Rand Paul: Without change, GOP will "not win again in my lifetime"

[FollowChrist34]

None of us can predict the political climate in Nov 2014, let alone Nov 2016. Republicans should take the Senate in 2014 - it they mess that up, look out. And in 2016 they should run somebody like Marco Rubio with Bobby Jindal or Jeb Bush, something like that. Strong ticket.

Thing is, I am afraid of what will happen when the GOP takes office. Don’t fool yourself. It won’t even remotely be a Catholic agenda. Social conservatives will only come back when the culture shifts back to tradition (and it will shift when it becomes disillusioned enough, but that could be years. Roe v Wade was a long time ago - we’re finally starting to see some change in people’s attitudes now.).

One other positive note, we don’t need THAT many more voters, just maybe 4-6 percent more to safely win the White House. What was it last time, like 48-52%? The independents, women, Hispanics, African-Americans, etc. Some members of all of these groups have voted GOP in the past. Nothing EVER stays the same - but I am not sure we should be too excited about what’s coming.

 

[DeniseNY]

Bravo, iishi!

:clapping

 

[powerofk]

Honestly, as a Catholic, I am terrified about either party having too much power for any length of time. What I am infuriated about, however, is the current batch of garbage being done by both houses of Congress, who are both more interested in passing legislation that they know has no chance in the other house - and more interested in shooting down any legislation that comes out of the other house regardless of how much bipartisan support it had (ahemcomprehensive immigration reformahem) - than trying to work together well.

In fact, the current state of affairs between D’s and R’s is so toxic that members of both parties are often defeated in primaries simply for TALKING with a member of the other party! A lot of this, of course, is due to closed primaries (which serve to make the candidates more to the extreme right (for the GOP) or the extreme left (for the Dems)) and Gerrymandering (which makes >95% of Congressional districts “safe” districts for the incumbent party). Honestly, I believe Boehner is going to receive a serious primary challenge in his district in Ohio due to his constituents not believing that he is “Conservative” enough.

The problem with the GOP isn’t just the GOP, though (though the primaries push the GOP much further right than most Americans, Dem primaries push Dem candidates much further to the left than most Americans). The Dem party has been able to make the Left appear as if it were the Center, though the true center has moved toward the Right.

How has the Dem party been able to do this? By tugging on heartstrings. The right has appealed to anger - the left has tried to appeal to compassion (whether their policies are actually compassionate is up for debate - but that’s not the point here).

Appeals to compassion, whether founded or unfounded, usually outperform appeals to anger. In fact, appeals to anger often actually reinforce the resolve of the supporters of a political leader even more than they reinforce the resolve the opponents. This is why “Anybody but ________” campaigns almost always fail - and why the campaign to recall Scott Walker in WI failed. All such campaigns are fueled by anger against an incumbent without a reasonable answer to such incumbent.

 

[ishii]

I appreciate your candor Ishii.  Having read your posts I think we agree on a lot of things.  To be honest what concerns me is the 2012 election and the effect it had on the Republican party.  For the record Pres. Obama didn't win the election, but Romney lost it.  While I couldn't have voted in the election (Canadian) I certainly would have because like yourself abortion is a deal breaker following very clear Catholic teaching on this matter.  I will admit that voting for Romney was a risk but I would have been taking that risk rather than a sure thing with Pres. Obama.

Thanks, saintjohnxxiii. Why do you think Romney lost the election? What did he do that lost him for it? Most of the analysis has been to the effect that his 47% comment and his inability to shake the “out of touch rich guy” doomed him. Maybe you have a different take? I actually liked Romney and though he was a good man - morally upright and wholesome which is consistent with my experience with most Mormon people. Sure he wasn’t a movement conservative and his conversion on abortion was easily portrayed as opportunistic - by those who probably were searching for an excuse to not vote for him anyway. I think he would have made a good president.

While Romney said some things that he probably shouldn’t have (47% comment, deport all illegals, etc) it was evangelicals that sat out of voting because they didn’t believe that he would have overturned Obamacare. They are idiots because do they actually think that Obama would have overturned it. I don’t know who I am more mad at, Catholic democrats who actually voted for Obama or those people.

Do you think Romney’s Mormonism also contributed to evangelicals not voting for him?

Not to sound too pessimistic but while 2 terms with one party is a lot remember that from 1980 to 1992 had 3 terms with the other party. I honestly felt that Pres. Obama was going to get defeated because the economy isn’t good and prior to 2012 good/bad economic conditions can seriously effect elections e.g. 1992, 2008 (bad economy), 1996, 2004 (good economy).

You are correct about the 3 GOP presidential terms from 1980-92. But remember that Bush was essentially running for Reagan’s 3rd term, and the economy was still doing well, and the Democrats hadn’t learned to not nominate statist liberals yet. The country was not yet as it is now with 47% takers and back in 1988, 45% the country was not as liberal or plagued by entitlement mentality. Now, however, even with a stagnant economy, dismal performance of the incumbent, the Democrats still won - courtesy of those entitlement voters, the 47%, and a little help from Democrat friends, Sandy (hurricane), Sandra (Fluke), and Candy (Crowley). That said, I highly doubt that the Democrat running in 2016 will be running on any accomplishments of Obama. Most likely they will be running away from his mistakes. Neither a Democrat win in 2016, nor a GOP win is inevitable.

Thanks again for your comments.

Ishii

 

[RPRPsych]

Do you think Romney’s Mormonism also contributed to evangelicals not voting for him?

That is, of course, possible. But even a Mormon is better than following Jeremiah Wright.

You are correct about the 3 GOP presidential terms from 1980-92. But remember that Bush was essentially running for Reagan’s 3rd term, and the economy was still doing well, and the Democrats hadn’t learned to not nominate statist liberals yet. The country was not yet as it is now with 47% takers and back in 1988, 45% the country was not as liberal or plagued by entitlement mentality. Now, however, even with a stagnant economy, dismal performance of the incumbent, the Democrats still won - courtesy of those entitlement voters, the 47%, and a little help from Democrat friends, Sandy (hurricane), Sandra (Fluke), and Candy (Crowley). That said, I highly doubt that the Democrat running in 2016 will be running on any accomplishments of Obama. Most likely they will be running away from his mistakes. Neither a Democrat win in 2016, nor a GOP win is inevitable.

 

[meltzerboy]

People can be fickle, and there is often a spirit of “throw the bums out” that comes with each election. Our collective memory is often short as well, and we think that anything is better than what we have now. But I don’t have a crystal ball, and I also don’t care for much of what the GOP has come to stand for. From outside, it seems they are a house divided, and a house divided will not stand long.

I was going to say the same thing about the fickleness of the American public and the shortness of its collective memory. While the GOP probably does have to make some changes to win elections, I don’t think the situation of the Party is quite as bad as Rand Paul would have us believe.

 

[vsedriver]

The GOP will never gain control of the WH as long as they hold to ANY conservative views. The media will trash anyone who is conservative on any policy, whether it is social or economic.

The media has made sure that everyone knows that conservatives are bad, mean, greedy people.

 

[Geist]

I think if you ask most political pundits who is more likely to gain a majority in the Senate in 2014, they will say the Republicans

They’re wrong. In many states to win a race you need only win or two major urban areas.

I live in VA; we have 95 counties with 38 independent cities. The Democrats swept the election by winning about 33% of those localities, but those 33% are where the most people live. Obama won VA by similar reasons and our Dem senator will win re-election quite easily by winning only a few highly populated counties.

 

[Geist]

We’ll see. If the GOP can get it together, the non-whites, single women and union workers will tune the academia and media elite of the left.

They won’t. Identity politics preclude this.

 

[Geist]

So you’re saying our country is doomed? Going down the tubes?

Ishii

It’s screwed no matter what. The fact a Dem or Rep is at the helm when it finally hits bottom is irrelevant.

At this point everything is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It’s screwed no matter what. The fact a Dem or Rep is at the helm when it finally hits bottom is irrelevant.

At this point everything is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

I have to disagree with this. What this country needs most is full employment. Everybody worries about foreign competition, etc, but this country is not without advantages. Internal, very good transportation means a lot. So does inexpensive energy. So does near access to raw materials. So does quality and consistency, which presumes a self-interested management that’s in place because of capability rather than political favoritism. So, too, does a reasonable business environment that isn’t thwarted at every turn by arbitrary governmental action.

I recall reading (and pardon the seeming digression) that one of the main causes of business failure and non-start in Arab countries is that, in the average business attempt, a person has to go through anywhere from 50 to 200 government agencies to even operate something so simple as a fruit stand, and it takes years to get through the process. So the whole process and any benefit freedom of action and exercise of talent and energy might bring, are thwarted. In many left-leaning non-Arab countries, it’s little better.

This country can come back, and has the means to do so. But it can only do so when stifling ideologically-based government fiats are ameliorated. The current rulers of this country stand blocking the doorway to recovery, and only their removal from office will bring about the prosperity Americans and their children could enjoy.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Honestly, as a Catholic, I am terrified about either party having too much power for any length of time. What I am infuriated about, however, is the current batch of garbage being done by both houses of Congress, who are both more interested in passing legislation that they know has no chance in the other house - and more interested in shooting down any legislation that comes out of the other house regardless of how much bipartisan support it had (ahemcomprehensive immigration reformahem) - than trying to work together well.

In fact, the current state of affairs between D’s and R’s is so toxic that members of both parties are often defeated in primaries simply for TALKING with a member of the other party! .

I wonder about this, at least a little.

Are we entirely certain that Repubs and Dems in Congress could not work together? They have at times in the past. What’s different now?

Well, for one thing, you have an utterly supine Dem majority in the Senate. It does whatever Harry Reid bids it to do, and a good part of the time does nothing at all because Reid prevents the Senate from even voting. Why does such a group of otherwise towering egos obey this man like a bunch of puppets?

While I could be wrong, I suspect the control of campaign money has very much concentrated at the top. Until 2010, Nancy Pelosi was widely regarded as the “sugar mama” who could make or break any Dem candidate by reason of her control of vast sums of party and other donor money. Is Reid now the “sugar daddy” for the Dem senators? Is it perhaps more complicated than that? Barack Obama has spent a massive amount of his time during his tenure raising huge sums of money from the rich and famous, and he has done it even after he can no longer be elected. Why? Well, to influence the elections of others, that’s why.

And so, are the Dems in Congress silent and inactive for that reason, like a pack of thirsty dogs circled around a hydrant waiting for the master to turn it on? It does not seem unlikely to me.

Until the Dems in Congress somehow regain their independence of action, and I don’t know when they will if ever, I don’t think we’ll see anything but the current polarization or rule of their party by a tiny minority.

Seeing the active debate and dissention in the Repub party is actually kind of refreshing.

 

[Cricket2]

So you’re saying our country is doomed? Going down the tubes?

Ishii

This country started going down the tubes in 1981, by most accounts. I think the start of the flush came under Nixon.

 

[meltzerboy]

This country started going down the tubes in 1981, by most accounts. I think the start of the flush came under Nixon.

Why 1981; because of Reagan? Certainly the country was going downhill both at home and abroad during the Carter administration. Some would set the date in the late 1960’s when there was a cultural revolution. Others might say the 1860’s during and after the Civil War. Despite this cry of despair and doom, the US continues to be resilient and reports of its death have been, as Mark Twain would say, “greatly exaggerated.”

 

[RC_Sojourner]

The GOP will never gain control of the WH as long as they hold to ANY conservative views. The media will trash anyone who is conservative on any policy, whether it is social or economic.

The media has made sure that everyone knows that conservatives are bad, mean, greedy people.

The only reason that’s true is because the majority of the people actually listen to the media now. People didn’t listen to the media when they elected Ronald Reagan. The times, they are a changin’…

If people voted for who they actually wanted, and not for who the media told them could win, then we might actually get a Republican President. However, its even less likely that people will wake up, then it is for the GOP to change (in the way Rand Paul wants it to).

Rand Paul is right.

 

[ishii]

This country started going down the tubes in 1981, by most accounts. I think the start of the flush came under Nixon.

Cricket2, you need to explain your post better:

“by most accounts” ? Whose accounts? Partisan liberal Democrats? You don’t seem to make any pretense whatsoever of objectivity. Considering Nixon was basically a liberal - instituting many liberal programs - EPA, wage and price controls, etc. I can agree that the Nixon era was unfortunate. Do you think the presidency of LBJ was positive? Billions spent on entitlements and a land war in Asia? The 70’s under Carter? Stagflation? double digit unemployment, interest rates?

Then Reagan got elected and inflation, unemployment, interest ratess went down, our defenses got restored.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

It’s screwed no matter what. The fact a Dem or Rep is at the helm when it finally hits bottom is irrelevant.

At this point everything is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

So its time to give up and buy a compound in Montana?

 

[ProVobis]

I think the start of the flush came under Nixon.

Removal of the gold standard led to unlimited money printing by the Fed, from which we will never recover.

BTW, where was the filibuster against Janet Yellen, Senator?

 

[Geist]

So its time to give up and buy a compound in Montana?

Eh maybe.

The inevitable collapse of the Federal government will be a rough transition, but power like nature abhors a vacuum and we’ll see a default return to the Articles of Confederation days.

State governments (the stable ones anyway; sorry California) will remain intact.

You can wave a magic wand and get the super duper GOP of your dreams to run the WH, House, Senate and SC and the country will still fall from the events set in motion in the 1960’s on the culture front and the 1910’s with the creation of the Federal Reserve.

The US is financially and morally bankrupt; not a recipe for long life.

 

[poker10]

Cricket2, you need to explain your post better:

“by most accounts” ? Whose accounts? Partisan liberal Democrats? You don’t seem to make any pretense whatsoever of objectivity. Considering Nixon was basically a liberal - instituting many liberal programs - EPA, wage and price controls, etc. I can agree that the Nixon era was unfortunate. Do you think the presidency of LBJ was positive? Billions spent on entitlements and a land war in Asia? The 70’s under Carter? Stagflation? double digit unemployment, interest rates?

Then Reagan got elected and inflation, unemployment, interest ratess went down, our defenses got restored.

Ishii

You do know that Paul Volcker was responsible for taming inflation in the 1980s, right? A Democrat appointed by Carter. He and the Federal Reserve Board are the ones who raised interest rates to record levels to get inflation under control. The only thing Reagan did was reappoint him in 1983.