« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

What does the GOP plan to run on – to win in 2012?

This weekend, the GOP presidential nominee went to the NRA convention and attacked Obama on his gun control record.  The GOP nominee said that we need a president who will enforce the gun laws we have rather than create new ones.  The only problem is that Obama has a better gun control record than the GOP nominee.  It is the GOP nominee who said, “I don’t line up with the NRA.”  The anti-second Amendment Brady Center has consistently given Obama low ratings for his failure to restrict the Second Amendment.  It is our nominee who signed the first permanent assault weapons ban in the country.  Our nominee who supported the Brady Bill.  Our nominee who supported the five-day waiting period.  It is our nominee who was against gun rights until he decided to run for president.

WHAT IS THE POINT?

The goal here isn’t to weaken the GOP nominee, but it is to point out that the negative, dishonest campaign that won the GOP nomination against a batch of weak primary challengers without the money to fight back won’t defeat Mr. Obama.  When you hear David Axelrod speak, you know this is a guy that is ready for Romney.  This is a guy salivating at the mouth to take on Romney.  Axelrod wants to make sport of Romney and he is going to have the money to do it.

Here is the point, the GOP has made its bed, now it has to sleep in it.  We have a candidate that we can’t really compare and contrast with Obama because his own record is so . . . Un-conservative.  These independent voters that the party seems to want to woo more than its own base, are not going to fall for the argument that Obama is too liberal on gun rights.  Sure, the GOP can argue that he has put liberal judges on the bench, but there isn’t much to support the assertion that he has directly endangered gun owner’s rights.

We are going to need a message.  As the economy continues to self-correct, that becomes a heavier lift.    Our candidate isn’t a social conservative, so that is off the table.  He hasn’t been a friend to the Second Amendment, so that is off of the table.  He will quickly find that Obama is going to shred him apart if he attempts to discuss Obamacare, with Romneycare lurking in the background.  He can’t go after Obama on foreign policy because there is nothing to say.  What is our nominee’s message?  This election is increasingly looking to be a head-to-head match-up rather than a referendum on Obama.  Obama doesn’t plan to pass any more legislation until next year.  When he isn’t working, people love the guy.

The war on moms message is a start, but we don’t need to hear anything about 78 socialists or Obama’s war on guns.  We need a coherent honest message.  It is fine to ask if Americans are better off now than they were four years ago, but we must also make the case that we can do better.

COMMENTS

  • Kyle-MI

    Romney can’t do these things because he hasn’t done them in the past? He can’t change his policies and he can’t run on those changed policies?

    Seriously, what do you want? Do you want his policies to be consistent with his past but against your principles? Or do you want a candidate who is currently in line with your principles even if he hasn’t in the past?

    If you can’t support him because of his past then support the current policies on which he is running. Why just assume he will change? If he wins with conservative policies why would he throw away a winning hand?

  • Viet71

    Romney has changed his tune on guns. I’ve changed mine on politics and the death penalty. People get to do that, especially politicians.

    It’s fair to criticize or doubt or dispute Romney’s current position on guns. What you’ve done is brought us old news.

    • APA Guy

      Here is a brief one:

      -Static job market

      -$6 trillion in new debt…record deficits…devalued dollar…which leads to…

      -$3.90/gallon gas prices when they were $1.86 when he was sworn in

      -Obama’s war on stay-at-home moms (and traditional American values)…and don’t tell me Hilary Rosen doesn’t = Obama…the woman visited the White House THIRTY-FIVE (35) TIMES.

      That is the short list…I’ll allow others to add to them, as I’m sure the list is endless :)

  • WmCraig

    My position is we need a big leap past the tug of war in Washington. The candidate can line up some people with “use the power to do good by expanding personal opportunity” or in other words, use this overly large underfunded federal behemoth to make life a little more pleasant while steaming full ahead into a financial collapse. Or the candidate could reach beyond the common and admit that Washington is the problem, and the solution is to restore power to the states. After all, no individual or business can influence government, but the states can impose sanity on the ruling elite that have grasped the power in Washington. And freeing the people of this country from the “either or choice” of Washington imposed imperialism gives each voter an opportunity through their local and state governments to adopt the kind of government that best suites their needs. It doesn’t mean liberals have to abandon progressive socialism or that conservatives have to abandon personal responsibility. It simply means that voting with your feet becomes a valid option again. Nancy Pelosi can move her Californian constituency closer to China complete with cradle to grave security, free educations and guaranteed jobs, while Tom Coburn could move his Oklahoma constituents in the other direction with low taxes, high levels of personal responsibility and social services model on faith based initiatives.

    You and I and all the people we know could chose to live and contribute wherever we felt the government best represents us. We could work to have our own states adopt our values (an idea that crosses all political persuasions) and if we could not be satisfied with the compromises our fellow state citizens adopt we would be free to move to an environment more suitable to our sensibilities.

    This concept, ending the war between two sides in Washington, and letting states adopt their own domestic agenda would embrace the ideals of every person of every political persuasion.. All we are giving up is trying to impose a one size fits all solution, or more precisely a compromise fits no one solution on every everywhere. And this is what liberty is really about.

    But I doubt the “candidate” will offer any real change as an alternative to ” Not quite Obama, maybe a little bitty change in direction and maybe run the country into financial collapse not quite so fast”