Thursday, January 22, 2009

The Republican Party Needs an Image Make-Over

If Republicans could have swayed even 30% of the black vote, we would have our first female vice president, today.



The conservative message needs a better delivery system than the one we've had. The Democratic Party has successfully painted Republicans as the party of racists, bigots, and the wealthy class who oppress the poor.

If conservative ideology were better understood, if the Republican Party were more faithful to conservatism, then there's no reason why we should ever lose another election ever again.

More written on my cross-post at Flopping Aces.

Labels: , ,

14 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the party of racism, bigots and its ideals would be better understood it owuld never win an election again.
FACT: when democrats are in office stocks do better.
FACT: trickle down economics has always failed
FACT: republicans do not do better in keeping the country safe
FACT: religious education does not belong in the public schools
FACT: school vouchers are worthless.

Thursday, January 22, 2009 12:18:00 PM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

FACT: when democrats are in office stocks do better.


Uh...yeah. Great example right here:

US stocks were on course on Tuesday for their worst inauguration day performance since the assassination of John F Kennedy, led by more heavy losses among banks.

FACT: trickle down economics has always failed

"trickle down" is such a Democratic-propagandized term.

All your "facts" are just pointless partisan opinions.

I agree that religion doesn't belong in the classroom. What secularists aim to do, gets into the realm of paranoid intolerance of any kind of religious expression, such as Christmas carols during the holidays celebrated.

FACT: school vouchers are worthless.

You oppose children having the same opportunity as Malia and Sasha?

You think it's the role of federal government to spend and do a "better" job of using taxpayer money to fund public education and basically not give children school choice? The kind of choice that those who can afford private schools are able to make?

Thursday, January 22, 2009 12:34:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No child left behind is a joke and unsuccessful as are the voucher programs pushed by the republians party. The anti union ideals they share are retarded. It is a Fact that Dems do better in the stock market. and Trickle Down was actually called that by the Economic Advisors to the President Bush and Reagon. Try to back off the liberal talking points you piece of shit. Im not a democrat, im a moderate and I hate the Republican party of today and you since you stand for it are a dispicable human being.

Thursday, January 22, 2009 12:43:00 PM  
Blogger christian soldier said...

WOW - Wordsmith-Your TRUTH telling got the Dark Side riled! :-)
C-CS
I'm linking this...

Thursday, January 22, 2009 9:39:00 PM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Real piece of work, huh?


anon wrote:

No child left behind is a joke and unsuccessful as are the voucher programs pushed by the republians party.

No Child Left Behind was a bipartisan effort. I certainly am not happy with the vast increase in education spending under President Bush, nor with the creation of the Dept. of Education under Carter; but what exactly is your specific criticism regarding NCLB and school vouchers?

The anti union ideals they share are retarded.

Can you be more specific? All you have is partisan drivel and insults.

It is a Fact that Dems do better in the stock market. and Trickle Down was actually called that by the Economic Advisors to the President Bush and Reagon.

David Stockman never used the term, to my knowledge. "Trickle down" is a liberal term invented to disparage supply-side economics.

Thomas Sowell:

The messages I don't reply to at all are those from obviously ignorant people who offer insults instead of arguments. [Sounds like he's addressing you, anon] However, a recent column has brought forth more than the usual number of uninformed denunciations, so it may be useful to other readers to explain why they should not take such nonsense seriously when they encounter it.


What I said that set off the crazies was that there is no such thing as "trickle-down" economics. Supposedly those who believe in trickle-down economics want to give benefits to the rich, on the assumption that these benefits will trickle down to the poor.


As someone who spent the first decade of his career researching, teaching and writing about the history of economic thought, I can say that no economist of the past two centuries had any such theory.


Some of those who denounced me for saying that there was no trickle-down theory cited an article by David Stockman years ago — as if David Stockman was the last word, and I should forget everything I learned in years of research because David Stockman said otherwise.


What is often confused with a trickle-down theory is supply-side economics, such as that advocated by Arthur Laffer. That theory is that tax cuts can generate more tax revenue for the government because it changes people's behavior, causing more economic activity to take place, leading to more taxable income, as well as a faster growing economy.


It is not hard to find examples of when this happened — for example, during the Kennedy administration, among other times and places. Whether it will happen in a given set of circumstances is what is controversial, but none of this has anything to do with money trickling down from the rich to the poor. It has to do with the creation of more wealth in the economy as a whole.


The notion of a trickle-down theory is debunked on pages 388-389 of my book "Basic Economics". But most of those who went ballistic over my denial of a trickle-down theory were not seeking further information.


The federal government has taken in more revenue due to President Bush's "tax cuts for the rich" [a mischaracterization]; what Bush failed to do was reign in spending and cut-back the size of government.


Try to back off the liberal talking points you piece of shit. Im not a democrat, im a moderate

Lol. You're a moderate? You've been hitting every liberal talking point; a walking, breathing stereotype of a DU Kos Kiddie.

and I hate the Republican party of today and you since you stand for it are a dispicable human being.

Thank you for expressing yourself. Says a lot about you and which of us is the more despicable.

Thursday, January 22, 2009 11:43:00 PM  
Blogger Pasadena Closet Conservative said...

This kid needs to be groomed by consevatives before the Libs sidle up to take him under their wing.

Thursday, January 22, 2009 11:59:00 PM  
Blogger Gayle said...

Wordsmith, methinks Anon picked the wrong blogger to pick an argument with! :) Anonymous comments with no link back really shows that the person posting as Anonymous is cowardly. He/she could at least leave an e-mail address!

I really admire the young man in this video. I had one of his videos posted at the top of my blog for weeks before the election, not that it did any good. He's quite talented though and does tell it like it is. I hope there are some blacks out there at least who are listening to him because he is speaking the truth!

I'm going to snag this video and place it up top on my blog. Thanks, Wordsmith! :)

Friday, January 23, 2009 6:12:00 AM  
Blogger Mark said...

Perhaps Conservatives could get a better image if we would agree to be Conservative and stop waffling between Conservatism and Liberalism like McCain, Lindsey Graham, Guiliani, and others do. What we need is a party that represents true Conservatism. Perhaps we should start a grassroots effort to create the "Conservative Party".

Friday, January 23, 2009 9:09:00 AM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Mark,

In American politics, anyone going third party is just throwing away energy better spent at working from within one of the two major parties. Third parties don't work. Michael Medved's got a couple of brilliant articles on it; Hugh Hewitt's 2004 book is also a good read on elections.

While I agree with you about the need to stick true to conservatism, I disagree that the problem is having RINOs, and moderate CINOs within the party (again, reference Hugh Hewitt's book, If it's not Close, They Can't Cheat). There's no real evidence that I've seen that McCain lost the election because he wasn't conservative enough. The Coulters and the Limbaugh hard-nosed conservatives came to bat for Palin; and even without her, probably would have held their noses and voted against Obama, if not for McCain.

What we're lacking is a proper delivery system to go with a clear conservative message. Liberals have largely been allowed to define what conservatives are. Obama is a great communicator, has charisma, the advantage of being a glass-ceiling breaker, and the country was fatigued by 8 years of Bush. You could have put your dream-God uber-conservative candidate up front, and he would have still lost to Obama. McCain also ran a miserable campaign with no clear and consistent message as he was pulled left and right by hard conservatives and the center-right people; and the timing of the economic crisis was a death knell.

Friday, January 23, 2009 9:21:00 AM  
Blogger shoprat said...

If liberals would tell the truth about their intentions there wouldn't be a liberal dogcatcher, let alone president.

They try to say that we have completely failed, kind of like Darth Vader's infamous Now Obi-Wan's failure is complete. They want us to shut up because they know we are down but not out.

Saturday, January 24, 2009 1:07:00 PM  
Blogger shoprat said...

Anonymous Your hate filled screed tells us all we want to know about you.

Saturday, January 24, 2009 1:08:00 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

Not necessarily, Smithy. Third parties haven't worked in the past, but there is historical precedence of grass roots efforts creating a new political party and being successful. That is the Republican party. All they had to do was have a solid rallying point. In that case it was slavery. If Obama isn't a reason to create a solid Conservative party, nothing is.

Just saying it won't work without trying is kind of a defeatist attitude in my opinion.

If Edison had listened to those who said "It won't work", we would all be watching TV by candlelight.

If America survives 4 years of Obamanomics and white flag waving, starting a Conservative party might just be worth a try. Better than sitting on your hands while the Country sinks into oblivion.

Sunday, January 25, 2009 7:43:00 PM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

The thing is, Mark: The Republican Party was never a third party. It was the opposition party to the Democrats, as the Whigs were effectively out of power.

Just saying it won't work without trying is kind of a defeatist attitude in my opinion.

Michael Medved's got some of the best reasons why third parties don't work.

The third party temptation discredits its candidates

No collapse of the two-party system

Why the third party bust in 2008?

A Long Tradition of Fringe Parties and Paranoia

Delusion and Denial

Pat Buchanan failed. Ross Perot's party failed. In every election, what percentage of the votes do third parties ever receive? I say it's a waste of energy in American politics.

Sunday, January 25, 2009 7:54:00 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

The Conservative party would be the opposition party to the Democrat party. Obviously the Republican party is effectively out of power.

Yes, I agree third party's only muck up the system and guarantee a win for one party or the other.

But, if a true Conservative party could replace the Republican party...


Hey! A guy can dream, can't he?

C'mon, Smithy. You are an intelligent guy. You are at least as intelligent as Michael Medved, or Hugh Hewitt. They just have the advantage of name recognition.

Don't waste your talent depending on others opinions to form your own. Your opinion is just as good as theirs.

Sunday, January 25, 2009 9:28:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


Day By Day© by Chris Muir.

© Copyright, Sparks from the Anvil, All Rights Reserved