Republicans: GOP needs to get with the times

Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, left, Indiana Gov.-Elect Mike Pence, center, and Republican Governors Association Chairman and Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell participate in a panel discussion during the 2012 RGA Annual Conference at Encore hotel-casino Thursday, Nov. 15, 2012, in Las Vegas. Top Republicans meeting for the first time since Election Day say the party failed to unseat President Barack Obama because nominee Mitt Romney did not respond to criticism strongly enough or outline a specific agenda with a broad appeal. Photo by The Associated Press.

KASIE HUNT and STEVE PEOPLES, Associated Press

Saturday, December 1, 2012

WASHINGTON (AP) — To hear some Republicans tell it, the Grand Old Party needs to get with the times.

Some of the early prescriptions offered by officials and operatives to rebuild after devastating elections: retool the party message to appeal to Latinos, women and working-class people; upgrade antiquated get-out-the-vote systems with the latest technology. Teach candidates how to handle the new media landscape.

From longtime GOP luminaries to the party's rising stars, almost everyone asked about the Republicans' Nov. 6 election drubbing seems to agree that a wholesale update is necessary for a party that appears to be running years behind Democrats in adapting to rapidly changing campaigns and an evolving electorate.

Interviews with more than a dozen Republicans at all levels of the party indicated that postelection soul-searching must quickly turn into a period of action.

"We've got to have a very brutally honest review from stem to stern of what we did and what we didn't do, and what worked and what failed," said former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, who ran the party in the 1990s.

The party "has to modernize in a whole wide range of ways," added former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who ran against White House nominee Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential primary. "We were clearly wrong on a whole range of fronts."

To determine what went wrong, the Republican National Committee is examining every detail of the 2012 elections, with the goal of rebuilding the party for the future — much as the Democratic Party did in the 1980s after suffering a series of stinging losses at all levels of government.

Now, as was the case back then, the stakes are enormous for the party that failed to win the White House and has lost the popular vote for several national elections in a row. They're perhaps even higher for Republicans grappling for ways to court a rapidly changing electorate whose voting groups don't naturally gravitate toward the GOP. The dangers of failing to act could be severe: permanent minority status.

So it's little surprise that after the election, some Republicans were quick to sound stark warnings.

The scale of the losses largely shocked a party whose top-shelf operatives went into Election Day believing Republicans had at least a decent chance of capturing the White House and gaining ground in Congress, where Republicans controlled the House and had a sizable minority in the Senate.

Instead, Romney lost all but one of the nine contested states, North Carolina, to President Barack Obama and was trounced in the electoral vote. Republicans also lost ground to Democrats in both houses of Congress, though Republicans retained their House majority.

How to move forward dominated the discussions at last week's Republican Governors Association meeting in Las Vegas, where some of the party's leading voices castigated Romney's assessment — made in what was supposed to be a private telephone call to donors — that Obama won re-election because of the "gifts" the president had provided to blacks, Hispanics and young voters. These governors faulted Romney.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal attributed Romney's loss to a lack of "a specific vision that connected with the American people."

Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, who describes himself as a "pro-choice moderate Republican," echoed Republicans across the spectrum when he said last week: "We need to be a larger-tent party." Brown lost his seat to Democrat Elizabeth Warren.

Across the board, Republicans say that arguably the most urgent task facing the party is changing its attitude about immigration as it looks to woo Hispanics. This rapidly growing group voted overwhelmingly for Obama, by margins of 7-to-1 over Romney, who had shifted to the right on the issue during the GOP primary.

It didn't take long after the election for even staunch conservatives to start changing their tune on immigration. Days after the election, even conservative TV host Sean Hannity said he would support an immigration bill.

Said Barbour: "If we would be for good economic policy in terms of immigration, that would go a long way toward solving the political problem."

It's not just Hispanics.

Republicans said they also have work to do with single women and younger voters, many of whom tend to be more liberal on social issues than the current Republican Party. These Republicans said a change in tone is needed, though not a change in principles such as opposition to abortion.

"We need to make sure that we're not perceived as intolerant," said Ron Kaufman, a veteran Republican strategist who advised Romney's campaign. "The bottom line is we were perceived to be intolerant on some issues. And tone-deaf on others."

Republicans also said the party has to work on its relationship with working-class voters.

"Republicans have to start understanding that small business and entrepreneurs are important, but the people who work for them are also important," said Rep. Charles Bass, R-N.H., who lost his seat to Democrat Ann Kuster. "We've got to be compassionate conservatives."

Party leaders also said the GOP needs to change how it communicates its message. Obama's campaign, they said, was particularly effective at talking directly to voters, and building relationships over long periods of time, whereas the GOP was more focused on top-down communication such as TV ads and direct mail.

"There are whole sections of the American public that we didn't even engage with," Gingrich said.

Others pointed to the pressing need to recruit candidates who know how to stick to a carefully honed message, especially in a Twitter-driven era. Among their case studies: Senate candidates Richard Mourdock in Indiana and Todd Akin in Missouri, who both discussed rape and pregnancy during the campaign, to the chagrin of party leaders looking to narrow the Democrats' advantage among women.

"We need candidates who are capable of articulating their policy positions without alienating massive voting blocs," said Kevin McLaughlin, a Republican operative who worked on several Senate races for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Many Republicans say the party doesn't have a choice but to change — and quickly.

Said Kaufmann: "In this business, either you learn and grow or you die."

More like this story

Graceful 5 months, 2 weeks ago

The electorate is devolving not evolving. They are becoming less informed, selfish and emotional to the point it interferes with any ability to reason they may have left. In short Republicans shouldn't waste their time on a nation that isn't worth a warm bucket of spit.

RobHunterJohnson 5 months, 2 weeks ago

That first sentence is the definition of: FITS THE REPUBLICANS THE BEST, GRACE INCLUDING YOURSELF. ROB

jcguy25 5 months, 2 weeks ago

If the USA is so awful and immoral why are you still here? The facts are, your way of thinking is outdated, everyone can see it, even major Republican party leaders see it and they know they have to change if they ever want to be re-elected into the WH. You can stay stuck with your 50's mentality on morals and complain all you want about how wrong everyone else is and how right you are, but the USA will never return to that mindset.

John 5 months, 2 weeks ago

That's right, by golly. Don't you know it is stupid to use "outdated" logic? We are supposed to change for the sake of change. It does not matter if the "outdated" thinking is correct or true, only that it is old.

Morals must change. . . . . wait a minute . . . . what if the morals are correct. Nope you have to change according to many on here. I think that is what they call compromise. That is where people who believe in right and wrong must modify their thinking and allow things to take place that they believe are wrong. And all for the sake of those who want to . . . .kill babies in the womb, smoke marijuana, immigrate illegally, take without giving, take away constitutional rights, or read things into the constitution that are not therel, et al.

asb 5 months, 2 weeks ago

I think smoking pot is the only thing you've lists that anybody wants to do John. The rest of the list is foolish nonsense that either doesn't happen at all or vaguely resemples something else. As long as you're including pot on the list, why not booze, it's worse, in every way.

Paroquet 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Graceful, I recall you recently chastising Eileen10 for judging when she was offering an opinion. I believe that is what you are doing in this post. You have some idea about what you deem "moral" and want everyone to be forced, legislatively, to have the same "morals" as yourself.

You can track the schism in the (R) party back to Newt, Delay, Frist, and Rove. They sowed dissension, and their losses show that they are beginning to reap it. O. won the popular vote of both terms, W. didn't. He also won both elections by a wider margin of the electorate than W. did in either of his.

JCLifer 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large groups of people.

RobHunterJohnson 5 months, 2 weeks ago

The larger the group the more primative it will go! Rob

FussyOno 5 months, 2 weeks ago

I welcome the fiscal cliff. I, as one of the lower income Americans, may suffer from it. But at least the republican bozos will finally be paying their fair share. I'm laughing my flank off that the republicans spent so much on the 2012 elections and got their tails kicked. Ha Ha, karl rove, sheldon addison, and all the others who failed to elect their inconstant candidate. And you, too, failed... gracie.

JCLifer 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Obama hasn't proposed a budget for each of the last several years. How can a legislature create a budget when the chief executive won't even identify his spending priorities?

asb 5 months, 2 weeks ago

He has though, each year and some in between. A specific line-by-line budget maybe not, no point in killing trees when the teaparty tells him no while the draft is still drying.

JCLifer 5 months, 2 weeks ago

I made several suggestions in another thread and other posters climbed all over me. However, I did not see any other posters put up any suggestions or ideas. Guess everyone wants to criticise, but no on wants to try to find any solutions.

Here's a freebie: Instead of bailing out rich Wall Street bankers and spending billions to buy out Government Motors to hand it over to the UAW, how about giving the bailout money to the taxpayers who paid it in? If taxpayers each got a check for $25,000, don't you think they would buy some cars? Build some houses? Buy some home funishings and appliances? Talk about stimulating the economy! But, instead the wise people running this country (both parties) gave the money to their cronies and campaign donors instead of returning it to the people it belongs to. Nothing got stimulated, and here we are, broke. no jobs, not future, no hope. and no action to fix it.

Hang on, the cliff is coming up real fast. Wonder what will happen when hundreds of thousands are pushed to the street and become unemployed, and taxes are raised $3,000-4,000 for each family? Think things will be better?

This country is just about over with.

connor 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Hah!!! I guarantee you the Liberal Democrat Entitlement victim coalition will suffer much more from the fiscal cliff than the Republicans. A little austerity and government pension loss along with welfare cuts will be just the thing to put a smile on the faces of those who voted Republican.

Keep dreaming if you think the Republicans lost this last election as the Conservative dominated states begin to nullify and refuse the Federal power grabs.

asb 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Nulification is not an option, and the red states aren't turning down much federal money. See, it's their money too.

connor 5 months, 2 weeks ago

It's mostly Red State money to begin with and the court fights are still going on. Each step all in good time.

asb 5 months, 2 weeks ago

The court fights over nulification have been over for over a centtury Mr. Clay. How Beckish can you get.

connor 5 months, 2 weeks ago

No the court fights over Obama care. Nullification will begin once those are over in my opinion. The Republicans have enough States to consider several different options at this point yet.

Paroquet 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Connor? The Republicans DID lose the last election, excepting at the State level save for the Governor, SOS, AGO, & Treasurer, and among US Reps. where 5 of 7 are (R). Obama/Biden only lost the popular vote in MO by ~4%.

And don't think for a second that everyone who voted Republican won't feel the pinch of any austerity measures. Trust me, you won't be laughing all the way to the bank, or smiling when sales dip, along with the DJIA and GDP.

connor 5 months, 2 weeks ago

I don't know where you get your figures but OBummer lost the Missouri vote by over 9%. 53.8% Romney to 44.4% Obama Statewide. Individual counties around the Jefferson City area had much larger divisions than that. As for the governor well Spence didn't really get out there much and the State Employees went Nixon in the hope of saving their pensions. As one State employee put it recently "It was all about me".

I am not saying everyone won't feel the pinch but I am certain that those who rely on the government financial security blanket will feel it much harder than those of us out here in the real world. From EBT to the cushy pensions and age 55 retirements.

I can walk unto my acreage and not come off of it for a year. Longer if the post office stays open so I can mail in my property taxes. The only inconvenience I would suffer would be listening to my son gripe about the internet being down and loss of electronic wealth.

Government Austerity doesn't scare me one bit until the needy masses like you try and vote yourselves more of my property anyway.

Paroquet 5 months, 2 weeks ago

SOS website. Probably the same as you. 260k difference between Romney/Ryan v.s. Obama/Biden. 260k from a population of 6 million is (wanna guess?)--4.3%. Exact numbers are 1.223.796 (D), 1.482.440 (R), 2011 census 6.010.888--granted, not all of them are voters, but also not every voter voted.

And I'm not among the "needy masses" as you so drolly assume. I probably don't like the current structure of "welfare" any more than do you and agree it needs some fixing. As for being self-sufficient, I'm an urban agriculturalist when I'm not at work. 4.5k/ft/sq of vegetable garden supplemented with hunting, angling, and what livestock I'm allowed w/in city limits and my family and I really wouldn't be much bothered if the lights went out forever, everywhere, tomorrow. You got a pipe? Because I think you just got it packed & ready to smoke.

connor 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Pipe smoke is too hot for my delicate mouth.

your 4.3% is an assumption not fact. My assumption on that would be the others who didn't vote would go all Romney so it's more like a 35% spread.

RobHunterJohnson 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Ron Kaufman, veteran GOP strategist, "in this business you either learn and grow or you die", THE GRAND OLD PARTY BETTER START SWIMMING, AND BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR! ROB

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting

Or login with:

OpenID

News Tribune