What will Republicans do now?

The status quo is similar now to what it was before the election, but at the beginning of the year it looked better for Republicans and they lost the big race–Obama was reelected. Therefore there are stories about what Republicans will do. Since it’s a news article we get both sides:

The GOP’s conservatives, said Bass, have grown excessively rigid, making it difficult for someone like him, from a swing state, to strike compromises and solve fiscal problems in the capital.

“I’m a voice crying out in the wilderness,’’ said Bass, who has served seven terms in Congress. “I don’t want taxes to go up, but if we sit in our corners and define success as a fight rather than a resolution to the problem, we will not survive.’’

and:

“Campaigns that have a good message, and something they believe in, and have an ability to communicate to voters are the ones that usually prevail,’’ said David Carney, a GOP consultant who advised Governor Rick Perry of Texas on his bid for the nomination.

Tea Party groups and other conservatives, however, point to the success of fiscally conservative candidates they backed, including senator-elect ­Rafael Edward Cruz in Texas. Akin and Richard Mourdock, who lost his Senate bid Indiana after saying that pregnancy resulting from rape was “something God intended,’’ were the exception, under this argument.

Conservatives say Romney was an ineffective candidate with a huge empathy gap. Asked which candidate “cares about people like me,’’ Obama beat Romney 81 percent to 18 percent.

That lack of connection and inspiration damaged the GOP’s nominee more than anything else, said Adam Brandon, spokesman for FreedomWorks, a Tea Party fund-raising group .

“You can hardly say that anyone in the grass-roots movement thought that Mitt Romney was their champion,’’ he said. “There was a lot of voting against the other guy.’’

As the article notes, any of the other Republican candidates would have lost by a much larger margin (and it’s funny that an advisor to Rick Perry talks about what makes a good candidate). The ‘moderates’ also don’t seem to see the real situation:

Former senator John Danforth, a moderate Republican from Missouri, said Tea Party candidates such as Todd Akin, a social conservative, are damaging the GOP brand, especially among women. Akin made national news when he said a women’s body can prevent a pregnancy in the case of rape. The fallout helped the incumbent Democrat, Senator Claire McCaskill, retain her seat.

“There has to be pushback by more traditional Republicans against these fringe people who are giving the party a bad name and losing elections,’’ Danforth said. “We have got to get off the social issues. No matter how you might feel about the abortion issue, it is over, settled, and there is no future in it. To the extent that Republicans insist on emphasizing it they are going to lose women.’’

“The position we took on immigration sounded hateful, and we’ve got to turn that around,’’ he added. “The problem is not with Mitt Romney. The problem is with the Republican Party, and it has gotten to be unattractive.’’

If he thinks Akin is on the fringe of the party then he hasn’t looked at the party’s platform which wants to make abortion illegal with no exceptions. And he’s just as mistaken if he thinks the TEA party is going to become more tolerant.

Look no further than this ‘conciliatory’ speech by Boehner to see what Republicans will do and how much they’re going to change:

in order to garner Republican support for new revenues, the president must be willing to reduce spending and shore up the entitlement programs that are the primary drivers of our debt.

We aren’t seeking to impose our will on the president; we’re asking him to make good on his ‘balanced’ approach.

The president has called for a ‘balanced’ approach to the deficit – a combination of spending cuts and increased revenues.

But a ‘balanced’ approach isn’t balanced if it means higher tax rates on the small businesses that are key to getting our economy moving again and keeping it moving.

A ‘balanced’ approach isn’t balanced if it means we increase the amount of money coming into the coffers of government, but we don’t cut spending and address entitlements at the same time.

A ‘balanced’ approach isn’t balanced if it’s done in the old Washington way of raising taxes now, and ultimately failing to cut spending in the future.

A ‘balanced’ approach isn’t balanced if it means slashing national defense instead of making the common-sense spending cuts that are truly needed.

Real economic growth eluded us in the president’s first term. Without it, we cannot solve our debt.

For purposes of forging a bipartisan agreement that begins to solve the problem, we’re willing to accept new revenue, under the right conditions.

What matters is where the increased revenue comes from, and what type of reform comes with it.

Does the increased revenue come from government taking a larger share of what the American people earn through higher tax rates?

Or does it come as the byproduct of a growing economy, energized by a simpler, cleaner, fairer tax code, with fewer loopholes, and lower rates for all?

And at the same time we’re reforming the tax code, are we supporting growth by taking concrete steps to put our country’s entitlement programs on a sounder financial footing?

Or are we just going to continue to duck the matter of entitlements, and thus the root of the whole problem?

Shoring up entitlements and reforming the tax code – closing special interest loopholes and deductions, and moving to a fairer, simpler system – will bring jobs home and result in a stronger, healthier economy.

So here’s Boehner’s ‘compromise’: if Obama is willing to cut money for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security then Republicans will be willing to support lower tax rates with fewer deductions. Umm, where’s the compromise–Republicans want both things. Basically Boehner is saying if Obama acts like Romney everything will be fine. I guess the compromise is that if the economy does do better (which will increase the amount of taxes the government gets–this is the increased revenue that Boehner is talking about), then Republicans won’t demand further tax cuts. Sounds just like Boehner from last year.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: