GOP must be more inclusive

  • Follow Letters

Americans are thought to be leaning right of center politically speaking, yet Republicans have failed to garner more than 50 percent of the national vote. Are there too many hard-headed single-issue voters – many of whom did not even cast their vote because Republican candidates did not suit their particular priority?

History and logic tell us that to win Congress and the presidency, we have to accept a wider range of attitudes than the strictest rules of conservatism. Many social and religious issues have little to do with job creation and restoring the economy. With the media’s help, too much campaign time was spent on these issues to divert from economic failures of the past three years.

Many right-leaning voters want to establish another party closer to their philosophy to escape the image of “Republicans for the rich.” In a multiparty parliamentary system, the strongest party may never get more than 40 percent of the vote, and have to have a coalition partner to form a government – meaning more compromise.

The Republican Party will have to be more inclusive to Hispanics and others through education – showing that a reasonable capitalist system will lead them to more prosperity and not a socialist dictatorship.

S.G. von Schweinitz

Appling

Comments (68) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Retired Army
17512
Points
Retired Army 11/23/12 - 11:28 am
4
7
Pal11/23/12 - 09:31 am

Pal writes: "(Techfan, Retired Army, EEL, HWIII, and other GOP-haters: Please don't respond to the questions in this post."

And, folks wonder why Liberals think of some Conservatives as less than open minded.

OK, I won't, since my freedom of expression doesn't seem to matter to you. However if you want to live in a bubble, wouldn't it be a lot easier to dial up Fox, Rush or for that matter have a phone conversation with only those who would agree with you?

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 11/23/12 - 11:32 am
6
4
Very nice of you to
Unpublished

Very nice of you to disgregard Pal's wishes, even though he said please, in a very nice way. It actually took you 3 posts before starting the personal attacks again. Keep trying.....you'll get better.

Retired Army
17512
Points
Retired Army 11/23/12 - 02:29 pm
5
6
RMSHEFF11/23/12 - 09:31 am

RMSHEFF writes: "Liberals win by a "divide and conquer" strategy. First, they divide every minority into groups such as blacks, latino, rich, poor, gay, straight, women, men and then pit one group against the other."

You keep right on thinking that way and you'll keep right on losing. The truth is Liberals didn't "Divide" those groups, they united them and beat Ronmey like a drum.

InChristLove
22473
Points
InChristLove 11/23/12 - 11:35 am
8
3
LOL, knew RA couldn't stand

LOL, knew RA couldn't stand it and just had to make a comment. RA, the poster doesn't care to hear your freedom of expression, not because Pal isn't open minded....it's because this isn't about you. Pal isn't looking for those who only agree with him/her.....Pal is looking for an explanation from someone who made a comment. It's not about you. Sorry

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 11/23/12 - 11:40 am
8
3
ICL...I suppose some people's
Unpublished

ICL...I suppose some people's self esteem is only bolstered by insulting others.

Retired Army
17512
Points
Retired Army 11/23/12 - 11:41 am
3
6
Humble Angela11/23/12 - 10:32 am

And good morning to you too! Personal enough for you?

Ummmm, by the way, had you bothered to read my post, you may have divined(I think you're intelligent enough to do so) that I did not attempt to answer ANY of the questions Pal proposed per his please.

I did state my objection to his attempt to limit the discussion on these boards or is Freedom of Speech on your hit list today?

Pal
3170
Points
Pal 11/23/12 - 11:42 am
8
3
@ Retired Army

Your shrill and unreasonable response actually proves my point. Thank you, sir!

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 11/23/12 - 11:46 am
8
3
RA...if you had bothered to
Unpublished

RA...if you had bothered to read Pal's post you would have devined (I think you're intelligent enough to do so) that it was requested that you not even RESPOND to the post.

"(Techfan, Retired Army, EEL, HWIII, and other GOP-haters: Please don't respond to the questions in this post."

BTW...nice passive aggressive stab at me with your "I think you're intelligent enough to do so." People can see right through you.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 11/23/12 - 11:48 am
10
3
How is asking someone to
Unpublished

How is asking someone to please refrain from doing something an attempt to limit your freedom of speech? Next someone will say that asking someone to pay for their own birth control is "denying them access" to it. ........ Oh wait...that's already been done.

Retired Army
17512
Points
Retired Army 11/23/12 - 11:50 am
3
6
ICL, Could you just for a

ICL, Could you just for a moment picture a public forum that says, those of a dissenting opinion please don't comment?

Why, I can see the next Presidential Debates now. "This is my stand my fellow Americans, and I don't need to hear my opponents opinions"

Does this work for any of us?

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 11/23/12 - 11:54 am
8
3
Most people understood
Unpublished

Most people understood EXACTLY what Pal was requesting, and why.

InChristLove
22473
Points
InChristLove 11/23/12 - 12:03 pm
8
3
Why no it wouldn't RA, but

Why no it wouldn't RA, but this isn't what was happening. It was ONE poster asking another poster to explain a comment made and I guess they just didn't want to hear all the other mumble-jumble that usually goes on here. All Pal wanted was an explanation.....not differences of others opinions. Just seems you couldn't help but give yours.

Pal
3170
Points
Pal 11/23/12 - 12:06 pm
9
3
@ Retired Army

Oh, for heaven's sake! Your 10:50 response is EXACTLY why I asked that you not respond. How in the world can you take my simple request, which you didn't have to follow, as you well know, and blow it up into a presidential debate response and the loss of your freedom of speech?

All I want is some simple answers from Independent, without having to wade through your hyberbolic posts. Is that too much to ask? After all, we KNOW why you voted for Pres. Obama. You've told us many times.

Retired Army
17512
Points
Retired Army 11/23/12 - 12:11 pm
2
6
Humble Angela11/23/12 - 10:48 am

HA writes: "How is asking someone to please refrain from doing something an attempt to limit your freedom of speech?"

In the sanctity of ones home a very reasonable approach. On a public discussion forum, not so.

How would you feel if I were to say, Angela, I don't want you to participate here because your opinions don't matter to me?

Now, I realize this may be foriegn to those of you who have not sworn to uphold ALL of the Constitution and then backed it up with service other than lip service, but I take it pretty damned seriously.

As much as I disagree with most of the editorial content of the Chronicle, even they get that.

There's the social compact that American Patriots enjoy and must have if we are to endure as a free Republic. If I want my Freedom to speak, then I must protect yours, not seek to limit or ban it.

And just to mention the absurd, what in golly gee gobbldygook did the question of birth control have to do with any of this discussion? More rabble rousing? Geez! But I respect your freedom to say stuff like that!

Pal
3170
Points
Pal 11/23/12 - 12:13 pm
6
3
@ ICL and Humble

Thanks for your response!

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 11/23/12 - 12:15 pm
6
3
If you asked me not to
Unpublished

If you asked me not to respond to a question you asked of someone else, I would respect that. You on the other hand did NOT give the same respect. You, instead have twisted the whole topic into something it was not..... a simple request that you not get involved in a discussion that doesn't involve you.....as I stated....most people hear understand that.

And get off of your "swore to uphold the constitution" soapbox. Having served in the millitary is noble, but does NOT excuse crass behavior. I took the same oath, but unlike YOU (as you stated several days ago) I know that the Commander in chief doesn't take the same oath.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 11/23/12 - 12:22 pm
6
3
I suppose RA feels it's ok
Unpublished

I suppose RA feels it's ok for Joe Wilson to yell "you lie" during a state of the union address.....wouldn't want to infringe on his first amendment rights.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 11/23/12 - 12:28 pm
7
3
I would take it as a
Unpublished

I would take it as a compliment, if your abusive nature in the past lead me to believe that you actually meant it as a compliment. Just like when you called me an Anne Coulter wannabe......That was a compiment, but I seriously doubt you meant it as such.

And just what was the reason for the Abe Lincoln quote? Just a random thought....or yet another attempt to insult.......I suspect the latter. Looks like you are trying to call me an Idiot without Sean calling you on it.

Quite the classy fellow.

David Parker
7923
Points
David Parker 11/23/12 - 12:32 pm
5
3
Yep, bipartisanship all up in this thread.

I thought of another perception of the GOP distancing themselves from those who are different. After not winning, I saw alot of Rep posting "Let it burn" and "Secede". I'm just an irrelevant Lib, but my keen observation tells me the GOP has no desire for incorporation and tolerance. It's God on their side and they ask "Who can be against us?" Good luck with that!

And my favorite new quote (not from Lincoln): If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough.

Retired Army
17512
Points
Retired Army 11/23/12 - 12:32 pm
3
5
Humble Angela11/23/12 - 11:22 am

HA writes: "I suppose RA feels it's ok for Joe Wilson to yell "you lie" during a state of the union address.....wouldn't want to infringe on his first amendment rights."

Big difference between interrupting the Presidents State of The Union address and joining in a debate on an "open" forum. You're smart enough to know that.

You want private opinions? Do so privatley. The Chronicle has provided you the facility to do so.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 11/23/12 - 12:33 pm
6
2
David...did you not see the
Unpublished

David...did you not see the numerous people who said they would leave the country if Bush got re-elected? Did you not see the threats of riots of Obama didn't get re-elected? How does that show incorporation and tolerance?

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 11/23/12 - 12:34 pm
5
2
" If I want my Freedom to
Unpublished

" If I want my Freedom to speak, then I must protect yours, not seek to limit or ban it."

Unless you are Joe Wilson.

Jake
32518
Points
Jake 11/23/12 - 12:46 pm
4
0
Hey, Pal

Sorry to intrude but you can use your "Ignore User" button for the people you don't want to read.

I don't mind at all reading other people's posts even though the opinions expressed may be somewhat predictable and not necessarily mine.

Pal
3170
Points
Pal 11/23/12 - 12:49 pm
6
2
RA wrote:

"You want private opinions? Do so privatley. The Chronicle has provided you the facility to do so."

Other posters wanted to know as well. Please see the first batch of comments. Nevertheless, I see I've offended you with my request, and Mom, Apple Pie, and the American Way are now under attack, according to you.

I appreciate your service. My husb. served, too, so I understand the sacrifices involved. However, I still do not think that my simple request represents an attempt to silence you or deny you your rights, and I don't think you believe that either. It was just an opportunity to jump on a conservative and gloat some more about the election, all at the same time (a two-fer!). You couldn't resist. I get it.

I truly thank you for helping me prove the point I made in my first post. I anticipated a shrill, irrational response, and that's what I got.

Off now to work, and then decorate the tree and shop. Delightful! You cats have fun!

Pal
3170
Points
Pal 11/23/12 - 01:09 pm
6
2
@ Jake

You didn't intrude. I just wanted a simple answer from Ind. without having to wade through opinions from posters who would try to answer for him/her. That's all. Didn't realize that I was single-handedly bringing down the Constitution. Thanks for your reply!

Now, I gotta git....

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 11/23/12 - 12:55 pm
7
4
Pal...I'm ALWAYS curious for
Unpublished

Pal...I'm ALWAYS curious for people to give reasons they voted for Obama. It just seems to me that it would be hard to vote for someone while completely ignoring the horrible record that he has. So far the only reasons I have been given were either based on emotion, or the believe in lies that they were told about conservatives.

RMSHEFF
16001
Points
RMSHEFF 11/23/12 - 12:59 pm
8
3
RA just proved my point ....

RA said " The truth is Liberals didn't "Divide" those groups, the united them and beat Ronmey like a drum". The liberals told all of the minority groups that Romney was a rich white man who did not care about them who wanted to keep them down, take their money, birth control and kick them out of the country, out law abortion. Romney was evil and the democrats would give them free stuff like healthcare, food stamps, cell phones and if they want one, a government job. Clearly, Romney stood for, as I said in my first post, freedom and opportunity. They were successful in fooling enough people into believing Romney was an evil rich white man. Oh, and by the way, 49 % were able to detect the liberal lie.

InChristLove
22473
Points
InChristLove 11/23/12 - 01:02 pm
5
2
"After not winning, I saw

"After not winning, I saw alot of Rep posting "Let it burn" and "Secede". I'm just an irrelevant Lib, but my keen observation tells me the GOP has no desire for incorporation and tolerance. It's God on their side and they ask "Who can be against us?" Good luck with that! "

It is rather troubling, Mr. Parker, that you would assume that all GOP's were Christians by your negative religious comment. Although I would assume that a good majority of GOP's just as a good majority of Dems are good individuals, it is sad you choose to use a "Christian" viewpoint to make your point.

Since you are evidently not aware, the scriptual meaning of "stand against" means nothing can go against to destroy. Since the Church is Christ followers and it says in Matthew 16:18 "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." then yes it is true....what can stand against us! In the end His children will prevail. You don't have to understand or agree with it. Heck you don't even have to like it. That is your right.

David Parker
7923
Points
David Parker 11/23/12 - 01:06 pm
2
3
@HA

did you not see the numerous people who said they would leave the country if Bush got re-elected? Did you not see the threats of riots of Obama didn't get re-elected? How does that show incorporation and tolerance?

No I didn't, but I still believe the Dems are just as hopeless as the GOP.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 11/23/12 - 01:06 pm
3
1
Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs