So you've got the loser of the last national election and the brother of the most despised president in a generation leading the rebranding effort of the republican party. Good luck with that
I dunno - McCain and Jeb Bush (who's very popular) make a lot of sense if you want to move towards a fiscal agenda and away from the social agenda. Jindal works too as a fresh face. All the Senate and House leaders? Not so much. They are the ones that drove the party to where it is now.
Exactly, and this reinforces Major's point about trotting out GOP Congressional leaders. They need to not be involved, IMHO. I'm all for rebranding, if they include a lot of smart rethinking.
Of course you know this involves more than just branding. It's GOP ideas that are out of step. If this is all about changing their image and nothing about changing policies, they are wasting their time, I don't care who the "new faces" are. When you say Jeb Bush is popular, that is only within Florida. He hasn't staked out a national image and because of fatigue and disgust with the Bush name, I doubt he has a national future any time soon. That is, unless he's willing to criticize and renounce his brother's administration. Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't fool anybody anymore. They need to get rid of the pig. It may take another electoral whipping to convince the GOP to get in step with the general public.
But McCain (not the version that ran for Pres, though) and Jeb Bush are the ones with the different ideas. They are the ones that are fiscally conservative beyond just "lower taxes!!!". They are the ones open to new ideas on immigration reform. They are the ones that de-emphasize social issues. You need a mix of big names and reformists, and those are two of the few people in the GOP with those both of those credentials. I agree Jeb Bush doesn't have a big national standing, but he was popular with both Republicans and Dems in Florida - and the rest of the country doesn't hate him. I think people are pretty good at separating George and Jeb. It would be different if he was running for Pres, but just as a voice, I think he's fine. What blows the whole thing up is the Congressional Leaders being involved. They are the exact opposite of all that.
I agree with A3po - this seems cart before the horse. They have to figure out who they are and what they stand before they can "rebrand" it - or else it's just a gimmick.
What happened to the suburban hip hop black dood and the 12 year old home schooled ideologue? I thought they were rebranding the GOP a couple of weeks ago.
That's the theoretical idea behind this: "This forum will include a wide open policy debate that every American can feel free to participate in," the announcement letter reads. "We do this not just to offer an alternative point of view or to be disagreeable. Instead, we want to ask the American people what their hopes and dreams are. Since January, the President and the Democratic Majority in Congress have - rightfully so - put forward their plan for the future, now we must listen, learn and lead through an honest, open conversation with the American people that will result in building policy proposals that will yield the best results for our nation's long-term success." Whether it works is a whole different issue.
The problem with the Republican party is the cognitive dissonance between laissez-faire corporatism and a repressive social policy. Don't regulate our business but do regulate our behavior; revere the country we love by polluting it with consumerism; defend the land of the free, by giving up our freedom. It's a cobbled together coalition with the corporate interest exploiting the religious and social ones. (I wonder if I can get a consultants fee for that)
While I'm not a hip hopper nor 12 (sadly) nor home-schooled, the tea conspiracy is still brewing. I still peek in here to see what's happening, but I have very little time to respond on a continuing basis. My focus group has had to split at least twice now because the emails were too voluminous for one person to handle. BTW, there is still no consensus on forming a new party or revitalizing the GOP.
I'm not usually the cynical one, but lipstick on a pig does and will forever continue to fool people. On the reverse, I think you may be the cynical one to think that there is a great philosophical divide between the Republican Party and the will of the people.
what's the line about fool me once, fool me twice? i think HAYJON02 got it right on the nose with that picture.
I admit the Republicans getting trounced 3 elections in a row (04/06/08) does influence my thinking. The only reason Bush won in 2004 was because the Dems put up a worthless candidate that the GOP mud machine buried. Do you actually believe people like Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Steele reflect the philosophies of most Americans? If so, why does the GOP only have 40 seats in the Senate? Is it because they are in tune with the public? Do you think the problem is just image and not substance? I admit to being a cynic (and also a realist). If you read much of what I say in D&D, there is no room for doubt about that. Not to beat a dead horse, but lipstick on a pig is exactly why John McCain lost the election. She fooled people for about 2 weeks and then completely destroyed McCain's candidacy. That's another one we disagree about. Public cynicism with the GOP is at an all-time high and the public at large is looking for every reason to doubt whatever they say.
Until the republicans purge themselves of impractical thinking and put traditional republican values over the b.s. right wing values they have....i can not take any "rebranding" effort seriously.
Traditional republican values would include taking many things out of the federal purview and returning them to state control. While I like it personally, I do not know how well it will sell.
