Redstate

The rocket scientists on the business side of the NYT had the brilliance to hide her, Kruggie, Herbie and the rest of the gang behind a paywall.

I have never thought Dole did a good job. She needs to go.

Hey how about this for a grand compromise with the Dems? We all pledge never ever to elect or appoint to anything anyone named Bush, Dole, Clinton, or Kennedy ever again.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Wars should be Nasty, Brutish and Short
Immigrants should be Safe, legal, and rare
and liberals should be Stopped, dropped, and rolled.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

Just on the basis of the fact that these freshmen are freshmen they're going to have to toe the Party Line. So their "tough-guy" appearances are mostly for show.

I have a friend who actually met Nancy Pelosi this weekend in Washington, and she is the ultimate Mother Hen. She's extremely self-conscious (loud n' proud) of her role as the first female Speaker and my guess is that she is going to become the Den Mother for these new boys. In other words, the Donks are making a lot of ado about nothing in their typical fashion, because Nancy is going to tell them exactly which Merit Badges they need to become Webelos in her house.

Veritas magna est et praevalet.

I agree with much of what was contained within Adam's post. If someone is a conservative activist who speaks the language on 80% of the issues and has the ability to engage independents and moderate liberals, they should definitely be welcomed openly and recruited for such efforts. Otherwise, we will be relegated to the minority for quite a while, and instead of getting even 50% of what we want, we'll be stuck with 5%-10% and have little effect on the national discussion.

If you like the idea of selecting our candidates on the basis of how telegenic they are why not do away with primaries all together and just check their TV Q ratings ?

If we want to move into liberal areas lets do it the old fashioned way. Pick our targets get organized and advance the movement. Electing liberals will have the exact opposite effect.

I would much rather see a conservative win a marginal seat by advancing the cause, than to see a liberal win a no win seat by selling out the cause.

Veritas magna est et praevalet.

I wasn't at all referring to how "telegenic" they are. I'm still not quite sure how that was construed from my post. My only point is that it is sometimes good to recruit candidates from outside the "norm." People who are, in fact, conservative (on a number of issues), and have the ability to convey those views successfully to independents and moderate liberals.

... on a macro level.

I believe it's less to do with our positions on the issues than our marketing and image.

I'll have (a lot) more to write about this later ...

I fail to see how Republicans are bad for mass transit, are discriminatory in hiring, or that gays need more protections in that regard.

You're talking about a style issue, I guess. And as far as that's concerned, what is this garbage about Republicans not being in favor of small business or having the image that they're not?

Maybe things are different in Seattle...

He advocates for equal and fair hiring practices for gays and tries to help Republicans learn how to better think and talk about gay rights.

What does your sexual preference have to do with getting a job in Seattle?

He says R's must address the importance of workforce diversity, and they should highlight retention of essential social services in tight budgetary cycles. Ross also says the GOP must impress on minority voters in Seattle and the suburbs that, for all the talk of the party's affinity with small-business owners, the GOP isn't still a lackey of big business.

If Republicans are lackeys of "big business" that should be a *plus* in terms of what the author is saying here, because it is a well-known fact the biggest companies in America, from IBM on down have been in the vanguard of Workplace Diversity and benefits to same-sex partners. If anything, it's the mom-and-pop shops that discriminate against workers on the basis of their hiring practices. For example, I know several businesses in Chicago where you can't get hired unless you are gay.

IBM was one of the first large companies to advertise in The Advocate. Ditto Jaguar (Ford) and dozens of others. And you can't get bigger than Big Blue.

So why should Republicans feel badly about supporting Big Business in terms of workplace policies toward gays?

Okay, now I see what Joliphant may have been referring to (i.e. "telegenic"). Personally, it may have more to do with how people must talk in other parts of the country in order to get their views across. This type of talk may be effective in opening the door to more conservative ways of thinking, perhaps? I dunno...maybe I'm still being naive (which is probably most likely).

I think Adam has a point but I don't know whether he really explained it. I think that if you look at corporate America especially you'll find that at least in terms of human resources and their hiring practices the vast majority of the Forbes 500 are more progressive than almost everyone else in the country.

Ditto our Universities and State governments.

Now let's ask the question: how many people need to be employed who are gay? Homosexuals are, by most estimates, between 3-6% of the total population. And Big Business, almost all State Governments, the Federal government, many local governments and especially almost all Universities have nondiscrimination policies and same-sex benefits packages. Is anyone seriously telling me that gay people can't find a job?

Is it really Big Business or Big Government that is "discriminating" against gays?

And I can't find any reliable stats. on this so it is just a conjecture -- but I'll venture to guess that the 3-6% of the population that is homosexual has a higher per capita income than any other group in this country. And better job security, too. Now that's something for an economist to investigate.

Reading this over again, I'm going to coin a new term to describe what one of the refs. Adam said in this article:

Betterthink™

As in: "Here's what you'd better think", or "If you were Better, you would Think this," or perhaps "Here is how your Betters Think."

Here's one of my favorites in this vein, by Steve Malanga in the City Journal in 2002; Gotham Needs A GOP.

And it is right up the alley of what I'm worried about. There are large areas of NYC that never hear a conservative or Republican message. By finding people who can reach out and talk to urban centers, Rs could improve their electoral chances. Ds were smart enough to do that in rural areas. Judging from the comments here, Rs are not interested in winning over new voters through a similar effort in less conservative areas.

______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

If we are so flexible on principles that we are willing to run any warm body that can get some votes on the Republican ticket, the Republican party will very quickly come to mean nothing at all. We aren't talking about electing 80%ers in deep blue urban areas, we are talking about electing guys in the 20% and less crowd. We are lucky enough if our rural and suburban candidates in very safe districts wind up being 80%ers.

If running a bunch of Chafees (and worse) is going to be the key to victory, it is too high of a price to pay. That victory will be very short lived in that case, as the "Republicans = Democrats" crowd is given more ammo and portions of the base wander off because of our lack of principals. We could easily turn the national GOP into a clone of the CA GOP with this kind of strategy.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

... there's a wide gulf between Adam C of Redstate.com and Liz A Mair of GOPProgress.com. When Adam says "moderate" he actually means people like Rudy Guiliani and William Weld.

Adam's "moderation" is limited to somewhat socially Leftish but strongly fiscally conservative and national security hawk Republicans like William Weld, Pete Wilson, and Rudy Guiliani. I believe these folks are quite simply Republicans - no "moderate" or any other qualification necessary.

I personally think that these are the types of Republicans that could rebuild the GOP in the North East and in the nation's cities. With the exception of gay marriage and abortion, these guys tend to actually be with us on other social issues, i.e. racial preferences, crime, welfare, education, healthcare, etc.

We need to start thinking long-term. Victories by these Republicans can be leveraged into victories in those same hitherto "impossible" areas by Republicans who are even more socially conservative.

On the other hand, what Mair and her buddies describe as a "moderate" is literally Lincoln Chafee.

C'mon, zuiko ... you've been here long enough to know that.

But I'm saying that's exactly what we will end up with if we target urban areas where we are not remotely competitive right now. There's a reason why we don't even bother to run a candidate in many of those races, and even if we do it will come down to a runoff between two Democrats anyway. It's because those voters' values are not Republican values. The only way to win over those voters is to abandon Republican values. That's not something I am willing to do.

I'm all for a "big tent" so long as we stick to candidates that are in agreement at least the fiscal side of the platform. I'm not willing to include anybody that can win while calling themselves a Republican... which is what it takes in deep blue urban areas, barring a total melt down by the Democrats or an anomaly here and there.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Sometimes I think it is helpful to ditch the "right v. left" paradigm. There are several rural candidates that the Ds ran who are not "to the right" of Rs on almost any issue. Take Senator Tester of MT. He is a lifelong D and former state seante president. He is an organic farmer with a buzz cut. He talks like a rural Montanan. All of those things helped paint him as a local Montanan as opposed to the slick DC Senator Burns who deals with that Abramoff guy. And none of it had to do with his views on issues. So a pro-choice, big government Democrat wins in a pro-life, small government state.

Also see TN SEN where Ford ran hard to the right (although not to the right of Corker) and still lost at least partially because he is a party boy who never had a real job and inherited his father's old seat. The narrative hurt him where his position on issues helped him.

Sometimes the image and cultural background of a candidate can outweigh the left v. right issues. It would be helpful for Republicans to find those with different backgrounds and cultures to run in districts that are less responsive to run-of-the-mill Republicans. My post above highlights a few, especially Ted Hayes of LA.

There are other prominent black Republicans in California, of course, such as syndicated radio host Larry Elder and community relations expert Joe Hicks. But even among these unusual thinkers, Mr. Hayes stands out. He's an intense critic of L.A.'s powerful "black old guard"--Democratic politicians, charity bosses and inner-city preachers who, for a generation, have responded to poverty and illiteracy by demanding government programs and blaming white racism.

Not surprisingly, plenty of people wish pesky black Republicans like Mr. Hayes would just slink away. He has skewered L.A.'s entrenched black leaders as "Negro officials," and he has the street cred to get away with it. As L.A. endured another crisis between black leaders and cops recently, he refused to denounce police for shooting dead a 13-year-old, Devin Brown, after a car chase. Instead, Mr. Hayes's press release faulted black church leaders who, despite their great power, rarely point to the lack of parental responsibility.

A totemic figure in L.A., Mr. Hayes has long emphasized problem-solving and individual responsibility. If you want to stop kids from shooting people, Mr. Hayes has told appalled black preachers and activists, stop blaming cops and "white folks" for urban tragedy and start blaming the lackadaisical inner-city family culture you support.

Mr. Hayes spent last fall tooling around the fortified neighborhoods of South Los Angeles, knocking on security screens and urging stunned residents to vote Bush. He explained that the Democratic Party was the Klan's party in the 20th century, and the party of the slave trade before that. A lot of people he met didn't know their pre-1960s history. He's ever unflappable. In early December, he appeared on Fox News to vociferously defend the right of Condi Rice to be Republican. His segment was introduced by a bemused Brit Hume, who hardly knew what to make of the Rasta Republican.

______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth