The next generation of Republican candidates (2016)

[Gxg (G²)]

There aren't many Capital-L Libertarians, but there are a LOT of small-l libertarians, and they are found in both major parties AND with independents.

True....

 

[SPB1987]

With the changing demographics for the country. i think this is the only way they win.. ever...ever again

I agree with you. The social conservatism has got to go.

 

[SPB1987]

That was the Republican Party 40-50 years ago. Folks like Nelson Rockefeller, Jacob Javits, Mark Hatfield, and Chuck Percy have all been purged. It's very sad. Dwight Eisenhower and even Richard Nixon would be called RINOs these days.

I wish they would bring that back. I honestly do see that coming back in the next few years. I wonder if Romney would have run as the fiscal conservative, anti war and social liberal(pro choice, gay marriage etc) candidate if he would be the new president...I personally think he would.

 

[SPB1987]

Probably not going to happen. To get nomination any candidate will have to get favour with the Republican core, which means being upfront with socially conservative views. To gain the wider public support they would then need to rapidly backtrack making them look weak and inconsistent. Much like Romney ended up flip-flopping issues in order to appeal to the core and the moderates.

However if they go socially and economically hardline they would never, ever win. I think the Republican core might have to bite the bullet and go soft on social issues if they ever hope to gain wide appeal again.

I disagree with you here. Social conservatism is on the way out. I even saw an article on yahoo talking about the younger generation becoming more libertarian...if this really is the case, the republican party needs to capitalize on this. And another thing, does anyone think Romney is truly a social conservative? I get the impression that he could care less about those issues but he understood that in today's republican party he had to pay them lip service.

 

[Rion]

I agree with you. The social conservatism has got to go.

No, actual social conservatism is fine. The caricature that it has become known as is not.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, actual social conservatism is fine. The caricature that it has become known as is not.

What caricature is that?

 

[SPB1987]

No, actual social conservatism is fine. The caricature that it has become known as is not.

Care to elaborate?

 

[Rion]

Care to elaborate?

The caricature we get when an idiot like Atkins or the other guy pops up, saying stupid stuff like "If you become pregnant when you were raped, it's obviously God's will." No... it's not. Liberals like to paint us as mostly being this way and it doesn't help that many of us have a knee-jerk reaction to defend such stupidity. I mean, the other day I saw a liberal say that an unborn child perfectly matches the definition of a parasite. Really? Is that "social liberalism?" I'm willing to bet no. Yet we're allowed to be painted by the worst, most inaccurate members of our views, while the liberals are not.

 

[Glas Ridire]

While trying to pass both of them off as the Conservatives' great white hope.

Yup, I thought when they pushed McCain, he was a sacrificial lamb. Failed presidential candidates don't usually have sunny political futures . . . so the chose a moderate near the sunset of his career. That was my theory on "why McCain" anyway. The choice of Romney baffled me. . . but then:

McCain and Romney both tried to cobble together conservative cred without realizing that you really can't fake it when your past decisions are a matter of public record.

Yes, they were both moderates -- but had they chosen to run as moderates, and not made some disastrous choices in vain attempts to score some cheap conservative cred (I'm thinkging VP choices here), they would've fared better.

You just explained the mystery to me. Thank you. I just thought they'd want to win rather than throwwing two races in a row.

Certainly not one with the integrity to admit it. When did "moderate" become a dirty word for the GOP?

Moderate is a dirty word from my point of view, I am not GOP and unsure what their official position on moderate is. I view moderates as spineless contributors to most of what is wrong in the country. I'd rather sing kum-by-ya with raving communists than give a moderate anything but a kick in the shins.

As opposed to a rich old white conservative guy?

I was kinda hoping the Tea Party would cook up a real candidate, someone like: Carlton W. Kent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or maybe the Tea party ain't talking because they've got nothing constructive to say? I mean, sure, they're good at complaining and raising a ruckus, but when it comes time to put forward someone who can can say, "look, I've got a solution to that... and here it is..." and say it without shoving his foot into his mouth, well... they sure ain't playing dat.

Maybe, I think they just haven't been soliciting the right people to run with their banner. I think they need to be recruiting people like the guy I mentioned to represent them.

How about a moderate with a spine? Too crazy an idea?

Yup.

They'll die first. You know that.

I am okay with that. I have no use for a party that has turned into what the GOP has. . . .

Besides, where are you actually going to find someone who fits the bill and is reasonably electable?

I'd start looking at folks in uniform, military, sheriffs, folks like that. Actually Sheriffs of large counties would be a fine place to start farming people with political experience and a good understanding of issues faced by many Americans. Down to earth folk who have likely actually worked a job prior to being hearded up the political ladder by handlers within their party as Obama has been.

 

[KCfromNC]

Maybe the Republicans should start putting forward better candidates, keeping a shorter leash on their bat crap crazy members, and stop alienating large blocks of voters. Many many many people who voted for Obama last time are unhappy with him. I stood ready to be convinced to vote Republican for president for the first time ever, and then I saw the bumbling band of baboons the Republicans brought foward and said, "Dude! You've got to be kidding me." So, then there were a bunch of us thinking of either not voting at all (my mom and grandma for instance) or voting 3rd party (yay Jill Stein). But, then, in recent weeks the Republicans started flying their crazy flag with all this talk about "legitimate rape," and a whole bunch of those people suddenly decided that they needed to come out and vote Democrat to try and keep those loons away from power.

This was more or less my take on the elections, except I made the "vote against crazy" decision when the GoP candidates were falling all over each other to be the first to blow up Iran. The legitimate rape nonsense just shows that the Tea Party is hurting the GoP, but that's an internal battle that us independents really don't care much about.

 

[ZaidaBoBaida]

Neither Hillary Clinton nor Biden are going to run in 2016. They're both too old. Plus, Hillary is still just as unlikable - even by Democrats - as she was in 2008. There is a new generation of strong women coming up through the ranks of the Democratic party (Elizabeth Warren is just one example) who are not nearly as abrasive/divisive as Hillary Clinton. If the Dems are smart they'll also reach out to Jill Stein to bring her into the tent.

 

[Rion]

This was more or less my take on the elections, except I made the "vote against crazy" decision when the GoP candidates were falling all over each other to be the first to blow up Iran. The legitimate rape nonsense just shows that the Tea Party is hurting the GoP, but that's an internal battle that us independents really don't care much about.

The "legitimate rape" comments had nothing to do with the Tea Party. The guys the Tea Party supported actually did pretty well Tuesday. Atkins only won his primary because his Democratic opponent poured money into ads on his behalf during the primaries... which really should tell you all that you need to know about him.

 

[Thekla]

I'm another voter who was hoping to be able to vote Repub this year, and couldn't.

Imo, the Republicans failed because they've based their party on a number of over-the top media screamers and ideologues.

It's frankly insulting that they do not consider their potential base to be intelligent or thoughtful enough to be able to deal with real information, analysis, and history.

So instead, they "create a base" using media shock jock claptrap hyperbole that can't be factually confirmed nor repeated in a campaign.

It's a losing formula -- avoid real thinking and analysis, avoid the real world, and remain unable to give a cogent explanation of your positions that is more than slogan depth.

I may disagree with a candidate, but can still vote for the candidate if they demonstrate a real understanding under their position. The repubs of late can't or haven't.

Instead they rely completely on emotion, strategy, and money ...
a truly disappointing mess.

 

[abdAlSalam]

What the Republicans really need to do is go back to their roots and support actual fiscal responsibility and individual liberties. That means support for ending the war on terror/drugs, ending their opposition to marriage equality, and adopting sane proposals to immigration policy. These are all issues that the younger voters in this country support and is a true return to their pre-Reagan political platform. Above all the Republicans must distance themselves from the theocrats in their party, both religious and economic. Otherwise they will be relegated to a provincial party in the coming years.

 

[rcorlew]

I will throw this in...

Condi Rice in 2016!

Just saying.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I'm another voter who was hoping to be able to vote Repub this year, and couldn't.

Imo, the Republicans failed because they've based their party on a number of over-the top media screamers and ideologues.

It's frankly insulting that they do not consider their potential base to be intelligent or thoughtful enough to be able to deal with real information, analysis, and history.

So instead, they "create a base" using media shock jock claptrap hyperbole that can't be factually confirmed nor repeated in a campaign.

It's a losing formula -- avoid real thinking and analysis, avoid the real world, and remain unable to give a cogent explanation of your positions that is more than slogan depth.

I may disagree with a candidate, but can still vote for the candidate if they demonstrate a real understanding under their position. The repubs of late can't or haven't.

Instead they rely completely on emotion, strategy, and money ...
a truly disappointing mess.

What they did with shooting down immigration reform spoke loud and clear, both to people in their camp who walked away and others who were told that issues mattered.

 

[Vylo]

Neither Hillary Clinton nor Biden are going to run in 2016. They're both too old. Plus, Hillary is still just as unlikable - even by Democrats - as she was in 2008. There is a new generation of strong women coming up through the ranks of the Democratic party (Elizabeth Warren is just one example) who are not nearly as abrasive/divisive as Hillary Clinton. If the Dems are smart they'll also reach out to Jill Stein to bring her into the tent.

Actually biden would be the same age as reagan's second term, clinton would be younger then his first.

You will almost certainly see clinton one more time.

 

[ZaidaBoBaida]

Actually biden would be the same age as reagan's second term, clinton would be younger then his first.

You will almost certainly see clinton one more time.

This is also not 1984. The country has changed. It's values has changed. In 1984, the under 30 crowd largely didn't vote. Now, they've rocked the last two elections. This group does not want to see an "old" President that they would see as completely out of touch with their reality. I might be wrong, but I think it will be awhile before we see another POTUS that is over 60 let alone 70. George W. was what...53? 54? when he took office. Obama was 47 or 48? Bill Clinton was in his 40's when he took office. The trend is toward a younger president.

Hillary can run, but she will get her butt handed to her even more decisively than she did in 2008. She is too old and to not liked, and there will be at least one maybe two or three other women on the playing field.

 

[abdAlSalam]

I will throw this in...

Condi Rice in 2016!

Just saying.

Depending on her running mate, I could see myself voting for this ticket.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I heard on TV yesterday that there's a lot of young, talented Republicans lining up as candidates for 2016. Who are they?

Also, they said the Republican party is in trouble because of all the young minority kids in America growing up.

Maybe the problem can be solved when the Republican candidates no longer look like this?

Truthfully, when I see the ways the Republicans handled themselves, it seems that others are wise in noting that the party needed to have a wake-up call and learn that they needed to give real options beyond rhetoric....and actually address the issues that other groups are facing. Moreover, in light of the ways the party ended up betraying many of the things they fought over before and said they'd never budge on (especially as it concerns the Evangelical Right and the mobilization they have often done for politics), there has been a realization that things are fractured in the party and need to be fixed. I was not under the impression that Romney really represented the best in what conservatives could offer and was surprised to see how many felt otherwise, as many Republicans spoke out against the man repeatedly and were deemed to be not "conservative enough" or not "loyal to the conservative cause" when they were simply trying to save the party from making itself look foolish.

One of my brothers in CHrist alerted me to an article his friend had written that had given a very interesting critique of the Republican party and the way it seemed to evolve - both by choice and by force....and with there being a lot of realization that the party isn't as consistent on its stances as they often told others to believe.

In his words, as it concerns their choice on Romney to begin with:

Now that Mitt Romney has secured the Republican Party nomination, one major constituency group within the GOP will find itself wrestling with party vs. faith. The party leaders have asked conservative evangelicals to vote for a Mormon. Now for me and other religious progressives who have been hard at work establishing and working within ecumenical groups and dialoguing with all faiths, this does not pose a problem. For us, religion is about a faithful and authentic response to God and humankind. How one discerns the Divine in one’s life is in the final analysis, a personal decision. Moreover, we do not believe that one’s religion should effect how one should vote for president or any political office. Policies matter—ones the candidate believes in and ones that the candidate’s party supports and promises to deliver if elected to office.

However, this is not the case with conservative evangelicals. They are dogmatically Christian, believing that a candidate’s religion must reflect their own. Many conservative evangelicals do not believe that Romney is Christian—believing that the Mormon faith is not a Christian faith. Furthermore, many of these same conservative evangelicals believe that a Romney presidency may help “legitimize a false religion.” In 1998, the Southern Baptists, at their Convention held in Mormon rich Salt Lake City, went door to door evangelizing Mormons and promoting a book Mormonism Unmasked. Religious conservatives (evangelicals) rallied earlier in the year in Texas to try to support a candidate not named Romney. Santorum emerged as their pick (a Roman Catholic and not a Protestant) but earlier there was even a flirtation from evangelicals with the spectacularly flawed Newt Gingrich.

To be sure, Romney was anathema to many conservative evangelicals. Conservatives brought this out in the open when early in the campaign conservative evangelical declared Mormonism a “cult” and said to an audience "born-again followers of Christ should always prefer [a] competent Christian to a competent non-Christian like Mitt Romney." Commentators have even noticed that Santorum is less than enthusiastic about supporting Romney.

However, not all of this has stop conservative evangelicals from lining up and supporting Romney. In a recent article, Jonathan Merritt writes about the unexpected evangelical silence on Romney’s religion. In the article, he notes that one reason why conservative evangelicals are supporting Romney is theirs and Mormon’s support of “traditional marriage” and other political conservative ideals. Nevertheless, this should not make a difference, because theologically, conservative evangelicals should not vote for a person who is a non-Christian.

Maybe therein lies the rub. Maybe conservative evangelicals were hiding behind religious faith family values all along. Maybe it was never about any of that anyway. Maybe it was all about politics, winning offices, and promoting a conservative agenda. If it was about theology, faith, and religion, drawing upon the teachings of conservative evangelicalism, they should line up supporting Obama. Obama is the “Christian” who has “accepted Jesus Christ in the pardon of his sins.” He is the one baptized into the faith who has affirmed that Jesus is Lord and Savior. Obama repents of his sins and affirms the Triune God of Christianity.

Studies show that Obama talks about faith, religion, Christianity, God, and the church more so than any other president in modern history. His speeches are full of religious rhetoric, the speeches at the prayer breakfasts constructs what I call a rhetorical theology aimed at inviting his audience to understand faith. If there is one candidate in the race that conservative evangelicals should support, based on their own previous criteria and theological presuppositions, it is President Obama.

However, conservative evangelicals are going to support Romney is overwhelming numbers and somehow reconcile teachings about Mormonism that call the religion “false,” a “cult,” or “non-Christian.” As an ecumenical religious leader, I want to say that maybe conservative evangelicals are evolving (again something else that would be anathema to many of them) toward ecumenicism and to having inter-religious dialogue. I would like to say that maybe conservative evangelicals would not be so dogmatic in their beliefs—open up to hear others and become more tolerant to faiths different from theirs. We can hope, but I am afraid that this is only temporary. Conservative evangelical support for Romney is more anti-Obama than pro-Romney and as long as conservative evangelicals believe that President Obama is a Muslim, they can feel good about supporting Romney.
​

Moreover, as he wrote in reflection of the election results and how others felt:

As I reflect on the 2012 election, the first group that comes to mind is conservative evangelicals who, despite their former beliefs and protestations about Mormonism, supported Mitt Romney, a devout Mormon. As I wrote about earlier when I began to see this trend happening, there is nothing wrong with conservative evangelicals supporting a Mormon candidate. I even suggested that maybe some in the conservative evangelical wing of the Republican Party were evolving to some sort of ecumenicalism that would lead to a more inter-religious dialogue. This would not be the case however, as many of them—who before believed that Mormonism was a “cult,” “non-Christian,” dismissed those ingrained beliefs and convinced others to do the same.


My thought is that many of them still do believe this and now will have to reconcile the fact that they rejected their own teachings about their faith. For many, it will cause some major theological cognitive dissonance. Before this election year, conservative evangelicals reminded their followers that they should support candidates who shared their beliefs and values. In short, they must support a Christian. That candidate, based on the conservative evangelical belief system, would have been president Obama.


However, they decided to support someone who they heretofore believed did not share their faith because of their own anti-Obama feelings. I imagine some may be wrestling with this because, for many conservative evangelicals, the faith is paramount; one should practice it unflinchingly and waveringly against all manner of temptations. In this instance, the temptation of replacing Obama as president was too good to pass up. So not only did they not adhere to their own principles embedded in their theology, but they also shirked their Christian beliefs by acting in ways that were not “ Christlike” because of their disdain for the President. But their efforts seemed to work because Romney received 79% of the conservative evangelical vote.


The other group I am reflecting on this morning is the group of African American clergy who led efforts to get black Christians not to vote for Obama because of his evolved position on marriage equality. Led by Rev. William Owens and Bishop Harry Jackson, this group of black clergy led their own voter suppression campaign as they attempted to appeal to congregants within the black church to get black people to vote for anyone besides Obama or just not to vote at all. Their attempts of voter suppression seemed not to work because the president received 95% of the African Americans church vote, up 1% from 2008.


Moreover, these would be leaders will also have to go back to their congregations in the aftermath of this election and explain to them why they would participate in an act that many (church going) African Americans feel as sacred. They also will have to explain their seemly selective critique of the president—namely why of the different policies that clergy leaders could and some would argue rightfully justify as a substantial critique, would they select this one? When one remembers that the president’s evolution was only a personal opinion and not policy, I believe one has the right to be suspect of Rev. Owens and Bishop Jackson’s “concern.”


However, this may all be for not. In talking with R3 contributor Earle Fisher on a panel this morning as we reflected on the election, he suggests they these two conservative groups would not have to offer any mea culpas or to use a religious term “confess.” His reasoning is that they do this knowing that their theological positions on paper have never matched their actions. You know, he is right. Conservative ideology and its kissing cousin, conservative theology has always been about maintaining the status quo; clogging up progress, grinding the forces of change. While both of these conservative groups, in an ideal world, have an opportunity to reshape and reconfigure their theological thought processes, chances are that they will not take advantage of the opportunity. Many will just double down on a more conservative interpretation of their own opportunistic shifting theology and in the process add to the growing number of dissatisfied former Christians looking for something relevant in their lives.
​