To My GOP Friends: We Gotta Stop Tearing Each Other Down

It always seems like we get in a blood feud every election cycle where there’s an open seat. Passions run high and people argue about why their candidate is God’s gift to the community/state/nation/world and how he or she will single-handedly balance the budget, reduce taxes, made the government small enough to fit into an overhead bin, synthesize the cure for cancer, and negotiate world peace by the time to go home the day after inauguration day. We make lofty goals and promises. Some we can keep, but some we can’t. I believe they’re well-intentioned, but we have to remind ourselves that getting things done both Atlanta and Washington seems to take about as long as pouring molasses in Maine on a cold winter’s day.

On the flip side, if you don’t support the now-deified candidate, you’re simply stupid, can’t read or write (i.e: “we’re surprised you can bathe, clean, and feed yourself if you support the other guy, you neanderthal”), and various other sophomoric insults and allegations. I’ve done it, and I’m sure the vast majority here have done it as well. We’re guilty of it. Can you see why “normal” folks don’t like politics? I am trying to change my attitude though. We all come from different backgrounds and have different aspects on life. It’s easy for Republicans and Democrats throw personal attacks at each other, but even that’s becoming tiresome.

What really concerns me is that Republicans are going after Republicans and calling each other names and tearing each other apart because folks like Santorum over Newt, Newt over Romney, or Paul over everyone else. It goes back to the whole “if you don’t support my guy, you’re not a real conservative, you hate freedom, you hate America, and you probably kick kittens into traffic for fun.” We don’t gain anything by going down that road, and we might actually lose some people because of how we act toward each other. How can people take us seriously if half of the party is perceived to hate the eventual nominee and then the party *loves* the candidate going past the nomination?

Let’s have an open, honest debate towards the nomination. Our nomination process could use a lot of tweaking. The same three or four states shouldn’t essentially dictate who our nominee is, but that’s a different post for a different day. We come back together united as a party at the end of August to defeat President Barack Obama at the ballot box in November, but keeping our wits about us and not getting too nasty during the primary will certainly help us mend the fences better after we officially nominate the Republican presidential and vice-presidential candidates.


  1. Doug Deal says:

    Perhaps if we stop using meaningless terms like “conservative” it would go a long way to improving discourse.

    People call Santorum a conservative. He has voted multiple times to grow the size of government with various Bush backed social programs, he backed Specter over Toomey for Senate in PA and the only thing that makes him conservative is that he has more extreme abortion views than anyone else. Does this make any sense?

    People call Newt a conservative and he attacks ventural capitalism and the free market with the language of socialist activists. He also has hailed a number of big government social and economic programs loved by left and at one point bought into destroying our economy to fight global warming. Yet, because he decided to flaunt how much he is against abortion in SC, he is somehow a True Conservative ™.

    I am not exceedingly happy with Romney, but at least he seems to actually be “conservative” in the area that counts the most, economic freedom.

    Maybe if we started labeling pols on their view of increasing or decreasing the size and role of government, we would stop throwing around meaningless terms and comparisons and actually elect people that reflect the views of the voters.

    • rense says:

      All right, all right, you support pro-abortion candidates and want to weed out the anti-abortion ones. We get it, move on …

      • Doug Deal says:

        I want to weed out supporters of big government who use an issue in which they likely do not even believe, but resort to mentioning in order to cover their enormous flaws.

        People claiming to be “social conservatives” who can then support the libertine former swinger speaker are not being honest with themselves or others.

        • rense says:

          Newt Gingrich was never a conservative of any sort. He began his political career as a northern-style progressive Republican who was trying to beat a (blue dog) Democrat for that Cobb County seat by running to his left. It wasn’t until that blue dog Democrat retired and the Democrats nominated a liberal activist in his place that Newt switched and started running as a conservative (and baiting those suburbanites good over the “Atlanta issue” in the process!) and got elected. Fortunately for Newt’s career, Reagan came along 2 years later, and it was expedient for the national party to have a young, intelligent, well-educated, articulate (and uninhibited) Republican on GOP turf that was willing to play conservative in return for power.

          By the way: Johnny Isakson? Same story. Except that where Newt actually had to BEAT Democrats to get where he was, Isakson’s strategy was to get all chummy with them by spending the 80s and 90s distancing himself from the Reagan conservatives, and getting nice payback (i.e. Zell Miller making him state superintendent) in return. I still remember when Isakson was Cynthia Tucker’s favorite Republican.

          But hey, between the liberal GOPers pretending to be conservatives, and the Democrats pretending to be GOPers, the Georgia GOP has just as many issues as the Georgia Dems do. The only difference is that the GOP is in power. For now anyway …

      • Rick Day says:

        All right, all right, you support pro- back alley abortion candidates and want to weed out the anti-back alley abortion ones

        Fixed for ya, no extra charge 🙂

  2. NoTeabagging says:

    It would also help if Political Consultants would stop bilking campaigns for negative attack ads, libelous direct mailings, and invasive robocalls. Their Mantra is “It works”.

    Even the media spends half their news time replaying and analyzing the most offensive/defensive campaign ploy of the day and which team scored the most points. Rarely do they call out a lie. I wish they would stop replaying these ridiculous tabloid sound bites and report only credible, verifiable statements. Report only what the candidates state as their position and avoid promoting the ‘Reality TV’ bickering between candidates.

    It does nothing to forge credible candidates or present useful information to the voters. It simply lines the consultants pockets as ‘billable expenses’. It is their bread and butter. Voters need to stand up to this BS and contact the candidates, let them know you don’t believe their ad, or their lies against another candidates. Maybe it would stop. Good luck!

    I agree with Doug. There is simply too much ‘labeling’ these days to the point where the labels have no meaning, except negative. Once the labeling starts, the discussion usually ends.

    • CobbGOPer says:

      Their mantra repeated to the client is “It works.”

      Their internal mantra is “I get 5% of this radio buy, I get 5% of that TV buy, and I get 5% of that direct mail buy…”

  3. CobbGOPer says:

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if you think political discourse is bad today, you should have been around in 1800. Things are TAME today compared to yesteryear.

        • elfiii says:

          You can’t. He’s dead. (lol)

          I agree though. Politics today is a Sunday School picnic compared to the good ‘ole days. People like to ignore how vicious they were back then.

          The problem with this current crop of candidates is there isn’t a real conservative in the lot. Some are just less liberal than others on some things.

          Ron Paul has many fo the right ideas on the domestic side but the things he is wrong on make Pluto look closer than the moon.

          The fact of the matter is there is no perfect candidate but there are several “less bad” choices than Obama, but that isn’t saying much.

          • CobbGOPer says:

            I just irritates me that people act like this kind of political rhetoric just developed since the 90s. It’s more like the 1790s.

            • NoTeabagging says:

              Yes, and the idea that there was ‘religious freedom’ back in those days is also absurd. There was more intolerance then than now.

    • NoTeabagging says:

      As RuPaul stated recently in New Hampshire: ‘This country was founded by a bunch of men wearing wigs’.

    • Engineer says:

      Is it strange that I sometimes long for the days of when senators like South Carolina Senator Preston Brooks would beat somebody like Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner with a cane on the senate floor over personal attacks? Heck the reason he had a cane was because in 1840, he had a duel on an island in the Savannah River near Augusta and was shot in the hip by a man who would later become a Texas Senator, Louis Wigfall.

      Maybe it is just political romanticism?

      • elfiii says:

        No, its’ not strange at all. I would enjoy seeing a good fisticuffs on the Senate floor, especially if one of them draws some blood. Then we would know somebody is actually serious about getting something done.

    • John Konop says:

      I was at lunch with a friend of mine big in the GOP a few weeks ago. and he said even with Paul being off the deep end about 20 percent of the time he is still better than the rest of the guys. This was an old line guy not part of the Paul crowd.

Comments are closed.