GOP’s reform report arrives at a debate already well under way
The Republican National Committee has released its “autopsy” on the 2012 election and outline of how to win future federal elections, and it appears to pull no punches. But I have a bone to pick with the way it is being reported, for instance by the Associated Press story linked by my AJC colleague Jim Galloway:
In calling for the GOP to develop “a more welcoming conservatism,” the report rebukes those who remain in denial about the seriousness of the problem and those who are unwilling to broaden the party’s appeal.
A just-concluded gathering of conservatives in Washington cheered speaker after speaker who urged the GOP to stick to its guns and, instead, largely blamed the 2012 defeat on Romney or the way he ran his campaign.
I don’t know whether the AP reporter was at CPAC, the “just-concluded gathering” to which the story referred, and which I attended. But that second paragraph, in my view, completely misrepresents the take-away from the conference.
To say the attendees “cheered speaker after speaker who urged the GOP to stick to its guns” is about a gross a generalization as I can think of. What does it mean? That the attendees want the GOP to ignore the kind of reforms mentioned in the report? That none of the speakers, or at least none of the ones who were “cheered,” urged any changes?
Nonsense. Utter and complete nonsense.
The winner of the CPAC straw poll for possible 2016 presidential candidates was Sen. Rand Paul, who said the GOP had grown “stale and moss-covered,” voiced support for “liberty in both the economic and personal sphere” and specifically referred to the distaste the “Facebook generation” has for jail sentences for nonviolent drug offenders. Is that sticking to one’s guns?
Or how about the loud cheers for Sen. Marco Rubio, who finished second to Paul in the straw poll and has been one of the most prominent Republicans working on the kind of “comprehensive immigration reform” the authors of the RNC report suggested? Or the fact that the members of the most prominent panel on immigration at CPAC scarcely considered the possibility of not reforming immigration in a way that includes offering legal status for most of the illegal immigrants already present in the U.S.? Is that sticking to one’s guns?
It wasn’t the lack of minority outreach — which nearly every possible presidential contender mentioned, with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush perhaps hitting the point hardest — to which CPAC speakers and attendees were clinging. Indeed, the person who gained the most stature in the conservative movement from his CPAC appearance was probably Benjamin Carson, a black neurosurgeon from Maryland (you may have heard his recent speech at the National Prayer Breakfast) who spoke eloquently and forcefully, drawing extended ovations when he hinted at wanting to run for office soon.
It wasn’t an obsession with debts and deficits, which Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal knocked in his speech. Nor was it coziness with Big Business, which most of the aspiring candidates said the GOP must jettison.
I don’t mean to pick on the AP reporter, but such generalizations only feed the idea that conservative activists are hostile to the kinds of reforms the RNC report urges. In fact, one of my earlier blog posts from CPAC described the debate about consultants’ role in torpedoing GOP electoral chances as the one with “the most passionate disagreements” because there was hardly any disagreement about the need to make the other changes mentioned above.
Perhaps the speakers got preview copies of the report and took their cues from it. Certainly, their words last week were only that — words, still to be confirmed by actions. (The same holds true, let’s note, for the RNC report.) Obviously, the GOP since 1992 has experienced the same record of string of presidential-election difficulties the Democrats faced from 1968 through 1988, and it has to change the way it approaches the electorate in some key ways.
But the good news, if you want to see Republicans elected, is that some of the party’s brightest emerging stars are already staking out ground that moves in the direction of change. This necessary process has already begun.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
414 comments Add your comment
middle of the road
March 19th, 2013
1:33 pm
Actually, I meant to say take SS and medicare out of the equation (each has a dedicated revenue stream) and take out INTEREST ON THE DEBT (unless you want the US to default) and cut the rest.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 19th, 2013
1:33 pm
The U.S. midterm elections in 1974 brought in a new Congress dominated by Democrats who were even more determined to confront the president on the war. Congress immediately voted in restrictions on funding and military activities to be phased in through 1975 and to culminate in a total cutoff of funding in 1976.
Surrender.
Monkeys.
JDW
March 19th, 2013
1:33 pm
@LBB…”Kennedy escalated Vietnam and got 50,000+ Americans killed. And for what? To top Truman’s Korea body count?”
As usual you are incorrect. Johnson put significant troops in place in 1965. Nixon increased participation 500.000+ and then pulled all troops by the end of 1973.
http://www.americanwarlibrary.com/vietnam/vwatl.htm
JDW
March 19th, 2013
1:35 pm
@Aesop…1:33…better find a better source for your fantasies…there were no troops in place in 1974.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 19th, 2013
1:38 pm
Pol Pot biographer David Chandler states that the bombing “had the effect the Americans wanted – it broke the Communist encirclement of Phnom Penh”,[18] although he acknowledged that it lead to thousands of civilian deaths.[19] Peter Rodman and Michael Lind claimed that the US intervention saved Cambodia from collapse in 1970 and 1973
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 19th, 2013
1:40 pm
jdw – The last US action in Vietnam was the bombing from the air of Haiphong and Hanoi. And we broke their military and industrial complexes doing it.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
March 19th, 2013
1:41 pm
middler: Actually, I meant to say take SS and medicare out of the equation (each has a dedicated revenue stream) and take out INTEREST ON THE DEBT.
————
Are you under the illusion that SS and Medicare are, today, self funded? They are not. Both programs now spend more than they take in.
Politico
March 19th, 2013
1:42 pm
January 8, 1973 – Kissinger and Le Duc Tho resume negotiations in Paris.
January 9, 1973 – All remaining differences are resolved between Kissinger and Le Duc Tho.
President Thieu, once again threatened by Nixon with a total cut-off of American aid to South Vietnam, now unwillingly accepts the peace agreement, which still allows North Vietnamese troops to remain in South Vietnam. Thieu labels the terms “tantamount to surrender” for South Vietnam.
January 23, 1973 – President Nixon announces that an agreement has been reached which will “end the war and bring peace with honor.”
January 27, 1973 – The Paris Peace Accords are signed by the U.S., North Vietnam, South Vietnam and the Viet Cong. Under the terms, the U.S. agrees to immediately halt all military activities and withdraw all remaining military personnel within 60 days. The North Vietnamese agree to an immediate cease-fire and the release of all American POWs within 60 days. An estimated 150,000 North Vietnamese soldiers presently in South Vietnam are allowed to remain. Vietnam is still divided. South Vietnam is considered to be one country with two governments, one led by President Thieu, the other led by Viet Cong, pending future reconciliation.
January 27, 1973 – Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird announces the draft is ended in favor of voluntary enlistment.
January 27, 1973 – The last American soldier to die in combat in Vietnam, Lt. Col. William B. Nolde, is killed.
February 12, 1973 – Operation Homecoming begins the release of 591 American POWs from Hanoi.
March 29, 1973 – The last remaining American troops withdraw from Vietnam as President Nixon declares “the day we have all worked and prayed for has finally come.”
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1969.html
Nixon says “what”
breckenridge
March 19th, 2013
1:42 pm
“Actually, I meant to say take SS and medicare out of the equation each has a dedicated revenue stream”
I’m not sure exactly what you mean here but do want to point out that Social Security has not been funded since 1976. Your contributions, the withholding from your paycheck unless you are self-employed, do not go into the Social Security Fund. They go into general government funds and are used to pay current bills.
This all came about because there was a tax receipt shortfall in 1976 and somebody said “hey we’ll just highjack the social security money this year and pay it back real soon.” Congress thought that was a splendid idea and acted accordingly. The the next year Congress thought that was a pretty good trick they’d pulled and they have done it every year since.
Ergo Social Security is a massive unfunded liability because Congress has been stealing your money.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 19th, 2013
1:42 pm
To show his support for South Vietnam and force Hanoi back to the negotiating table, Nixon ordered Operation Linebacker II, a massive bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong 18–29 December 1972. The offensive destroyed much of the remaining economic and industrial capacity of North Vietnam.
During his confirmation hearings in June 1973, Secretary of Defense James R. Schlesinger stated that he would recommend resumption of U.S. bombing in North Vietnam if North Vietnam launched a major offensive against South Vietnam. On 4 June 1973, the U.S. Senate passed the Case-Church Amendment to prohibit such intervention.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 19th, 2013
1:42 pm
“So defense swallows 60% of the cuts. Is that what you want?”
If that’s what it takes to cut our deficit and still protect AMERICAN (not foreign) interests, you bet I do! However, we didn’t get into this mess in one year, so you gradually reduce it over the next 15 years.
And don’t take SS and Medicare out of the equation, middle of the road. Both need major revamping.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
March 19th, 2013
1:44 pm
In any case, Vietnam was JFK’s war and he’s as responsible for the post-1963 KIAs as Bush is for post-2009 Afghanistan casualties.
Politico
March 19th, 2013
1:44 pm
“Pol Pot biographer David Chandler states that the bombing “had the effect the Americans wanted – it broke the Communist encirclement of Phnom Penh”,[18] although he acknowledged that it lead to thousands of civilian deaths.[19] Peter Rodman and Michael Lind claimed that the US intervention saved Cambodia from collapse in 1970 and 1973″
So what about the other millions who were killed. Best you have is thousands.
Keep swinging not so tough internet guy
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 19th, 2013
1:47 pm
You cut off military aid and withdraw air support, and p-lo has absolutely no idea what that means.
Politico
March 19th, 2013
1:47 pm
Anyone thinks that after years of the Vietnam war that the US was going to engage in anything more than bombing in Cambodia and some Special Ops must have a sweet suite on Fantasy Island…….
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 19th, 2013
1:50 pm
The 10 day 1973 bombing campaign in Hanoi completely destroyed the north’s ability to make war on the South, this should preeeeeettttttyyyyyy eeeeaaaasssssssyyyyy to understand considering the the war lasted until the middle of 1975.
But noooo, some of us are dense.
Politico
March 19th, 2013
1:52 pm
Aesop is attempting to relive something through his narrative to prove some point that he can’t prove without moving his own goal post
bwhahahahahahahaha
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 19th, 2013
1:53 pm
There is so much blame to be assigned regarding the Vietnam war. Why are you people continuing to blame one party’s President or another?
It was JFK’s war. It was LBJ’s war. It was Nixon’s war. It the Congresses which continued to approve funding for it war.
Move on for crying out loud.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 19th, 2013
1:53 pm
Ok, so what was the Case-Church amendment about?
Politico
March 19th, 2013
1:54 pm
Aesop
But if you prove it in your own mind, rock on fella…… rock on
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 19th, 2013
1:55 pm
Uh oh, tibs disagrees with the Vietnam.
Here come the emails, Kyle.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 19th, 2013
1:55 pm
“The 10 day 1973 bombing campaign in Hanoi completely destroyed the north’s ability to make war on the South, this should preeeeeettttttyyyyyy eeeeaaaasssssssyyyyy to understand considering the the war lasted until the middle of 1975.
But noooo, some of us are dense.”
An yet, the North still managed to overrun the South. Your history is very creative, Aesop, but not very accurate.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 19th, 2013
1:55 pm
Vietnam “discussion,” scuse me.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 19th, 2013
1:58 pm
1973 bombing campaign. 1973, right?
On 13 December 1974, North Vietnamese forces attacked Route 14 in Phuoc Long Province. Phuoc Binh, the provincial capital, fell on 6 January 1975. Ford desperately asked Congress for funds to assist and re-supply the South before it was overrun. Congress refused.
Are you honestly telling me you do not understand the capabilities of the US B-52 Stratofortress?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 19th, 2013
1:59 pm
I never e-mail Kyle when someone posts something stupid, Aesop.
That would be an all day engagement considering some of the things you and others post on this blog.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 19th, 2013
2:02 pm
tibs doesn’t understand air power, how unique.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 19th, 2013
2:04 pm
Considering I actually served in the USAF, Aesop, I think I know a bit about air power.
How about you, sonny? When did you serve in the USAF?
sailfish
March 19th, 2013
2:07 pm
aesop
Stop digging..
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 19th, 2013
2:07 pm
I was the guy on the ground telling you where to bomb, tibs. If you were a pilot, that is.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 19th, 2013
2:08 pm
btw, your 1:55 and 1:58 posts contradict each other, Aesop.
If the 1973 bombing campaign “completely destroyed the north’s ability to make war on the South” – your words, Aesop, why would Ford desperately need funds in 1974 to keep the South from being overrun?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 19th, 2013
2:09 pm
“I was the guy on the ground telling you where to bomb, tibs. If you were a pilot, that is.”
Non-responsive answer, Aesop.
Did you serve in the USAF or not?
curious
March 19th, 2013
2:09 pm
I’m a Vietnam Vet and life member of the VFW.
I see signs thanking the 58,000 KIA for protecting our Freedom.
Just how was our Freedom in jeopardy?
The 58,000 were sacrificed on the altar of Political calculation and the Military-Industrial complex.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 19th, 2013
2:09 pm
Oh, sailfish, so clinton didn’t stop the entire war in Kosovo with air power? And Ford didn’t plead with Congress to do the same in South Vietnam?
Go on, tell us some more.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 19th, 2013
2:11 pm
Did you serve in the USAF or not?
Now you’re losing it, dude.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 19th, 2013
2:12 pm
“so clinton didn’t stop the entire war in Kosovo with air power? ”
No, he didn’t. In fact, no war has ever been won with air power alone.
It takes boots on the ground.
Each and every time.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 19th, 2013
2:13 pm
“Did you serve in the USAF or not?
Now you’re losing it, dude.”
Got it.
Your answer is a resounding – NO.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 19th, 2013
2:14 pm
“The 58,000 were sacrificed on the altar of Political calculation and the Military-Industrial complex.”
I suspect more on the altar of fear of Communism, curious.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 19th, 2013
2:16 pm
No, he didn’t. In fact, no war has ever been won with air power alone.
It takes boots on the ground.
That’s nice considering there was no direct ground combat involving NATO.
middle of the road
March 19th, 2013
2:17 pm
“If that’s what it takes to cut our deficit and still protect AMERICAN (not foreign) interests, you bet I do! However, we didn’t get into this mess in one year, so you gradually reduce it over the next 15 years.And don’t take SS and Medicare out of the equation, middle of the road. Both need major revamping.”
Good! We are in agreement! I will even agree to do it like the Republicans want to and do it in TEN years. And I haven’t ignored SS and Medicare, they are just dealt with separately. If fact, they should not even be in the main budget and should have their own separate (balanced) budgets.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 19th, 2013
2:18 pm
“That’s nice considering there was no direct ground combat involving NATO”
No, but there WERE boots on the ground, Aesop.
And I would hardly call that little dust-up a “war”.
curious
March 19th, 2013
2:19 pm
Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 19th, 2013
2:14 pm
“The 58,000 were sacrificed on the altar of Political calculation and the Military-Industrial complex.”
“I suspect more on the altar of fear of Communism, curious.”
That being the case, we did we let the USSR dominate Eastern Europe for so long? Considering our trade with Russia, China, and Vietnam today, maybe our fear of Communism was groundless.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 19th, 2013
2:19 pm
Vietnamization was again tested by the Easter Offensive of 1972, a massive conventional invasion of South Vietnam. The VPA and NLF quickly overran the northern provinces and in coordination with other forces attacked from Cambodia, threatening to cut the country in half. U.S. troop withdrawals continued. But American airpower came to the rescue with Operation Linebacker, and the offensive was halted. However, it became clear that without American airpower South Vietnam could not survive. The last remaining American ground troops were withdrawn in August.
Offense halted. Wow, go figure.
middle of the road
March 19th, 2013
2:19 pm
“If that’s what it takes to cut our deficit and still protect AMERICAN (not foreign) interests, you bet I do! ”
Remember, you are agreeing to 60% of the budget cuts to come from defense, so don’t come back and say “they are necessary to protect American interests” and so can’t be cut but I don’t want to increase taxes to pay for them.
curious
March 19th, 2013
2:23 pm
Aesop’s Fables and other Lib Economic Theories .
“Offense halted. Wow, go figure.”
Our airpower was in support of South Vietnamese ground troops. It was a combined effort.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 19th, 2013
2:23 pm
Considering our trade with Russia, China, and Vietnam today, maybe our fear of Communism was groundless.
I think it’s more of the fact that they all figured out capitalism was a better system, unlike obozo.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 19th, 2013
2:25 pm
Our airpower was in support of South Vietnamese ground troops. It was a combined effort.
Bravo! A breakthrough! I agree!
And it would have worked in 1975 and saved South Vietnam if the surrender monkey liberals hadn’t stopped it.
Thank you.
middle of the road
March 19th, 2013
2:26 pm
“Ergo Social Security is a massive unfunded liability because Congress has been stealing your money.”
Yes, it is unfunded because it is part of the national “credit card” that the budget borrows from. That borrowing will have to be replaced with borrowing from the Chinese. If you try to just stop paying the seniors because there is “no money in the lockbox” you will have a total revolution on your hands. When the promised money is gone, then you will only have current revenue coming in to pay SS recipients (about 75% of what is promised) or else you will have to supplement it from the general fund. I would rather see SS cut slowly so everyone gets a little rather than the current generation getting fully funded and you and I only get 75%. Of course, 75% is better than nothing.
curious
March 19th, 2013
2:29 pm
Aesop’s Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
“And it would have worked in 1975 and saved South Vietnam if the surrender monkey liberals hadn’t stopped it.”
Disagree. It may have stopped that drive in 1975, but the North wouldn’t have quit. President Ford correctly decided we had done all we were going to do. No more sacrifice by Americans.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 19th, 2013
2:30 pm
“That being the case, we did we let the USSR dominate Eastern Europe for so long?”
Well, considering we had just fought a world war and didn’t have the stomach to go after the Soviet Union, allowing them to take over some of Europe was an inevitability, don’t you think? And it is much easier to take on a North Korea or North Vietnam than another nuclear superpower, isn’t it?
“Considering our trade with Russia, China, and Vietnam today, maybe our fear of Communism was groundless.”
In the big picture, the fear of little countries I mentioned above was groundless. Of course Russia is no longer Communist, so that dog doesn’t hunt, curious. Regarding China, they may be the biggest threat to us and the world someday, but they are not strictly communist, either. However, given that they haven’t had imperial designs on their neighbors as some other countries have, we have no reason to complain about or go after their form of government.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 19th, 2013
2:32 pm
“Remember, you are agreeing to 60% of the budget cuts to come from defense, so don’t come back and say “they are necessary to protect American interests” and so can’t be cut but I don’t want to increase taxes to pay for them.”
Who do you think you’re talking to, middle of the road, a lib?
I’m consistent.
Always have been.