Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Ridge: "We Have To Be Less Judgmental"

Fresh off his decision not to run for the Senate in 2010, former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge told Philadelphia-based radio talk show host Michael Smerconish this afternoon that the GOP needs to be "less judgmental" in order to reclaim their majority status in the country.

"My view has always been whether you're from the right or the left, liberal or conservative that we don't demonize each other because of what they believe," said Ridge this afternoon. "And for us as a party to grow back into a majority party, we need to understand that."

Ridge, who is pro-choice, went on to oppose the idea of any "litmus test" for membership into the Republican party.

Said Ridge:

"There have been two Republican presidents who have fundamentally altered my life. One was when I got a draft notice from Richard Nixon and I went to Vietnam. The other was a phone call from George Bush and I went to Homeland Security. On neither occasion did they run any litmus test by me."

Ridge's interview with Smerconish, one of several he had planned today -- including a sitdown with Chris Matthews on "Hardball" -- highlights the ongoing battle within the Republican party between establishment and movement conservatives.

The establishment wing of the party is insistent that the only way for it to survive is to put far less focus on traditional social issues and instead spend time talking about limited government and lower taxes -- the kind of messaging that can appeal to independents.

Movement conservatives believe the recent electoral losses are indicative of a party that has lost its dedication to core principles and that the solution for Republicans is to re-assert those fundamental beliefs -- including on things like gay marriage and abortion -- and let the chips fall where they may.

This debate, which is already playing itself out in the formation of the National Council for a New America, will define where the GOP goes in 2010 and, in all likelihood, which wing of the party its presidential nominee emerges from in 2012.

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 7, 2009; 5:00 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2012 , Republican Party  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Ridge Out, Democratic Prospects Brighten
Next: White House Cheat Sheet: Obama's Latino Courtship

Comments

"I would vote for Romney or Palin."

==

Thanks, we were all tiptoeing on eggshells waiting to learn who JakeD would vote for. Whew, I can go to sleep now.

(/sarcasm)

Nice to know you'd stick a knife between your country's ribs and vote for the woman who would be certain to finish us off.

The GOP has painted itself into a corner; anyone moderate enough to interest anyone outside the 21-percenters will cost votes among that group; the GOP absolutely cannot win without the base, and anyone not a caveman will cause much of the base to stay home on election day.

Really, they can't win/ They need the base plus about 30%, and without full participation of the knucklewalkers they can't possibly achieve a majority, not for a long time. The brand is just too tarnished. McCain was the best shot they had and he not only lost, he lost more decisively the either Bush election, almost as badly as Dole.

If Romney is the best chance they have, forget it, game over. He's an empty suit, exposure hurts him, and frankly the whole Big Mormon Family thing is a little too cloyingly wholesome to put up with for nine months of heavy campaigning. And America is not going the turn out in enthusiastic numbers for a Mormon, they are too creepy, and we will learn a lot more about how creepy they are during the campaign. Utah is a state of bovine drowsiness, using twice the psychiatric meds of any other state per capita to endure the tedium of those Fammully Home Evenings, and out in the sticks they do some er ah unacceptable things with their kids.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 9, 2009 5:32 PM | Report abuse

SY Wanda:

If everyone who believed in abortions killed their own kids, what else would YOU call it?

Posted by: JakeD | May 9, 2009 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Someone mentioned Darwin in this supposed discussion regarding what the GOP must do to get back in the game.....
I think thats hilarious to be so deluded by the PARTY OF NO's position on everything these days, they don't get what the rest of us do; no room for the rest of us at the inn? No problem, we'll go somewhere else!
I guess as long as the rest of us continue to not choose the ultra conservatives, that truly is a form of Social Darwinism and the Republicans will have to either buy a clue or fade into obscurity.

Posted by: SYWanda | May 9, 2009 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Anyone else?

Posted by: JakeD | May 8, 2009 4:14 PM | Report abuse

As long as the GOP keeps abortion, tax cuts, and gay marriage as the issues of the day they will continue to contract, ending up as the splinter party for rural southern whites. They don't even have the midwest anymore.

The old dead social issues have run their course and nobody wants a return to women dying of septicemia from back-alley abortions. OK, maybe not "nobody," sounds like JakeD would be ecstatic at the idea of women dying, as long as blastocysts are protected.

Remember Rick Santorum? Guy who wrote a book about having a fammully? He lost by 17 points. He was prolife. George Allen, prolife, annointed prince of the GOP, lost his seat. Not a single GOP Senator outside the moderate camp won re-election. And that was before we had a massively popular Democratic president to rally around.

Prolife is a losing position; as long as the GOP wants to hang on to the Base, they will lose the majority. So please, keep them socially conservative and in the margins!

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 8, 2009 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else?

Posted by: JakeD | May 8, 2009 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Jake, you have been trying for days to connect abortion with slavery. It's not going to work, though I don't blame you for trying to throw up distactions; you need to. You have been unable to form a rational reason for prohibiting abortion, you've been jumping from one shoddy line if reasoning to another. From trying to call it murder, to calling a 128-cell blastocyst an "innocent human life," now comparing a blastocyst in the medical waste jar to an adult in chains.

The past 40 years tell us unequivocally that abortion opposition is a loser at the ballot box and even the GOP has stopped bringing it up.

As for you gibbering question: I changed my mind. I'm not through with you, moron, you are too much fun to deconstruct. I'll keep poking at you with a sharp stick of logic and watch you squirm and lie.

And oh, I'm in a committed gay relationship and we have sex. And I know several "prolife" Republicans who got their daughters abortions without a moment of hesitation. "But it would have ruined her life"

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 8, 2009 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | May 8, 2009 3:50 PM | Report abuse

In order to elucidate those who did not see your "final" post to me:

I named my torn-off hangnail "Fred"

I demand that Fred be protected!!!

I'm through with you, moron.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 7, 2009 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | May 8, 2009 3:49 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:

Just as soon as you answer my question that has been pending to you since yesterday. Did you lie?

Posted by: JakeD | May 8, 2009 3:46 PM | Report abuse

For anyone else who wants to discuss the likely timelines under the best and worst-case scenarios, keep in mind that the abolitionist movement took quite some time and effort too.

Although anti-slavery sentiments were widespread by the late 18th century, they had little immediate effect on the centers of slavery at the time. The importation of African slaves was finally banned in the British colonies in 1807, and in the United States in 1808, but slavery continued, of course. In the British West Indies, slavery itself was abolished in 1833 and in the French possessions 15 years later. It obviously took a Civil War to end slavery here. That may be where we are headed again.

Those like "drindl" and "chrisfox8" making fun of the GOP for attacking abortion rights -- pointing out that Roe v. Wade has made abortion legal for a "long time" or that the Republican party will cease to exist if they ever do away with it completely -- are missing the point. Such an acheivement would be PERFECT historical bookends for the Republican party. Then we, as a country could move on to other issues.

Posted by: JakeD | May 8, 2009 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Just answer the question, JakeD. How long will it take for abortion attrition to return the GOP to power?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 8, 2009 3:41 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:

So, you lied when you said you were "through with [me], moron"?

Posted by: JakeD | May 8, 2009 3:39 PM | Report abuse

It would have to be less judgmental.. as the GOP could hardly use lesser judgement than last year.

Posted by: newbeeboy | May 8, 2009 3:18 PM | Report abuse

OK Jake do the math, how long will this attrition take? Assuming that only children of Democrats vote Democratic (idiotically absurd), and considering human life expectancy of 3-5 generations, how long will this attrition take?

I think I'll stick around and poke you with a stick of rational logic for a while to watch you squirm. It's mind-boggling that someone could actually be as stupid as you appear with this argument.

Abortion has been legal a long time and if anything the Dems are gaining.

The GOP just loves one-issue voters like you but the Dems love you guys even more; as long as the GOP is stuck with having to keep cavemen like you in the fold there is no way they will attract anyone else, and they need a lot more than trailer trash like you to win elections.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 8, 2009 3:12 PM | Report abuse

In fact, as a temporary compromise on this issue, may I be the first to suggest we limit abortions to -- and provide taxpayer funding for -- said "parents" who are registered Democrats only.

Posted by: JakeD | May 8, 2009 3:00 PM | Report abuse

archaeoman:

As "parents" who are Democrats continue to kill off their own children, those numbers will shrink -- think of it as a Darwinian process of elimination -- Republican parents OTOH will teach their ever-increasing proportion of children the importance of defending innocent life.

Posted by: JakeD | May 8, 2009 2:59 PM | Report abuse

JakeD writes:

It is a numerical certainty, if Democrats have enough abortions, that there will be some day [a majority against abortion].

I just love the math behind this Republican "argument"... Abortion has been legal for almost 35 years. Yet 66% (two in three!) of the 18-29 year old voters voted for Obama last year - a year when turnout among the young was at record highs.

Could you please explain again, JakeD, how these figures show that abortion is decreasing the number of democrat pro choice voters? Or is that simply another case of faith-based science where facts don't matter?

Posted by: archaeoman | May 8, 2009 2:51 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:

I thought you said you were "through with [me], moron"?

Posted by: JakeD | May 8, 2009 2:12 PM | Report abuse

At this moment the RNC is holding emergency strategy sessions and conference calling JakeD in anguish at the prospect of not getting his vote. Such a loyal water carrier, he is vital to their national goals!

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 8, 2009 1:36 PM | Report abuse

I couldn't care less if Ridge runs for senate or not. Is he a fairly decnt guy? I
assume so!So far, everytime this nation goes far left it gets real bad! And it is headed that way now..and Obuma can't blame Bush forever or maybe since he is such an idiot he will!? He got elected..now shut up and do the job! And from what I see he is doing a job on the U.S. crapping on it!
He is a gutless jerk who can't wait to
kiss the rears of the terrorists leaning
folks!Forget the issues of gays, abortion for the time being, he is a jerk and he is the coward that his slummy G.A. called us!
He pushed for millions of your tax dollars
to go overseas to abortion clinics,just pushed for 20 millions of dollars to go for the HAMAS ! Do you turkeys know about the HAMAS? Conservative?Liberal? What about
taking care of America first? Regardless of
what the issue is..okay!This clown has spent more of your money in less than 4 months than all the Presidents put together
we shall see how great you think he is in
24 months!And he is sending it to his overseas Islam killers.This is the only guy on american soil that could make Hillary look good!
elvis

Posted by: geneman39 | May 8, 2009 12:49 PM | Report abuse

http://www.cnn.com Quick Vote

Is Dick Cheney right that it would be a mistake for the GOP to "moderate"?

Yes 33% 38421
(I, for one, will not vote for a pro-choice Republican)

No 67% 77542
(How many of those are Democrats afraid of losing power?)

Total Votes: 115963

Posted by: JakeD | May 8, 2009 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Well, I like Tom Ridge and believe that he is a very honorable man. I wish he had run, but I predicted earlier this week on this very blog that Ridge wouldn't run. Why? Not because he can't win a Republican primary. Not because he can't win a GE against Specter or Sestek. So why didn't Ridge run? Ridge didn't run, I believe, b/c private sector life is so good for him. As a former gov. & respected Homeland Security Director, he is writing a book and will make big bucks on tours and highten his national profile even more. Doing this, with his executive experience as Pa. governor, military experience & Homeland Security Advisor it raises his profile as a possible Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidate in 2012. I think if, say, Mark Sanford wins the 2012 nomination: Tom Ridge would be a fabulous pick for VP. If I were Ridge, I'd be enjoying private life & raising my profile for a Presidential or VP spot. Forget risking my political future & living the confines of private life to be a minority senator.

Posted by: reason5 | May 8, 2009 10:52 AM | Report abuse

bsimon1:

There may, indeed, not be enough pro-life voters in the near term. It is a numerical certainty, if Democrats have enough abortions, that there will be some day. The abolitionist movement took too long as well.

Posted by: JakeD | May 8, 2009 10:17 AM | Report abuse

JakeD missed the point:
"Some Independents/Democrats will vote for a pro-life Republican."


Sure, 'some' might. But in a state like Pennsylvania, they won't be voting in the primary - which is limited to voters registered by party. Large numbers of PA GOP voters switched to Dem registration in 2008 to participate in the HRC v BHO primary. Given the current enthusiasm for the GOP in PA (i.e. Low), it appears that the only people still registered as Repubs - and therefore eligible to vote in the primary - are the limited few who still think Bush was a good President, and think Obama has done nothing right. In other words, movement conservatives. They will vote for a candidate like Toomey who has close to zero appeal among the moderate voters who will decide the general election.

So, if the movement conservatives have heavy influence in the primaries - because moderate Repubs have been chased out of the party - the establishment conservatives won't get many candidates onto the general election ballot. That gives the dems a fairly wide ideological swath from which to pull their candidates - in certain states and/or districts they'll be able to win with extremely liberal types, in others they'll run more moderate or even conservative dems to retain the seat - and keep the movement cons out of power.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 8, 2009 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Ridge is referring to less judgment on moral issues. We cannot have less judgment on legal issues. Peggy Noonan suggest that we 'just keep on walking' rather than investigate the Bush administration for war crimes. Some things - like law - cannot be ignored. .............


http://thefiresidepost.com/2009/05/08/just-keep-on-walking/

Posted by: glclark4750 | May 8, 2009 9:41 AM | Report abuse

The 64,000 question is after the Republicans get trounced in 2010 because they did not run the so called RINOs will the right wing of the party finally give up or will they go the way of the Wiggs?

Posted by: bradcpa | May 8, 2009 8:33 AM | Report abuse

Here's JakeDeeeeee!

Posted by: JakeD | May 8, 2009 8:31 AM | Report abuse

I admire Ridge. He's using the fact that he is not in office to call-out an element of the GOP that is going to ruin his party.
It is the height of stupidity to make a proven election winner and a man with national standing feel unwelcome in his own party.
I don't think it was polls that made Ridge decide to stay out of it, I think it was his party's intolerable narrowness.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | May 8, 2009 6:19 AM | Report abuse

I will take "technically true" any day of the week and twice on Sunday. I might not be able to post tomorrow, but I will be back after that. Take care.

==

Thanks for the update. We're all following you so very closely. You contribute so much to this forum. Almost as much as you contribute to the municipal sewer system, but lower in quality.

Sheesh. What a narcissistic prig.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 8, 2009 2:02 AM | Report abuse

Well, I hope that sip of "technically true" helps you wash down your big bowl of "purely stupid," jaked.

Don't hurry back. The only one who'll miss your presence here is you.

Posted by: nodebris | May 8, 2009 1:44 AM | Report abuse

I will take "technically true" any day of the week and twice on Sunday. I might not be able to post tomorrow, but I will be back after that. Take care.

Posted by: JakeD | May 8, 2009 1:24 AM | Report abuse

Hey jaked, your point might be technically true, yet nonetheless stupid.

Hey, did you know that their are some Nadarites who voted for Ron Paul?

I hear there are even some non-aligned California voters who registered for the American Independent Party. Must be a trend. We'll have to keep our eye on that one.

Next canard? Anyone else?

Posted by: nodebris | May 8, 2009 1:15 AM | Report abuse

All I said is that "some" will vote for a pro-life Republican. If anyone else was to discuss the opposite case, let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | May 8, 2009 1:08 AM | Report abuse

LOL! Anyone can look up the election stats as to how many Independents/Democrats voted for McCain if you won't believe me.

==

Probably a pittance next to the Republicans who voted for Obama.

Doesn't look good for the GOP in 2010, does it.

Or 2012.

Come on, Jake ol' troll, tell that story again how there's a-gunna be a big *backlash*

(*guffaw*)

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 8, 2009 12:44 AM | Report abuse

JakeD isn't a Republican? Now that's a good one. He just happens to carry all their water like a doubleplusgood duckspeaker. He thinks abortion is murder, gays can change, the whole nine yards. With independent like that who needs Palin partisans?

Trig Palin '48

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 8, 2009 12:41 AM | Report abuse

LOL! Anyone can look up the election stats as to how many Independents/Democrats voted for McCain if you won't believe me.

Posted by: JakeD | May 8, 2009 12:38 AM | Report abuse

jaked wrote: "Some Independents/Democrats will vote for a pro-life Republican."

That's about the weakest statement I've heard in a while. Why, some Independents/Democrats will vote for a pro-sugar subsidy Republican. Some will vote for a pro-Armenia Republican. Some will vote for a pro-Nazi Republican. It's a big country.

But even more Independents/Democrats will be very skeptical of a "pro-life," pro-torture, pro-war, pro-death penalty Republican. Which is about the only sort of Republican allowed to be in the GOP anymore.

We don't even have to get into all the "anti-" issues that define the Party Of No even more than their mutually contradictory "pro" issues.

And what do you care, you who have *rejected* the Republican Party to become a (cough) registered [member of the American] Independent [Party, founded by George Wallace, Alan Keyes for President, collection of serious right-wing whack-jobs]? Apparently you aren't too fond of Republicans, either. But I guess you figure that if you can just convince folks to be a wee bit crazy, it's only a matter of time before they are joining you in the ranks of the seriously crazy.

Posted by: nodebris | May 7, 2009 11:57 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,
Don't get me wrong, as a Democrat I love it that batsh*t crazy Republicans like you are on here everyday.

There's no better advertisement for the Democratic party than having head-in-the-sand Republicans like you on here reminding everyone exactly why they hate the Republican party.

Posted by: DrainYou | May 7, 2009 11:56 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1:

Some Independents/Democrats will vote for a pro-life Republican.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 11:12 PM | Report abuse

At this point it looks like the movement conservatives will 'win' because they are the best at bringing voters to the polls. Until the Dems stumble - and stumble badly - the establishment conservatives won't attract enough moderates/independents to gain control in the party. As long as the movement types are willing to 'let the chips fall where they may,' the party will continue shrinking, nationally.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 7, 2009 10:54 PM | Report abuse

It's not 100%. I was golfing yesterday.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 10:26 PM | Report abuse

NCNA is Ultimate Lipstick on the Ultimate Pig. The party's dividing between those who show themselves to be extreme right wingers and those who are, but don't want to look like it. Both want to practice "limited government" on the backs of anyone who disagrees, primarily to assure that the costs of government are borne more and more by those who are less able to afford those costs.

Meh.

Posted by: FlownOver | May 7, 2009 10:03 PM | Report abuse

jaked, the last man on earth who cares what Cheney has to say about anything.

Posted by: nodebris | May 7, 2009 10:00 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,
Registered Independents don't spend 100% of their time shilling for the Republican party on WaPo web sites like you do.

Posted by: DrainYou | May 7, 2009 9:49 PM | Report abuse

DrainYou:

As I think I've told you, I am registered Independent. I'm not giving any directions to the GOP.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 9:26 PM | Report abuse

Yes, the Republican party should continue to take directions from angry old white guys like Jake D.


That's the ticket!.....not

Posted by: DrainYou | May 7, 2009 9:12 PM | Report abuse

(back on topic, I am more interested in what actual Republicans says about what direction their party should go in)

Former Vice President Dick Cheney is weighing into the heated internal debate over the future of the Republican Party, declaring it would be a mistake for the GOP to "moderate."

"This is about fundamental beliefs and values and ideas … what the role of government should be in our society, and our commitment to the Constitution and constitutional principles," Cheney said in an interview with North Dakota radio host Scott Hennen Thursday, according to a transcript.

"You know, when you add all those things up, the idea that we ought to moderate basically means we ought to fundamentally change our philosophy," Cheney also said. "I for one am not prepared to do that, and I think most of us aren’t. Most Republicans have a pretty good idea of values, and aren’t eager to have someone come along and say, 'Well, the only way you can win is if you start to act more like a Democrat.'"

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 9:04 PM | Report abuse

For those of you who think we have to be MORE judgmental: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/cheat-sheet/050709white-house-cheat-sheet.html

==

Your need for attention clearly has a psychiatric dimension. How many comment sections have you posted this in?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 7, 2009 8:57 PM | Report abuse

Ridge says exactly why he could not do this big favor for the national GOP: they were unwilling to do him the favor of accepting him, with his own opinions, as a worthy and proven member of his party.

He's supposed to give the next 18 months over to campaigning and fundraising? And then spend 6 years working with a bitter, dissatisfied, self-enforced minority party?
He did good work with the McCain campaign. Does he get any respect for that? No.
He's one of the few in GOP national office who served in Viet Nam. Respected for it? No.
He has a lot of important experience in high office and a cabinet post. Is this respected? No.
The smallest and narrowest of his party are in charge. They will choke the life out of the GOP and Ridge knows he is better off out of it.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | May 7, 2009 8:30 PM | Report abuse

Neither side of the GOP knows how to attract voters back. "Limited government" lost its appeal a whole generation ago, it resonated when Reagan was governing with applause lines but that was a time of national superficiality; "Dallas" and "Dynasty" were on TV, disco was in the clubs, and "get stupid!" was the call of a generation.

We want comprehensive government now, and we want competence.

And "lower taxes" only appeals to essentially selfuish people, while most of us understand that government needs revenue to do the Big Government operations we want, and we are willing to pay.

To get voters the GOP would need to become more like the Democrats ...

... and they would need to tell Limbaugh, Palin, and the "base" to take a hike.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 7, 2009 8:09 PM | Report abuse

You can't teach an old Dinosaur new tricks when they think they already have all of the answers.


According to defacto Republican leader Druggy Rush, they just need to TEACH the listening public...tax cuts for the rich, marriage amendment, culture of life amendment, star wars missile defense, more tax cutse for the rich, capital gains tax holiday, end of death tax, kill ugly regulations, tax cuts for the investment class who create all of the jobs.


There's the Republican message, now educate!

Posted by: DrainYou | May 7, 2009 8:05 PM | Report abuse

"Movement conservatives believe the recent electoral losses are indicative of a party that has lost its dedication to core principles and that the solution for Republicans is to re-assert those fundamental beliefs -- including on things like gay marriage and abortion -- and let the chips fall where they may."

==

We on the left should do our own Operation Chaos and write vast numbers of emails to GOP leaders demanding that the stick to their guns on the social conservative issues, so that anyone not a knucklewalking 21-percenter is permanently alienated.

Not that there is ANY sign of drift back to the GOP .. even the "independents" are trending overwhelmingly Democratic.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 7, 2009 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Lest anyone think Ridge sounds like a moderate guy, recall that when he was head of the Vaterland Sicherheitsamt under Bush the Lesser he was more than willing to issue phoney color alerts anytime Bush's approval ratings were taking a hit.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 7, 2009 8:00 PM | Report abuse

For those of you who think we have to be MORE judgmental: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/cheat-sheet/050709white-house-cheat-sheet.html

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 7:57 PM | Report abuse

Never happen. To give up on the scolding and hating would be to lose the "base."

The GOP base is simply immiscible with the voters at large; the base cannot be pleased by any position that will attract more voters, and any widening of GOP appeal will cost them the nutbars.

The GOP has painted itself into a corner, and there is no way out in sight.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 7, 2009 7:52 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure where it will fit on the line, but this is shaping up to be the most interesting race of the 2010 election. (By the way, Chris, love the new photo.)

FB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | May 7, 2009 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Thx Chris for the update. Ridge comes across as a sensible and principled Republican who is pained by what has happened to his party. IMO. the GOP really needs to retain this type of Republicans if it wants to become a player in the immediate future. After 8 yrs of Bush and Rove, I just can't imagine the 51% strategy working in the next few elections.

Posted by: twshen5 | May 7, 2009 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Chris for writing about a Republican who sees the world through realistic eyes, not "pure" ideolgy.

Posted by: katem1 | May 7, 2009 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Let's think about this a moment.. if Bush could get elected twice.. then what's the worry about..
.. a lot this faux concern is drummed up because of the new POTUS..
Mark Penn may have pinned it down the best.. he said something to the effect that.. '..if only he (Obama) wasn't a phenom..' Obama is not a typical Democrat.. he's a phenom..

Posted by: newbeeboy | May 7, 2009 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Ridge says R's should 'oppose the idea of any "litmus test" for membership into the Republican party'.

How about Abortion? Torture? Government regulation of the Securities Industry, taxes for infrastructure?

Republicans have talked themselves into a corner and now, get shouted down by their leader Rush, every time one tries to moderate the extreme right wing position.

The pro-torture, secessionist party is toast.

Posted by: thebobbob | May 7, 2009 5:12 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company