Politistick: Brutally Honest Statement About the GOP’s Future by the Party’s Chair Will Shock You

By Jennifer Burke, Politistick, June 15, 2015

Bob Dole. John McCain. Mitt Romney. These are all squishy GOP candidates who we were told were the only ones who could win. The problem is, they didn’t.Jeb-Bush-550x300

You see, the GOP has a problem. Well, they actually have many problems. They have too many elected officials who fail to follow the party’s platform. They have too many who go along to get along seemingly being so content with having any amount of power that even when they have taken over the majority of both the House and Senate, such as now, they assist the most power hungry, dictatorial, corrupt president this country has ever seen with passing his agenda.

One of the major problems with the GOP is they suffer from an “it’s this person’s turn” mentality. Democrats take a candidate they believe can win, regardless of lack of experience or far left-wing ideology, and catapult them to prominence. That’s how we have Barack Obama.

Republicans, on the other hand, will tell the most inspiring and principled of conservatives, who are considered by the party elite to be too young, that they need to ‘wait their turn’ while they push a candidate, i.e. Dole, McCain, and Romney, who the grassroots have already said they will not vote for.

Now, Republicans are reaping what they have sowed.

Reince Priebus, the GOP chair, expressed his concerns about the future of the party last week on The Laura Ingraham Show. While he echoed what many in the grassroots have been saying for years, the party’s elite establishment won’t like his dire prediction on the party’s future should they fail to win the White House for the third time in a row.

Priebus said that if the Republican Party does not win the White House back in 2016, then it will fail to exist as a national party.

Ingraham asked, “On a scale of 1-10, how do-or-die is 2016 presidential race?”

His reply, though stunning to some, will be refreshing for others to hear because of its brutal honesty. Priebus said, “Ten. 10-11-12. I mean, we don’t exist as a national party if we don’t win in 2016. You can’t compete 16 years out of the White House, it’s just not possible.”

That’s right, it’s not, which is why the establishment on the right better think long and hard before it goes after certain candidates, for example Cruz, Walker, and Rubio, while catapulting Jeb Bush to prominence and telling the base that “he’s the only one who can win.”

What’s the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

If the Republican Party truly does not want to fade into oblivion, they should heed those words and not demonstrate pure insanity in 2016 with the ‘he’s the only one who can win’ mantra again.



  1. GOP caters to “liberal lite” silk-stocking Repubs and ignores the Wal-Mart voters. I predict in the next election more conservatives will stay home than did last time from disillusionment and disgust with the RINO’s!

  2. Bill Smith says:

    I don’t know Ms, Burke but there are several things missing here.

    It appears that she would find that Dole, Romney, and McCain were not sufficiently ideologically pure by her standards. However, Eisenhower and Nixon would be to the left of those three and Bush I and Bush II about of the same conservative philosophy as those three. Morever, Dole was to the right of Reagan on fiscal matters at least. It is sometimes forgotten that Barry Goldwater said to Dole, “We’re the liberals now,” At any rate the Republican winners since 1950 are Eisenhower, Nixon Reagan. Bush I, and Bush II. And Reagan, my favorite President, was to the left of Cruz and those like him. They are the ones who accused Reagan of selling out.

    Then one of the things that Priebus is concerned about is the shrinking Republican demographic. Some think that just motivating the base will win elections. It can win primaries, but, the reality is fast becoming that unless the Republican Party can expand its tent to include more Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and women it is going to lose Presidential elections and cease to be a national Party. If the Party does not win the Presidency in 2016, the nation may become for as far out as anyone can see not a center left but a left left country.

    I assume the unflattering picture of Jeb Bush is meant to make the point that he will be another loser. That may well be the case, The nation may have had all the Bushes it is willing to have. But, the problem is not that Bush is not sufficiently consevative. He was in several ways a more conservative governor than Reagan was. He also has shown he knows how to run a government effectively and to get his policies enacted.

    If the Republican Party is going to win the Presidency it is going to take a candidate like Rublo, Walker, or Bush. We have to hope that when the dust settles one of them will emerge as the nominee, that the Party and the candidate will appeal to more voters, and that they will run a smart campaign. Otherwise we lose – for a long time,

    It seems to me that some are ready to lose for the sake of making a point. But that loss will mean several leftist judges elevated to the Supreme Court, Obamacare entrenched, taxes increased, religious liberty decreased, the miliatry weakened, deficits growing, etc.

  3. The problem with the GOP is that they can’t come up with a viable candidate. Most of them are just too far to the right to be able to win a national election. I just recently became a fan of Dole after reading his book about his war experiences. Right now, my picks are Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz, although this could change later on. Walker went off of my list when he introduced legislation that would allow a doctor to lie to a woman about her health. Now that Bush is in the race, Cuban Americans have switched their support from Rubio to Bush.This doesn’t look good for Rubio. I am not a fan of Rand Paul. I like Ted Cruz. He’s the most brilliant candidate running so far. He appears to be a likeable person in spite of the disputes about his birth and he has mellowed since his filibuster in the senate last year. He is much more moderate now and I like that. One thing is certain as far as I am concerned, I am NOT ready for another Bush or another Clinton in the White House. Under no circumstances will I voting for those two. If it is a choice between those two, I will be one of the people who stay home on election day. I’d like to hear about other peoples’ opinions and who they would like to vote for.

  4. David Frazier says:

    As you know, except for a few pockets here and there, the moderate wing of the Republican Party went the way of the Do-Do Bird in 2000. There are not enough moderates in the GOP to create a traffic jam on the George Washington Bridge even during rush hour with Christy and his associates handling cone placement for lane closures.

    Therefore, just because Jeb Bush does not pander to the “know-nothings”, the “nullifiers”, the “troglodytes”, and/or as Charles Koch might say, the “Christian Collectivist Community” who seek to establish a Christian Commonwealth, the fact remains that the Huckabees, Santorums, Grahams, and Cruzes, et al. are perceived by Americans at large as being outside of the political mainstream. And to the credit of the Republican primary voters, we eventually nominate for President that individual whom we believe is most able to connect with the most voters in the general election. The main reason Romney failed was that he tried to pander to the Religious Right and other factions of the Christian Collectivist Community who insist that the everyone submit to their narrow world views. This only played into the Democrats’ portrayal of intolerant Republicans prosecuting a war against women and members of the LBGT community. Until our national candidates embrace the those issues that are important to the country at large, insread of the bible belt and a few isolated congressional districts, Mr. Priebis’ dire warning will be fulfilled.

    Initially, the one political procedure that continues to skew and therefore confuse the primary process is the Iowa caucus system. We already know that Steve Deace and the Iowa CCC deluge the caucuses with their people. But no one within the GOP seriously believes that these people represent the “base” of the Republican Party. Rather, the CCC and the Iowa “Caucuteers” are merely the lint that clings to the fringe of the fabric that surrounds the Republican Party base.

    Therefore, it would probably benefit Mr. Bush to announce at a very early date that the Iowa caucuses are irrelevant to his primary campaign, and that just like the Iowa Staw Poll, he is going to skip it so that he can focus on communicating “to the GOP base”. By doing so, not only will this will allow him to focus on what really matters early on for him–New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries and avoid the distraction of the “Lint-Fringe” Republicans–the crazies can then compete in their special CCC fundamentalist world. Also, by doing so, Gov. Bush may actually help the GOP toss into the trash can of history a political anachronism that contributes nothing positive to the Republican Party selection process of Presidential candidates. Now, wouldn’t that be special!

    • Edna Earle Crews says:

      Ah, I’m vindicated. I’ve been telling Republican fund raisers this very thing for months. Looks as if the Republicans want to lose, for they have been running the most unlikely and the weakest candidates they could find.

      • williamhsmith1109@gmail.com says:

        I think you may have missed David’s point. There are practically no moderate Republicans left and not ONE of the Republicans is one.

  5. In my opinion Jeb is as equal as John and Mitt when it comes to being unelectable.

  6. Saddest thing is, no matter which of these candidates – or one of the Democrat candidates – gets elected, at the end of the term, the country will be worse off. We’ll have less freedom, fewer civil liberties, bigger government, a higher deficit, yet more innocent people butchered by our government, etc.

    None of these candidates will do anything to stop that trend.

    • David Frazier says:

      John, you are probably at least partially correct. However, the best way to avoid or limit the tribulations to which you refer is to vote for the most conservative Republican who has the best chance of winning in the general election. That means keeping any candidate who is aligned with the divisive positions of the Christian Collectivist Community from becoming a serious contender during the fractious pre-convention process.

      • I disagree. For example: Obama has murdered fewer innocent people than McCain would have. He sure killed fewer innocent people than Bush did.

        Yet he continues to kill innocent people, without shame, and without any institution in the country to restrain him.

        Who should I vote for? The person I think will murder the least people?

        Is that really what America has come to?

        I just refuse to play that sick game anymore.

      • williamhsmith1109@gmail.com says:

        John, I assume you would think Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter,bReagan, GHW, Clinton, W, and Obama have all murdered some numbers of innocent persons.

  7. williamhsmith1109@gmail.com says:

    I think the deficit could decrease and liberty could increase. War will continue as necessary. Country will be in much better shape than if we get Hillary. I still don’t know what a Christian Collectivist is or if I am one. I am for winning in ’16 and any Republican who can win will do.

    • David Frazier says:

      Mr. Huckabee is a stereotypical Christian Collectivist. Just like his alter egos/evil predecessors, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, he is compelled to seek to require everyone else to conform to his narrow world view of life because only he knows what is correct, and that anyone who disagrees with him (like scientists) is an apostate, who should not be trusted. As Charles Koch might say, these Collectivists believe that government should be used as the agent to promote and enforce their theistic notions. If you agree, you might be a Christian Collectivist.

      As far as previous presidents having committed “murder”–of course some have done so. “Murder” is defined as the killing of another person with malice. And “malice” is defined as acting with bad or evil intentions. “Collateral damage” and “acceptable number of deaths” decisions have been factors that every commander-in-chief has faced since the invention of the spear. The only issue that has seriously concerned the presidents you mentioned was whether the commitment of American troops, forces, and material into harm’s way advanced the vital national interests of the United States. After all, war is just an extension or a tool of foreign policy. Therefore, presidents should not be held accountable for the deaths that go with the business of war. A commander-in-chief should be held responsible when he deliberately misleads the nation in order to push a run-up to war. That is a malicious act which leads to deaths. That is the definition of “murder”.

  8. Bill Smith says:

    1) I don’t think it is possible to have a “clean” war unless you can get two armies of uniformed soldiers to line up opposite one another on a field of battle isolated from civilian populations. In other words, today at least there can be no such thing, 2) Since at least the Spanish-American War every war has been preceded by and accompanied by government progaganda meant to manipulate public opinion in support of the war prior to and/or during it. If, David, you refer to GW, I am not sure I agree that he trumped up the war in Iraq. Be that as it may, I think the FDR and LBJ lies about not going to or not escalating their wars were bigger lies than anything W might have told.3) War is, as you say, foreign policy by other means. The big failure as I see it has been not winning wars – with the exception of GHWB’s war. We should be slow to go to war, but when we go to war, we have to win. The world is a somewhat better place when the US is able to work its will, and when it does not win, the ability to project power in order to pursue its foreign policies is significantly diminished.

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: