Jim Stillman
M-KazDeja vu -- all over again
November 7th 2008 16:45
It is, today, November 7, 2008, three days following the election that followed a campaign that lasted, it seems, forever. So long, in fact, that it wore out the candidates, the public and even junkies like me. It has already been pointed out in the press and political columns that the Ohio caucuses will be coming up in April, 2010, and the next presidential election will be conducted in about 1470 days, more or less.
The story in the papers yesterday was that Mike Huckabee was going to be in Ohio within the next two weeks. In addition, supporters of Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney, Republicans, and Hillary Clinton are poised to file exploratory committees. And Barack Obama won’t start his presidency for another 75 days.
I would suggest that, if the GOP wants to have a chance, it must decide what the Republican party is to stand for.
On one side is the traditional Republican role, a party in favor of a strictly limited federal government, a belief is lower federal taxes, a reliance on the collective wisdom of the individual choices and private affairs of citizens remaining private without interference by the government and a further reliance on the marketplace to regulate itself. Over the years has come, somewhat grudgingly, an acknowledgment that some outside regulation of business and the free market is necessary, That party sought to erect a large tent, open to many diverse values.
On the other side of the GOP are those most concerned with social and moral issues. The split was the result of Karl Rove and others who sought to create an overwhelming and permanent dominance of the Republicans. The emphasis was on, for example, an abhorrence of all abortions, save in the most rare circumstances, a defense of traditional one man-one woman marriage and a disdain for what was perceived as a secularization of the American lifestyle, including the identification of nearly any government involvement in private lives and institution as the equivalent of socialism. These beliefs encompassed a desire to have public prayer in schools, religious monuments and icons in public and government facilities, a feeling that all of these rights were placed in jeopardy by activist Courts
.
Following the aftermath of the election of Barack Obama, many observers have suggested that one reason for the GOP’s success is that, while the party’s social conservatives were active and organized; their efforts were generally not adopted by the majority of the public. While the social conservatives directed their efforts at that which they considered the major issues of the day, the public did not agree. To a majority of voters, there were one overriding issue, the collapsing economy, and, secondarily, war in Iraq and health care; Barack Obama presented a comprehensive concrete plan to address these issues. The Republicans had no plan to offer in opposition. In effect, Senator Obama won by default.
There is a real need for a real loyal opposition. For the sake of the country, the GOP must find its way.
The story in the papers yesterday was that Mike Huckabee was going to be in Ohio within the next two weeks. In addition, supporters of Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney, Republicans, and Hillary Clinton are poised to file exploratory committees. And Barack Obama won’t start his presidency for another 75 days.
I would suggest that, if the GOP wants to have a chance, it must decide what the Republican party is to stand for.
On one side is the traditional Republican role, a party in favor of a strictly limited federal government, a belief is lower federal taxes, a reliance on the collective wisdom of the individual choices and private affairs of citizens remaining private without interference by the government and a further reliance on the marketplace to regulate itself. Over the years has come, somewhat grudgingly, an acknowledgment that some outside regulation of business and the free market is necessary, That party sought to erect a large tent, open to many diverse values.
On the other side of the GOP are those most concerned with social and moral issues. The split was the result of Karl Rove and others who sought to create an overwhelming and permanent dominance of the Republicans. The emphasis was on, for example, an abhorrence of all abortions, save in the most rare circumstances, a defense of traditional one man-one woman marriage and a disdain for what was perceived as a secularization of the American lifestyle, including the identification of nearly any government involvement in private lives and institution as the equivalent of socialism. These beliefs encompassed a desire to have public prayer in schools, religious monuments and icons in public and government facilities, a feeling that all of these rights were placed in jeopardy by activist Courts
Following the aftermath of the election of Barack Obama, many observers have suggested that one reason for the GOP’s success is that, while the party’s social conservatives were active and organized; their efforts were generally not adopted by the majority of the public. While the social conservatives directed their efforts at that which they considered the major issues of the day, the public did not agree. To a majority of voters, there were one overriding issue, the collapsing economy, and, secondarily, war in Iraq and health care; Barack Obama presented a comprehensive concrete plan to address these issues. The Republicans had no plan to offer in opposition. In effect, Senator Obama won by default.
There is a real need for a real loyal opposition. For the sake of the country, the GOP must find its way.
Portions previously published at EXAMINER.COM
| 54 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Randy Inman
Football Dogz
NCstuff
The Right Side
The Republicans need a person more to the right than McCain and more to the left (but not much) than Bush.
I am glad to see you see a reason for Republicans to exist and don't want to wipe the movement off the map.
I would love to have seen a Thompson/Palin combo take on President Elect Obama.
Comment by Jeff Musall
Secular Humanity