|
|
||||
|
|
||||
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
7 comments:
-
Anonymous said...
-
She's great, and she'd be able to represent the base and also convince those outside the base she and the GOP don't hate them out of hand. Given the chance she might be able to convince union workers, gays, minorities, teens, college grads, etc. her party doesn’t hate them outright, as it seems there’s never been a decent effort to blunt these assertions.
I vote right but am not the base, and I'm not asking the base to dilute themselves on my behalf, but at some level they should realize the raw numbers don't favor them anymore.
If the base wants a chance to enact their agenda in the democratic process they'll need the support of people like me, who ask nothing more than not turn off huge voting blocks with what appears at times to be outright hostility. We outside the base will go about our business once the elections are won, and the base is then be free to do whatever.
The GOP should advertise itself as, and actually be, the party of the middle class, stressing family values, fair taxation, roads to citizenship for those who deserve it, etc.
The party does a horrible job communicating simple ideas with wide appeal. We need someone who knows how to express simple, honest statements of fact. The Kyoto Protocol exempts 2 of the 5 largest polluters. Why can't this be expressed in plain English? We shouldn't grant citizenship to gang members. Those collecting unemployment should be expected to look for work. Welfare shouldn't be for life. These are all fair and reasonable, and if the GOP makes these and other simple points they’ll appeal to many more people than they do now.
Sarah Palin can be the next Reagan, who spoke more about what he was for than of what he was against. -
11/11/08, 12:41 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
I have to say Rodger - that headline made me look twice!
The mental image threw me off guard.
TFV -
11/11/08, 4:46 PM
-
Rodger the Real King of France said...
-
Made your leg tingle, didn't it.
-
11/11/08, 7:38 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
I didn't watch it, I was at work, and, now that the election is over, don't have the energy to watch a lot of news. One thing though, Rodger. You may not see this or read right over it, and no big deal if you do.
But here's a question. There's no doubt the financial deal really screwed McCain hard. The people I talked to here at work, said that Palin stopped being a great choice (still not a bad one, we all maintained) when the unforseen became, well, seen. But do you think a Romney, if we'd of known what was going to happen, would have made a better VP choice? I don't know if we stood a chance in hell of winning regardless, Americans are voting looking to shed Republican blood, but do you think it would have helped? -
11/11/08, 8:15 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
I called Romney from the start. I was raised in the buckle of the bible belt. The evangelicals would vote for Romney about the same time they would vote for Ossama (not Obama). They vote the bible. End of discussion. This empowers the Huckabees that give us the McCains. A Mormon will NEVER be elected. Personally I think its a shame, I know people that were his direct reports in the 80's and are Dems. They say the mans character is beyond reproach and he is absolutely brilliant. He will never carry the heartland due to his religion. There will always be a reverend Billy Bob to split the vote.
-
11/11/08, 9:33 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
Well yeah and to be honest the only political tingle I've had since Fred! dropped out.
TFV
:) -
11/11/08, 10:28 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
We all have great ideas here, but knowing the GOP they will proceed as they have in the past: a perverted obsession with the sex lives and religious beliefs of the citizenry.
I, too, vote right. But even if my state registered voters by party I'd shake Obama's hand before I'd actually register Republican. They'd not want me anyway. -
11/12/08, 6:58 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)