Quantcast

Comments about ‘Kathleen Parker: This year's elections could be brutal for GOP’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Jan. 7 2014 12:08 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
canvas1
San Tan Valley, AZ

Awe...Kathleen, well, it looks like you are another beltway republican who still does not understand why McCain and Romney both lost and why the 2010 midterms were such a republican success. Democrats win because they focus on issues. They NEVER try for victory portraying themselves with an arm stretched out to the other side saying, "See we are nice and we can get along."

Lets see, oh that's right, that's how McCain and Romney campaigned, and I think they lost Kathleen. And you lecture us on putting up losing candidates! The tea-party is who helped win the House back; singularly due to campaigns across the country focused on the issue of the alarming growth of government and the loss of our freedoms.

And if I am not mistaking, it was Bush's true colors showing through as a NOT true conservative that gave the Senate and the House to Polosi and Reid. We see and understand the dangerous direction our country is headed and we have the winning strategy. Open your eyes!

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"What smart Republicans are aiming for are candidates who can win both a primary and a general election, actual human beings who can appeal to a wide swath of the electorate, not just the purity-proof hard-liners on the right"

Yup. And when the GOP stops pushing the Crazy, birther types, I am happy to pull the "R" lever again.

While some do see the light, I fear that there are still too many (evident on this board daily) who would rather lose with their perfect candidate than win with someone who gives them most of what they want.

azreader1
tucson, AZ

I find it a bit odd, and even disingenuous, when a writer predicts doom and gloom for the Republican party if it doesn't follow his or her prescription for success (often summed up as "dump the tea party"). The problem is that until someone else demonstrates even a glimmer of conscience on issues like abortion and actually does something about runaway spending, fiscally-conservative and socially-conscious candidates will continue to win Republican primaries, especially in down-stream elections.

And, lest pundits not appreciate the distinction, strictly tea party-only members don't generally get into the tall grass of social issues such as abortion, so it isn't just the tea partiers who have a stake and influence in Republican primaries. For instance, I doubt that the previously much-maligned Religious Right has faded into oblivion; it's just that pundits now like to focus all of their attention and ire on the "tea party."

I suspect there are many others like me who will continue to focus their attention and support on candidates who truly represent what we consider to be the most important issues of the day: sound fiscal management and a strong moral compass.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

'The tea-party is who helped win the House back…'

Ok.

Let's look at this statement.

The GOP did take 'take America back' by winning the House in 2010.

Before our current President took office, the GOP has been seen quoting as their only priority was to make him a…

'one term President.'

Not jobs.

400 Filibusters in the Senate. More than any other congress in history.

47 failed attempts to repeal the Affordable care act at the cost of $50 million dollars.

82 judicial blocks. 86 for every other president…combined.

The GOP refused to talk with Dems x18 times before….

they forced a government shutdown. That also cost tax payers $24 billion dollars.

Least productive congress, in 60 years.

Utah:

1.3 Utahns cut off public assistance.

The state spending $2 million dollars to fight gay marriage.

Why would I vote someone into government, that wants 'limited government'?

That is sabotage politics.

And if you are upset about the debt?

Reagan tripled the debt.

George W. Bush doubled the debt.

You cannot say either about Obama.

The message, seems pretty clear.

The Republican party has offered no actual solutions in 30+ years.

Vote Democrat.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"it was Bush's true colors showing through as a NOT true conservative"

Just Bush? How about Mitch McConnell? How about Paul Ryan? How about John Boehner?

These guys all voted FOR Medicare part D, No Child Left Behind, the Auto Bailouts and TARP.

Proving, in the end, the GOP is not really any different than the Dems.

Just Bush? Hardly.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

That's OK.

airnaut
Everett, 00

canvas1
San Tan Valley, AZ

That's proving Kathleen Parker's article to a tea (party).

You realize the last election was Obama's to loose, don't you?
You do realize that Romney was a North East moderate Republican (similar to Reagan) who could have easily won the Center Right, Moderates, and Independants - but morphed into an ugly "ultra-conservative" during the primary, only to then be publically spanked and smacked down in the General Elections, don't you?

You do realize that the House and Senate, and 3 State Governorships were lost due to GOP Tea-Party extremeism?

Nah, you don't.
And THAT is what Ms. Parker is trying to tell you.

Let the GOP-eat-GOP gladiator games begin...

andyjaggy
American Fork, UT

I would love to vote republican this time around, but I fear that Republicans will make that impossible for me. Someone like Chris Cristie whom I would actually vote for will probably be run out by the tea party.

airnaut
Everett, 00

Least we all remind ourselves that Saint Reagan --
[whom the Tea-Party worships and sees as sinless]

banned assault and hand guns,
signed abortion legislation,
granted amnesty to illegal immigrants,
increased Government size and Federal Spending,
raised the debt ceiling 17 times,
and forced all hospitals to admit people regardless of insurance or ability to pay.

President Obama has done none of that,
so should be considered Ronald Reagan-LITE.

Today's GOP would have had Reagan publically executed.

JoeCapitalist2
Orem, UT

Once again, the liberals are pushing the story that only "moderate" Republicans have a chance of winning in the general election. They want to convince us that anyone who is truly conservative doesn't have a chance so we might as well vote for someone in the primary who has at least one foot across the aisle already.

Why is this logic only applicable to conservatives? Hard core leftists in the Democratic party run and win all the time. Obama, Clinton, Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, etc. are all left wing extremists. There is no effort on the other side to promote "moderate" Democrats.

I'm sure plenty of liberal commentors will insist that everyone associated with the Tea Party are "crazy birther types", but they give all the left-wingers a complete pass.

Don't fall for the propaganda. Elect true conservatives who will actually fight for smaller government and fiscal responsibility. Otherwise the party will shift even further left.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

'Once again, the liberals are pushing the story that only "moderate" Republicans have a chance of winning in the general election.'

False.

With it's track record…

I doubt any Republican has a chance of winning general election.

There You Go Again
Saint George, UT

"...The problem is that until someone else demonstrates even a glimmer of conscience on issues like abortion and actually does something about runaway spending...".

A glimmer of conscience?

The end all...be all...Patron Saint of the republican Party...Ronald Wilson Reagan signed an abortion bill which led to the murder of over 2,000,000 babies.

"...and actually does something about runaway spending...".

RWR raised the debt ceiling 17 times...

"...fiscally-conservative and socially-conscious candidates will continue to win Republican primaries...".

There must be some other reason why fiscally-conservative and socially-conscious candidates will continue to win republican primaries.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

Senator Lee started the landslide.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"Hard core leftists in the Democratic party run and win all the time. Obama, Clinton, Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, etc. are all left wing extremists. There is no effort on the other side to promote "moderate" Democrats."

You detail out the issue perfectly. Obama and Clinton are by no stretch "left wing extremists". Its like being in a boat leaving an island and thinking the land is moving farther away.

JoeCapitalist2
Orem, UT

JoeBlow:

Obama and Clinton are as far away from the center line as Ted Cruze and Mike Lee. Liberals refuse to acknowledge that because they agree with their politics. To them, Obama is just a regular guy who has perfectly normal views.

To conservatives, his policies are very radical.

I happen to agree with many true conservatives in Congress, but at least I will recognize that they are not "moderate".

If you want to try and prove me wrong, please name some people in Congress that you think are farther left than the ones I named. (Oops I should have mentioned Al Franken in my original post but even he is not THAT far left of Obama).

T.Jefferson
Concord, MA

JoeBlow -

You are absolutely correct. Obama, Bush, Clinton and Reagan all are relatively moderate by comparison to members of the Teaparty movement. The Teaparty would have refused the TARP program and the accommodative Fed programs. The result would have been a 2nd Great Depression.

This article is spot on. In fact what is happening is deja vu all over again. Teaparty candidates are the main reason the Senate has a Democrat majority, despite the fact that the apportionment according to two senators per state gives a great overweight to the less populous smaller and more conservative states.

demz taters
Flagstaff, AZ

JoeCapitalist2 wrote: "If you want to try and prove me wrong, please name some people in Congress that you think are farther left than the ones I named. (Oops I should have mentioned Al Franken in my original post but even he is not THAT far left of Obama)."

Raul Grijalva
Keith Ellison
Maxine Waters
Linda Sanchez
Alan Grayson
Bernie Sanders (not a Dem but caucuses with them).

That was too easy.

evansrichdm
west jordan , UT

I will admit limited government is winner with getting my vote. Less government means taking care of myself and family, less government getting into my own busieness and real winner is less taxes needed to run it.

All those that think government can take care of everything please read the history of Europe in the late 80s and early 90s.

FT
salt lake city, UT

Bungalow
One other fact about Reagan, that Congress actually spent less money than he requested in 5 out of the 8 years he submitted a budget. Reagan was not a fiscal conservative, he actually was a propenent of deficit spending.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

bungalow
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

FT
salt lake city, UT

=========

Shhh,
Don't rattle them up,
That's like telling children that there really is not a Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy.

FYI --
As a much younger moderate, center right Republican,
Ronald Reagan was the last Republican I voted for as a Republican.

[I wrote in and voted for Jon M. Huntsman Jr. last election,
he was by far the most like Reaganesque....and look what the GOP did to him!]

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments