren’t usually a strawman specialist but I don’t think your arguments hold up well. Don’t forget the drag down of the entire Republican brand by the likes of O’Donnell, Angle, Akin and Murdouck.

It’s not fair that Democrats can nominate corrupt pols, soon to be felons and those with serious but undiagnosed mental illnesses and not destroy the “D.” I guess Dems are more tolerant of human foibles. But it’s the reality we live in thanks to the media. The Dems seized the silly notion of a “war on women,” helped by Stephanopolus who started the whole debate with a question about contraception that Santorum blundered into–thereby opening a huge can of worms that was never contained.

I don’t think there was any hope for McCain going up against the first (half) black candidate in a country that had serious Bush fatigue. But Romney coulda, shoulda won and I think it was more the failure of the campaign than the candidate in this instance.

Do tell me you think Santourm, Gingrich, Bachmann, Cain, Perry or Paul would have done better than Romney.

Lisa

Yeah I think either (exception of Paul) could have won…However we have a choice. We can just not parlay with the Propaganda Ministry, or…

We can play the losing game that the Left sets up for us, where we try and be moderate and look “smart” so the media won’t bash us…but in the end, it’s still the same game.

It’s like Charlie Brown running to kick the football, we think we’ll be able to kick it; but every time all the time the ball is moved and we fall on our backs.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I learned the history of both parties during university classes that I paid a great deal of money to get. Today, all you have to do is have a computer, a decent search engine and some time on your hands to do the reading. There’s not even a test or a paper due at the end!

I would suggest reading a bit about the “Southern Strategy” that was used during the Nixon years, that’s pretty interesting as a shift from the party origins of anti-slavery. There’s also the early years of the Democratic party in the South vs the membership today.

Myth - In 1964 and 1965, southern Democrats were racist segregationists. 1968, southern democrat racist segregationists became Dixiecrats. By 1980 all Dixiecrats had become racist segregationist southern Republicans

Truth - most Dixiecrats did not become Republicans. They created the Dixiecrats and then when the civil rights movement accomplished, Dixiecrats returned to the Democrats. Much later, younger Southerners and the thousands of Northerners moved to the South and Republicans began to make gains

Diana Aldean was in the middle of this in the civil rights era and provides a commentary

Professor of History at University of Washington, Tacoma, Mike Allen -

examiner.com/article/the-dixiecrat-myth

There weren’t many Republicans in the South prior to 1964, but that doesn’t mean the birth of the souther GOP was tied to “white racism.” That said, I am sure there were and are white racist southern GOP. No one would deny that. But it was the southern Democrats who were the party of slavery and, later, segregation. It was George Wallace, not John Tower, who stood in the southern schoolhouse door to block desegregation! The vast majority of Congressional GOP voted FOR the Civil Rights of 1964-65. The vast majority of those opposed to those acts were southern Democratss. Southern Democratss led to infamous filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The confusion arises from GOP Barry Goldwater’s vote against the '64 act. He had voted in favor or all earlier bills and had led the integration of the Arizonal Air National Guard, but he didn’t like the “private property” aspects of the '64 law. In other words, Goldwater believed people’s private businesses and private clubs were subject only to market forces, not government mandates (“We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”) His vote against the Civil Rights Act was because of that one provision was, to my mind, a principled mistake.

This stance is what won Goldwater the South in 1964, and no doubt many racists voted for Goldwater in the mistaken belief that he opposed Negro Civil Rights. But Goldwater was not a racist; he was a libertarian who favored both civil rights and property rights.

Switch to 1968.

Richard Nixon was also a proponent of Civil Rights; he was a CA colleague Earl Warren who urged Ike to appoint Warren to the Supreme Court; he was a supporter of Brown v. Board, and favored sending troops to integrate Little Rock High). Nixon saw he could develop a “Southern strategy” based on Goldwater’s inroads. He did, but Independent Democrat George Wallace carried most of the deep south in 68. By 1972, however, Wallace was shot and paralyzed, and Nixon began to tilt the south to the GOP. The old guard Democrats began to fade away while a new generation of Southern politicians became Republicans. True, Strom Thurmond switched to GOP, but most of the old timers (Fulbright, Gore, Wallace, Byrd etc etc) retired as Dems.

Why did a new generation white Southerners join the GOP.? Not because they thought Republicans were racists who would return the South to segregation, but because the GOP was a “local government, small government” party in the old Jeffersonian tradition. Southerners wanted less government and the GOP was their natural home.

Jimmy Carter, a Civil Rights Democrat, briefly returned some states to the Democrat fold, but in 1980, Goldwater’s heir, Ronald Reagan, sealed this deal for the GOP. The new “Solid South” was solid GOP.

BUT, and we must stress this, the new southern Republicans were integrationist Republicans who accepted the Civil Rights revolution and full integration while retaining their love of Jeffersonian limited government principles.

 

[ProVobis]

It’s the fact that the GOP believes in NOTHING!

It seems their only job is to win elections.

Can’t be perfect, though.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Do tell me you think Santourm, Gingrich, Bachmann, Cain, Perry or Paul would have done better than Romney.

Lisa

Yes. Romney was boring and he was vulnerable on the most critical elements that conservatives cared about. Cain could have beaten Obama. Paul could have beaten Obama. I think Santorum and Gingrich could have as well. Bachmann and Perry, not so sure. I think Romney was the least attractive of the candidates, but that is who the RNC wanted, so that is who they got.

 

[austenbosten]

Myth - In 1964 and 1965, southern Democrats were racist segregationists. 1968, southern democrat racist segregationists became Dixiecrats. By 1980 all Dixiecrats had become racist segregationist southern Republicans

Truth - most Dixiecrats did not become Republicans. They created the Dixiecrats and then when the civil rights movement accomplished, Dixiecrats returned to the Democrats. Much later, younger Southerners and the thousands of Northerners moved to the South and Republicans began to make gains

"These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”

– LBJ on the need to pass the Civil Rights Act

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

It seems their only job is to win elections.

Can’t be perfect, though.

You are describing both the DNC and the RNC. They don’t give a shart about “We the People”, they care about “Them, the Government.”.

 

[ProVobis]

Myth - In 1964 and 1965, southern Democrats were racist segregationists. 1968, southern democrat racist segregationists became Dixiecrats. By 1980 all Dixiecrats had become racist segregationist southern Republicans

Truth - most Dixiecrats did not become Republicans. They created the Dixiecrats and then when the civil rights movement accomplished, Dixiecrats returned to the Democrats. Much later, younger Southerners and the thousands of Northerners moved to the South and Republicans began to make gains

What happened to the Reagan Democrats?

 

[austenbosten]

What happened to the Reagan Democrats?

The GOP put up George H.W. Bush and the Reagan Democrats never came back

 

[ProVobis]

You are describing both the DNC and the RNC. They don’t give a shart about “We the People”, they care about “Them, the Government.”.

And the "Too Big To Fail"s.

 

[ProVobis]

The GOP put up George H.W. Bush and the Reagan Democrats never came back

Hey, I liked GHWB. Probably the last president we had who was fiscally responsible. And he had to deal with Reagan’s crashed markets.

 

[JMJSHJ]

As far as I am concerned the moment that Santorum started talking about birth control during the primaries is what destroyed any chance of him becoming President. I don’t know about Newt if he could have won against Obama but the rest of them wouldn’t have had a chance.

Obama didn’t win the election, Romney lost it. First with the 47% comment, then with the comments about self deportation for the illegals in the USA and then evangelicals not voting for him because they didn’t believe he would overturn Obamacare.

 

[LisaA]

Yeah I think either (exception of Paul) could have won…However we have a choice. We can just not parlay with the Propaganda Ministry, or…

We can play the losing game that the Left sets up for us, where we try and be moderate and look “smart” so the media won’t bash us…but in the end, it’s still the same game.

It’s like Charlie Brown running to kick the football, we think we’ll be able to kick it; but every time all the time the ball is moved and we fall on our backs.

I guess we agree to disagree here. I thought the remaining field was seriously flawed—Cain’s bimbo eruptions, Perry’s horrible debates, Gingrich’s negatives and baggage, Santorum’s record in the Senate, his loss in 08 and the ability of the media to portray him as a total nutcase…tell me how in the world any of this bunch could have attracted enough voters to win?

I don’t think the RNC tried to portray our ticket as moderate and the MSM portrayed them as RADICAL Right Wingnuts. How ironic that Conservatives lamented Romney’s sqush status while the media claimed he would reach into women’s pocketbooks and pull out their birth control pills. We had zero control over the message.

Romney is/was not an idealogue so he didn’t speak Conservative well but certainly Ryan has his Conservative cred. I think the loss is more attributable to the headstart the Dems had because THEY were smarter than we, realizing Romney would be the nominee and attacking him months before the Convention. So instead of closing rank and attacking the REAL enemey, we engaged in a circular firing squad for months and months, so damaging the brand and Romney’s candidacy that we couldn’t win in spite of Obama’s bad economy, his incompetence, his dishonesty, his green energy debacles.

Unbelievable that the American people voted it back in…

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

Yes. Romney was boring and he was vulnerable on the most critical elements that conservatives cared about. Cain could have beaten Obama. Paul could have beaten Obama. I think Santorum and Gingrich could have as well. Bachmann and Perry, not so sure. I think Romney was the least attractive of the candidates, but that is who the RNC wanted, so that is who they got.

Total canard Scott. The RNC pulled the lever in all those states? Sorry but you and anyone else who claims someone like me is a stupid sheep choosing my candidate because of the RNC are being unbelievably arrogant and insulting. Romney won the nomination because he got more votes than the other candidates. He was not chosen by the RNC, he was chosen by the voters.

Lisa

 

[ringil]

We can play the losing game that the Left sets up for us, where we try and be moderate and look “smart” so the media won’t bash us…but in the end, it’s still the same game.
.

Isn’t looking “smart” kind of important in a leader. Look how Palin did. . . . . . . .

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

I guess we agree to disagree here. I thought the remaining field was seriously flawed—Cain’s bimbo eruptions, Perry’s horrible debates, Gingrich’s negatives and baggage, Santorum’s record in the Senate, his loss in 08 and the ability of the media to portray him as a total nutcase…tell me how in the world any of this bunch could have attracted enough voters to win?

I don’t think the RNC tried to portray our ticket as moderate and the MSM portrayed them as RADICAL Right Wingnuts. How ironic that Conservatives lamented Romney’s sqush status while the media claimed he would reach into women’s pocketbooks and pull out their birth control pills. We had zero control over the message.

Romney is/was not an idealogue so he didn’t speak Conservative well but certainly Ryan has his Conservative cred. I think the loss is more attributable to the headstart the Dems had because THEY were smarter than we, realizing Romney would be the nominee and attacking him months before the Convention. So instead of closing rank and attacking the REAL enemey, we engaged in a circular firing squad for months and months, so damaging the brand and Romney’s candidacy that we couldn’t win in spite of Obama’s bad economy, his incompetence, his dishonesty, his green energy debacles.

Unbelievable that the American people voted it back in…

Lisa

He lost because he couldn’t attack ObamaCare; he is perceived as a moderate and because he is a Mormon.

NB: I voted for him.

 

[mary_bobo]

As far as I am concerned the moment that Santorum started talking about birth control during the primaries is what destroyed any chance of him becoming President. I don’t know about Newt if he could have won against Obama but the rest of them wouldn’t have had a chance.

Obama didn’t win the election, Romney lost it. First with the 47% comment, then with the comments about self deportation for the illegals in the USA and then evangelicals not voting for him because they didn’t believe he would overturn Obamacare.

I think the biggest contributor to an Obama victory was the MSM. They, backing up the Dems, defined Romney before he had a chance to define himself. Although his campaign was able to raise lots of money, I don’t think they ran a good campaign. They let too many things that were said about them go unanswered. Most people get their information from the MSM and herein lies a big problem.

 

[SamH]

Isn’t looking “smart” kind of important in a leader. Look how Palin did. . . . . . . .

It’s amazing what a full court press by all media outlets can do to a person.

What I found amazing is how she is perceived as some right wing Tea Party type when she was anything but.

 

[austenbosten]

Isn’t looking “smart” kind of important in a leader. Look how Palin did. . . . . . . .

Yeah even though Palin got more in 2008 with McCain than Ryan did with Romney

Maybe you should actually give her Governor record a close look at before you spout off such absurdities.