Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Maybe it's time for the GOP to rethink their message.

Comments

Return To Article
  • Mister J Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 11, 2012 9:52 a.m.

    @ Mike Richards 7:28 a.m. Nov. 8, 2012 & Roland Kayser 8:16 a.m. Nov. 8, 2012

    Interesting that MR is all about the PEOPLE when it suits his agenda whatever that maybe.

    I could swear at one point Glenn Beck said on one of his pseudo-professorial rants said that pure Athenian Democracy was wrong because it gave power to the people and that we needed to essentially reinforce that status quo.

    Whats it going to be Mike? The true will of the people or the corporations pulling the strings of our elected officials?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 12:09 p.m.

    America grew up a little on tuesday. The republicans have to get in touch with a new reality or face a slow death.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 4:36 p.m.

    Maverick

    where did you learn to count? I guess it's only liberal math that says 49.2% or 43.7% represent majorities.

    No you are WRONG, as usual. it takes MORE THAN 50% to be a majority. 49.2 and 43.7 are LESS than 50% and therefore do not represent a majority. 49.2 < 50. 43.7 < 50.

    What motivated you to make such a blatantly erroneous statement and say I was wrong when simple math says I am correct?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 2:41 p.m.

    To "The Real Maverick" I think I know what lost in DC was saying. Prior to Obama, the last time the Democrats were able to get more than 50% of the popular vote was the 1976 election.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 1:31 p.m.

    "Actually the dems have not received a majority of the popular vote in 6 of the last 9 presidential elections. BO in 2012 (barely), BO in 2008, and maybe Gore in 2000. Before that you had to go back to 1976 for a dem majority. Bush in 2004, no majority in 1996 or 1992, bush sr in 1988, and Reagan in 1980 and 1984."

    Again, lost in DC is... Well... Lost.

    Do a quick google search.

    Clinton in 96 won the popular vote 49.2 % to 40.7 %.

    In 92 he won 43.7 % of the popular vote to Bush's 37.4 %.

    If you want to have credibility then please tell the truth. Stop lying.

    Roland was correct and you were wrong... AGAIN.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 1:13 p.m.

    J Thompson:

    Sorry to hear you're living in the late 1700s rather than the 21st century. The president today has a great deal of power to bypass an obstructionist Congress. The House may be Republican, but it is controlled by a bunch of whiny little children who don't know beans about governing.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 1:06 p.m.

    Actually the dems have not received a majority of the popular vote in 6 of the last 9 presidential elections. BO in 2012 (barely), BO in 2008, and maybe Gore in 2000. Before that you had to go back to 1976 for a dem majority. Bush in 2004, no majority in 1996 or 1992, bush sr in 1988, and Reagan in 1980 and 1984.

    It's not the dem tidal wave Roland would have us beleive.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Nov. 9, 2012 12:35 p.m.

    When I read articles like this, and see the liberal response, it reminds me of the following scripture in 3 Nephi 3:5-8 "5 Therefore I have written this epistle, sealing it with mine own hand, feeling for your welfare, because of your firmness in that which ye believe to be right, and your noble spirit in the field of battle.

    6 Therefore I write unto you, desiring that ye would yield up unto this my people, your cities, your lands, and your possessions, rather than that they should visit you with the sword and that destruction should come upon you.

    7 Or in other words, yield yourselves up unto us, and unite with us and become acquainted with our asecret works, and become our brethren that ye may be like unto us—not our slaves, but our brethren and partners of all our substance."

    We have the conservatives wanting to promote traditional Christian values, and the liberals telling us to put aside those values and join them. Lets remember what happened to those cities that put aside their traditional Christian values.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Nov. 8, 2012 7:55 p.m.

    @mike richards and j thompson. Why are republicans upset with an obama win if he does not represent them. And how is this economy his fault then? It seems the blame belongs to congress.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Nov. 8, 2012 7:24 p.m.

    @Counter:
    Simple observation. If you don't like it, change the party you evidently agree with. Sounds like you know I'm right.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 8, 2012 4:09 p.m.

    "You mean hating everyone who's not male, rich and white isn't going to work"

    And statements like that are going to convince others that you are anything more than the personification of what you claim to despise?

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    Nov. 8, 2012 2:51 p.m.

    Maybe it's time for the gop to think.

    Rush, Grover and Karl, unelected gate-keepers preside over the gop.

    romney would not make a move without authorization from these individuals.

    The next candidate will be forced to do the same unless the gop turns the party back over to the people and their elected representatives.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Nov. 8, 2012 2:33 p.m.

    So very few people understand the Constitution that they think that the President somehow represents them. They think that voting for president is something more than it is. They are simply voicing their desire so that an elector can vote for them about a figurehead who will represent their state to the world. Their Representative sits in the House, not in the White House. Obama does not represent them. He can create NO legislation. He is completely powerless except to enforce laws passed by Congress.

    The House is Republican.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Nov. 8, 2012 2:33 p.m.

    The comments here show that repubs will never let facts get in the way of their opinions.

    Nationally, the GOP needs to change. If it doesn't, it will never win another election. This country isn't ruled by white heterosexual Christian males anymore. You need to expand your demographic and reach out to minorities, women, non-Christians, immigrants, and homosexuals.

    It's that simple.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Nov. 8, 2012 1:57 p.m.

    Mike,

    More people voted for President Obama than for Mitt Romney. Those same people had the chance to turn control of the Senate over to the Republicans and didn't. Capitalize all the words you like, but those are facts.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    Nov. 8, 2012 12:14 p.m.

    The demise of the GOP has been coming on for some time now, like a bad cold. The party has been hijacked by an irrational ultraconservative right wing. It can win enough House seats to obstruct but not to govern. It refuses to compromise, even on legislation that is conservative or moderate in nature. It is the equivalent of the snobby kid who says, "Either we play by my rules or I'll sit in the corner and pout."

    The Republicans can't win the presidency by nominating a true conservative (as defined today). He (not she) would alienate anyone from right of center to far left. Romney was probably the best pick they could have made. He's a natural moderate who should have appealed to the middle and even to some from the center-left. But look where he had to go to win the nomination. He had to declare himself "severely conservative," embrace positions he obviously felt awkward endorsing, and then try to Etch-a-Sketch himself toward the center at the end. It came off as disingenuous.

    I predict the GOP will split within the next four years or become irrelevant.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 8, 2012 11:25 a.m.

    roland,
    why am I not surprised you have reduced yourself to gloating? The only thing worse than a sore loser is a sore winner.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Nov. 8, 2012 11:00 a.m.

    Darrel,

    Please read Article I of the Constitution that spells out the duties of Congress. Note that budget bills are to originate in the House and that the Senate may concur or propose amendments to those bills (Section 7). Read Article II, Section 2 to see that the Senate must approve appointments.

    It's past time that we understood the duties of government and that we hold ourselves responsible to know when government is fulfilling those duties. We cannot ask government to do anything that is not authorized unless we first amend the Constitution. Until that amendment takes place, the limits of each branch of government is clearly defined.

    The HOUSE represents the people of the United States. The HOUSE is charged with formulating a budget. The Senate can concur with that budget, but it is not required to concur. The Senate can propose amendments to that budget, but the House is not required to accept those amendments.

    It's all there, clearly written for all to see, in the Constitution - the Supreme Law of the Land.

    The power and authority of government is severely limited - no matter what an elected official says.

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 8, 2012 10:32 a.m.

    You're right Roland- maybe we Republicans need a more positive message like " vote for revenge" or "they gonna put ya'll back in chains"
    btw- Republicans have I believe 30 governorships so we're not completely in the wilderness yet

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    Nov. 8, 2012 10:19 a.m.

    "The President is the President of the STATES. The PEOPLE are represented by the House and the PEOPLE chose Republicans to represent them. Maybe it's time that the President and the Senate realized that the PEOPLE want conservative government. Maybe it's time that the President and the Senate yield their liberal ideas to the will of the people."

    Mike speaks for all people? Oh such extremism in that statement!!! How can these poor defenseless leftists take it???? Please please where can we find more saviors like Obama???? Defining the presidents, the houses' and senates responsibilities is such a matter of opinion!!! Poor poor leftist Obama lovers!!! Sarcasm off now. Right on Mike!!

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Nov. 8, 2012 10:13 a.m.

    This is a new season. The election is past. "Name calling" should be set aside.

    We, the people, have elected people to represent us, our states and our nation. We have assigned each branch of the federal government specific duties and we have authorized each branch to ONLY perform certain tasks for us. It is our duty to see that those tasks are handled properly, within the bounds that we, the people, have set.

    The HOUSE represents the people. The HOUSE is charged with formulating the budget. The Senate approves treaties and approves federal appointments. The Senate must concur with the House on a budget, but the budget comes from the house. The President signs, vetos or allows laws to pass without his signature. He is the Commander in Chief of the Military. The Court sees that all play fair and that all stay within the duties appointed to them.

    Instead of slandering each other, why not discuss HOW the House can represent the will of the people? Why not discuss HOW the Senate can best represent the will of each State? Why not discuss HOW the President can properly enforce the laws passed by Congress?

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Nov. 8, 2012 10:06 a.m.

    J. Thompson,

    "The Senate can continue to block all legislation passed by the House, but doing that means that they have grossly overstepped their authority. They represent the interests of the states - to see that each state is equally represented."

    ====================

    So if the Senate is to rubber stamp everything the House passes, why even have the Senate?

  • really? Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 8, 2012 10:00 a.m.

    J Thompson and Mike Richards.

    Checks and balances are there for a reason. Bottom line is that the democrats control the White House and the Senate. Spin it all you want.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Nov. 8, 2012 9:44 a.m.

    @J Thompson;

    How do you explain that no matter how REPUBLICANS try to redistrict Matheson OUT of office, he consistently WINS the vote of the PEOPLE?

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Nov. 8, 2012 9:42 a.m.

    You mean hating everyone who's not male, rich and white isn't going to work?

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Nov. 8, 2012 9:29 a.m.

    Mike Richards got it right. Senators are elected to represent the state. House members are elected to represent the people of each state. The President is elected to enforce the laws passed by Congress and to represent the states (collectively) to the world and to act as Commander in Chief.

    The House of Representatives is controlled by conservative Republicans. That was the will of the people. No spin can negate that fact. The PEOPLE all across America chose conservatives to represent them in government. The House controls the budget. It is their primary duty to represent the people when imposing taxes on us and when regulating any activity which they are authorized to regulate.

    The President cannot legislate without breaking the law. He can influence legislation, but he can't write legislation.

    The Senate can continue to block all legislation passed by the House, but doing that means that they have grossly overstepped their authority. They represent the interests of the states - to see that each state is equally represented.

    Power plays by the Senate or the President shows a total disregard for the will of the people - who elected REPUBLICANS to represent them in the House.

  • Thinkin\' Man Rexburg, ID
    Nov. 8, 2012 9:22 a.m.

    Maybe Republicans should pander to special interest groups by promising them money and power. Maybe they should live by the mantra, "If I say it enough, voters will believe it." Maybe they should lie. Maybe they should cover up their mistakes that get Americans killed. Maybe they should nominate someone stylish and "cool" but with no real qualifications for office. Maybe they should forget about passing budgets and taking care of the people's business.

    Maybe they should be like Democrats.

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    Nov. 8, 2012 8:47 a.m.

    The Republicans are rapidly "aging out" with a party based on old, cranky, white guys. You can't win anymore by ignoring, or alienating, Hispanics, Blacks, women, gays, lesbians, and the poor. They will get smeared in a few more elections, and then go back to the drawing board and create a party more grounded in reality, that works for more Americans.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Nov. 8, 2012 8:18 a.m.

    Mike's pretty arrogant to assume that he speaks for all the PEOPLE of this nation.

    Some of us don't buy his arguments and simply seek sensible, moderate solutions instead of extremism.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 8, 2012 8:16 a.m.

    Mike Richards: You can gerrymander house districts, but it's not possible to gerrymander senate districts.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Nov. 8, 2012 7:28 a.m.

    The interesting thing is that the PEOPLE chose Republicans to represent them. The Senate represents the States. The President is the President of the STATES. The PEOPLE are represented by the House and the PEOPLE chose Republicans to represent them. Maybe it's time that the President and the Senate realized that the PEOPLE want conservative government. Maybe it's time that the President and the Senate yield their liberal ideas to the will of the people.

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    Nov. 8, 2012 6:46 a.m.

    I think the rest of us are tired of being charactized as lazy, worthless do nothings always with our hand out. When one couples that with the perceived intolerance of others with differences of opinion then I for one understand how they are losing a grip on reality.