GOP Sen Leader: Blacks, give us credit for 1854 law!

[SirNitram]

Link

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) offered a harsh and sobering assessment of his party's political ills, sounding an alarm that the GOP faces a chasm from which it could take years to emerge.

The Senate GOP leader told members of the Republican National Committee (RNC) that the party must return to its core message — smaller government and lower taxes — while seeking to broaden its base with a more diversified voting bloc.


"Every so often, there comes a time when a political party has to re-examine itself. For Republicans, now is such a time," McConnell told RNC members at the annual winter meeting in Washington.

The surprisingly candid speech came as RNC members gather for a biennial reorganization and after two consecutive cycles of massive losses. McConnell himself fought back a stronger-than-expected challenge in 2008, besting businessman Bruce Lunsford by a 53 percent-to-47 percent margin.

"We’re all concerned about the fact that the very wealthy and the very poor, the most and least educated, and a majority of minority voters, seem to have more or less stopped paying attention to us," McConnell said Thursday. "And we should be concerned that, as a result of all this, the Republican Party seems to be slipping into a position of being more of a regional party than a national one.

"In politics, there’s a name for a regional party — it’s called a minority party. And I didn’t sign up to be a member of a regional party," McConnell said. "As Republicans, we know that common-sense conservative principles aren’t regional. But I think we have to admit that our sales job has been. And in my view, that needs to change."

McConnell declined to attack President Bush, whose deep unpopularity rubbed off on Republican members of Congress, though he did note Bush "wasn't winning any popularity contests."

"[H]istory shows that unpopular presidents are usually a drag on everybody else who wears their political label. It happened with Truman. It happened with Johnson. It happened with Nixon. It happened with Clinton in '94. And it happened with President Bush in '06 and '08," McConnell said.

"My concern is that unless we do something to adapt, our status as a minority party may become too pronounced for an easy recovery," he added. "The situation is challenging, but it's far from irreversible."

In order to return to power, McConnell said, the GOP needs to resist the urge to abandon its traditional message while appealing once again to voters who have left the party.

McConnell said the party must appeal to black and Hispanic voters. To diversify the party, Republicans should remind African-Americans that the GOP was founded in response to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, an 1854 law that gave those states the right to determine whether or not to allow slavery, and seek culturally conservative Hispanic voters, who may be more inclined to side with the party on social policy, he said.

Now Republicans must explain their ideas to average Americans in a way that enumerates their practical benefits, the Senate GOP chief told RNC members. From cutting taxes to fighting card-check legislation that would make it easier for unions to organize, McConnell urged members to frame their message in a way that appeals to voters Republicans have lost recently.

As members of the RNC prepare to vote on new leadership tomorrow, many in the party have set upon each other in a battle over candidates' ideologies, a divisive dispute McConnell urged members to avoid.

"We should avoid the false choice of being a party of moderates or conservatives. America is diverse. The two major parties should be too," he said.

Apparently, they can't find anything they did since 1854 worth promoting. His words, not mine!

[General Zod]

"[H]istory shows that unpopular presidents are usually a drag on everybody else who wears their political label. It happened with Truman. It happened with Johnson. It happened with Nixon. It happened with Clinton in '94. And it happened with President Bush in '06 and '08," McConnell said.

I thought Clinton was only unpopular with Republicans.

[Flagg]

"[H]istory shows that unpopular presidents are usually a drag on everybody else who wears their political label. It happened with Truman. It happened with Johnson. It happened with Nixon. It happened with Clinton in '94. And it happened with President Bush in '06 and '08," McConnell said.

I thought Clinton was only unpopular with Republicans.

He was pretty unpopular at first IIRC. It wasn't until after the Republicans regained control of congress in '94 that his ratings started going up as he became more centrist.

[Samuel]

"[H]istory shows that unpopular presidents are usually a drag on everybody else who wears their political label. It happened with Truman. It happened with Johnson. It happened with Nixon. It happened with Clinton in '94. And it happened with President Bush in '06 and '08," McConnell said.

I thought Clinton was only unpopular with Republicans.

He was pretty unpopular at first IIRC. It wasn't until after the Republicans regained control of congress in '94 that his ratings started going up as he became more centrist.

Clinton was origionally left wing?

Apparently, they can't find anything they did since 1854 worth promoting. His words, not mine!

Well, after reconstruction they left the blacks out to dry, the gilded age they weren't very different from the democrats and the early 20th century they were the party of big business. They really don't have alot of time that they held the moral high-ground. I'm surprised he didn't take credit for reconstruction and attempts at equality for blacks- probably annoy the southern base.

[Illuminatus Primus]

People forget Clinton also was marred with personal scandal from the start, a lot of his victory was attributable to right-wing mutiny from George H. W. "Read my lips: No. New. Taxes." Bush, and he only won with a plurality of the vote - something in the low 40s I think.

[General Zod]

People forget Clinton also was marred with personal scandal from the start, a lot of his victory was attributable to right-wing mutiny from George H. W. "Read my lips: No. New. Taxes." Bush, and he only won with a plurality of the vote - something in the low 40s I think.

I wasn't old enough to vote while Clinton was in office and the internet was still in its infancy; so my memories are largely limited to Jay Leno's monologues and dozens of Clinton jokes.

[Darth Wong]

So blacks should vote Republican because the party used to be liberal, a hundred and fifty years ago? How does that change the fact that they are a reactionary conservative party now?

[Phantasee]

So blacks should vote Republican because the party used to be liberal, a hundred and fifty years ago? How does that change the fact that they are a reactionary conservative party now?

Ssshhhh, don't look behind the curtain!


They've really got no other choice left, now. Wizard of Oz seems to be their last hope, and I think they're hoping people will remember how well they ignored the man behind the curtain for the past 8 years, and continue to be blind.

[Elfdart]

The Kansas-Nebraska Act led to Bleeding Kansas, which was a dry run for the Civil War. What happened was, anti-slavery families moved into Nebraska in large numbers and established an anti-slavery government. Before Kansas could to likewise, Border Ruffians (pro-slavery thugs and killers) from Missouri and elsewhere in the South and proceeded to terrorize and kill the Free Soilers in order to drive them off. Then the Ruffians established their own pro-slavery government.

The Act led to dozens of assassinations and lynchings by pro-slavery forces and some vicious retaliation by anti-slavery forces. John Brown's decision to hack up several pro-slavery hoodlums with a broadsword at Patawonomie was just one incident. This conflict is where brigands like Quantrill and Anderson got their start as well.

Anyone who thinks the Kansas-Nebraska Act is something to be proud of is a raving lunatic.

[Pablo Sanchez]

So blacks should vote Republican because the party used to be liberal, a hundred and fifty years ago? How does that change the fact that they are a reactionary conservative party now?

In fact Republicans got the Black vote for around 60 years purely on the strength of being the party of Lincoln, without doing very much to earn it. That front cracked with FDR's promises to lead the country of the Great Depression (blacks being disproportionately poor, they were especially hard-hit) and was permanently ended by Democratic actions in the civil rights era.

There's no mystery as to why minorities vote Democratic: it is cosmopolitan and liberal. Even people who would probably prefer the GOP's social conservatism, such as Latinos and Blacks (who are quite religious in the main), cannot make themselves vote for the Republican Party because of its obvious antipathy towards them. If you watched the news during the election you could tell that the GOP was desperate to present a friendlier face to minorities, simply by noting how many times the Republicans sent a minority to represent them on some cable news network, but it completely failed. I think it's because people are too acutely sensitive to racism directed against them to be fooled by simple tricks, especially while the large section of the GOP that doesn't understand and doesn't like minorities is refusing to play along.

I think that in changing itself to draw more minority voters, the GOP would lose people from its base faster than it gained. At some point, as America evolves in new directions demographically, this is going to be necessary for political survival. But who knows what will happen at that point?

[mingo]

Link

Now Republicans must explain their ideas to average Americans in a way that enumerates their practical benefits, the Senate GOP chief told RNC members. From cutting taxes to fighting card-check legislation that would make it easier for unions to organize, McConnell urged members to frame their message in a way that appeals to voters Republicans have lost recently.

Apparently, they can't find anything they did since 1854 worth promoting. His words, not mine!

I find his comments about how they have to sell union busting and lower taxes for the rich better to people whom it will hurt. Listen buck-o, you've done a bang up job of selling freezers to Eskimos for 20 years, but the market is saturated. In the words of your clueless leader: "Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice...we can't get fooled agin'"

Even Bubba will only fall for the same shit so many times.

[CarsonPalmer]

The Kansas-Nebraska Act led to Bleeding Kansas, which was a dry run for the Civil War. What happened was, anti-slavery families moved into Nebraska in large numbers and established an anti-slavery government. Before Kansas could to likewise, Border Ruffians (pro-slavery thugs and killers) from Missouri and elsewhere in the South and proceeded to terrorize and kill the Free Soilers in order to drive them off. Then the Ruffians established their own pro-slavery government.

The Act led to dozens of assassinations and lynchings by pro-slavery forces and some vicious retaliation by anti-slavery forces. John Brown's decision to hack up several pro-slavery hoodlums with a broadsword at Patawonomie was just one incident. This conflict is where brigands like Quantrill and Anderson got their start as well.

Anyone who thinks the Kansas-Nebraska Act is something to be proud of is a raving lunatic.

Not to defend the Republicans, but they were founded to oppose the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which is something to be proud of. Of course, they've forfeited that legacy now.

[Knife]

Don't worry, Rush Limbaugh, as the new leader of the GOP, will save them from having to beg the minorities to vote for them.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

So blacks should vote Republican because the party used to be liberal, a hundred and fifty years ago? How does that change the fact that they are a reactionary conservative party now?

In fact Republicans got the Black vote for around 60 years purely on the strength of being the party of Lincoln, without doing very much to earn it. That front cracked with FDR's promises to lead the country of the Great Depression (blacks being disproportionately poor, they were especially hard-hit) and was permanently ended by Democratic actions in the civil rights era.

There's no mystery as to why minorities vote Democratic: it is cosmopolitan and liberal. Even people who would probably prefer the GOP's social conservatism, such as Latinos and Blacks (who are quite religious in the main), cannot make themselves vote for the Republican Party because of its obvious antipathy towards them. If you watched the news during the election you could tell that the GOP was desperate to present a friendlier face to minorities, simply by noting how many times the Republicans sent a minority to represent them on some cable news network, but it completely failed. I think it's because people are too acutely sensitive to racism directed against them to be fooled by simple tricks, especially while the large section of the GOP that doesn't understand and doesn't like minorities is refusing to play along.

I think that in changing itself to draw more minority voters, the GOP would lose people from its base faster than it gained. At some point, as America evolves in new directions demographically, this is going to be necessary for political survival. But who knows what will happen at that point?

It's ironic that the entire phrase "Wave the bloody shirt" originated from the Republicans of the 19th century appealing to the martyrdom of Union troops, riding entirely on the Civil War victory and urging northerners to "Vote as you had shot", i.e., since all democrats were Southerners, vote against them as you shot in to the Rebel ranks. Frankly, the Republican Party started going downhill as soon as the Civil War was won; the party's purpose being served, it simply drifted along doing whatever big business wanted it to while relying on the Grand Army of the Republic to deliver votes through the beginning of the 20th century, and then its lock on American politics steadily fell apart as the GAR veterans died off, and its true resurgence only came about when Nixon was able to secure the Southern vote and essentially the process of the invesion of the parties that had started with FDR was finished.

[Falkenhayn]

Don't worry, Rush Limbaugh, as the new leader of the GOP, will save them from having to beg the minorities to vote for them.

You know, I think Obama's playing Cardinal Wolsey to Rush's Thomas More (I'm in no way insinuating that Rush has any depth of character or principle). He's used Rush's hubris and the 24 Hour news cycle to promote Mr. Limbaugh to a place where his views and aims cannot be reconciled with those in power, ie: the elected members of the GOP. Rush has been played like a fiddle, and now he's being exposed to all kinds of media scrutiny day-after-day. Moreover, that scrutiny has broken through his protective disassociation from the "MSM". The man is now compelled to answer questioning, at length, on places that aren't FOX or Sean Hannity's America.

Every day of media exposure fro R. Hudson Limbaugh III is a win for Obama. He's setting up another moronic potbanger to run against. If Barack Obama makes Rush (and hopefully Sara Palin) the new face(s) of the GOP, I don't think he's got much to worry about.

Assuming, of course, that this is all planned. Though at this point I don't think that's material anymore.

[Knife]

Hmm, I don't think it was planned per say. More opportunistic, on both sides. Rush is used to operating without any real consequences, no body to answer to and now he's made himself so big, the media wants his take on it, or rather to say they want his take on it but see him squirm. Obama is just a smooth operator in that he see's the situation forming and decided to take advantage of it.

Either way, I'm good. Rush is pinned down. His ego want's to be consulted on what he thinks should happen, but when he does it interview style for the media, he loses his 'entertainment' excuse for lying or distorting or outright horrible ideas he can get away with on his own show or safe venues. As long as he continues to let his ego drive him into thinking he's a leader of sorts, he'll continue to spout off nonsense in the open realm of media and continue to get smacked down for stupidity.

[Patrick Degan]

Oh, where is this interview? I have got to see this.

[Knife]

Here is Olberman Looking for more;

[CarsonPalmer]

It's ironic that the entire phrase "Wave the bloody shirt" originated from the Republicans of the 19th century appealing to the martyrdom of Union troops, riding entirely on the Civil War victory and urging northerners to "Vote as you had shot", i.e., since all democrats were Southerners, vote against them as you shot in to the Rebel ranks. Frankly, the Republican Party started going downhill as soon as the Civil War was won; the party's purpose being served, it simply drifted along doing whatever big business wanted it to while relying on the Grand Army of the Republic to deliver votes through the beginning of the 20th century, and then its lock on American politics steadily fell apart as the GAR veterans died off, and its true resurgence only came about when Nixon was able to secure the Southern vote and essentially the process of the invesion of the parties that had started with FDR was finished.

I don't know if I'd be that harsh on the post-Civil War Republicans. Grant won on the strength of the black vote, not the GAR, and the GOP managed to produce a solid run of Teddy Roosevelt and William Howard Taft. They also got two terms out of a very underrated Dwight Eisenhower.

Their resume isn't quite as thin as you're making it out to be.

[Falkenhayn]

Here is Olberman Looking for more;

In C&L We Trust

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It's ironic that the entire phrase "Wave the bloody shirt" originated from the Republicans of the 19th century appealing to the martyrdom of Union troops, riding entirely on the Civil War victory and urging northerners to "Vote as you had shot", i.e., since all democrats were Southerners, vote against them as you shot in to the Rebel ranks. Frankly, the Republican Party started going downhill as soon as the Civil War was won; the party's purpose being served, it simply drifted along doing whatever big business wanted it to while relying on the Grand Army of the Republic to deliver votes through the beginning of the 20th century, and then its lock on American politics steadily fell apart as the GAR veterans died off, and its true resurgence only came about when Nixon was able to secure the Southern vote and essentially the process of the invesion of the parties that had started with FDR was finished.

I don't know if I'd be that harsh on the post-Civil War Republicans. Grant won on the strength of the black vote, not the GAR, and the GOP managed to produce a solid run of Teddy Roosevelt and William Howard Taft. They also got two terms out of a very underrated Dwight Eisenhower.

Their resume isn't quite as thin as you're making it out to be.

I'm talking about the party machine, not necessarily the Presidents themselves.

[Elfdart]

Not to defend the Republicans, but they were founded to oppose the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which is something to be proud of. Of course, they've forfeited that legacy now.

Speaking of that era, anyone who thinks I go overboard should read Charles Sumner's speech to the Senate about Bleeding Kansas.

The Senator from South Carolina has read many books of chivalry, and believes himself a chivalrous knight, with sentimcuts of honor and courage. Of course he has chosen a mistress to whom he has made his vows, and who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight I mean the harlot, Slavery. For her, his tongue is always profuse in words. Let her be impeached in character, or any proposition made to shut her out from the extension of her wantonness, and no extravagance of manner or hardihood of assertion is then too great for this Senator. The frenzy of Don Quixote, in behalf of his wench, Dulcinea del Toboso, is all surpassed.

Which I shortened into "war whore".

[Aratech]

Don't worry, Rush Limbaugh, as the new leader of the GOP, will save them from having to beg the minorities to vote for them.

Pardon? What's this now?

[dragon]

Lower taxes sound good untill you realize how far in debt we are, that would be like a person thats falling behind on a mortage taking a pay cut. If the books were balanced then yeah I all for cutting taxes but untill then well we put the idiot that got us there in place so we need to suck it up.

[CarsonPalmer]

Not to defend the Republicans, but they were founded to oppose the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which is something to be proud of. Of course, they've forfeited that legacy now.

Speaking of that era, anyone who thinks I go overboard should read Charles Sumner's speech to the Senate about Bleeding Kansas.

The Senator from South Carolina has read many books of chivalry, and believes himself a chivalrous knight, with sentimcuts of honor and courage. Of course he has chosen a mistress to whom he has made his vows, and who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight I mean the harlot, Slavery. For her, his tongue is always profuse in words. Let her be impeached in character, or any proposition made to shut her out from the extension of her wantonness, and no extravagance of manner or hardihood of assertion is then too great for this Senator. The frenzy of Don Quixote, in behalf of his wench, Dulcinea del Toboso, is all surpassed.

Which I shortened into "war whore".

Yes, that was an epic speech. It was this speech that got him caned half to death, wasn't it? Apparently Preston Brooks felt the way to react to a speech you didn't like was to be the other guy to a bloody pulp.