Republican chairman says his party is widely seen as “narrow-minded” and “out of touch”


These are not happy days for the Grand Old Party, as we see HERE:

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus [above] gave a blistering assessment of the GOP’s problems on Monday, based on the results of a months-long review, and he called on the party to reinvent itself and officially endorse immigration reform.

Referring to the November election, Priebus said at a breakfast meeting: “There’s no one reason we lost. Our message was weak; our ground game was insufficient; we weren’t inclusive; we were behind in both data and digital; and our primary and debate process needed improvement.

“So, there’s no one solution,” he said. “There’s a long list of them.”

Among the report’s 219 prescriptions: a $10 million marketing campaign, aimed in particular at women, minorities and gays; a shorter primary season and earlier national convention; and creation of an open data platform and analytics institute to provide research for Republican candidates.

“When Republicans lost in November it was a wake-up call,” Priebus said Monday. “We know that we have problems. We’ve identified them, and we’re implementing the solutions to fix them.”

While the document, the result of a three-month listening tour, is intended to focus on strategy, the group made one major foray into policy. If Republicans want to reach Hispanic voters, the authors say, the party “must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform.”


The $10 million outreach effort to includes hiring national political directors for Hispanic, Asian-Pacific and African American voters and elevating minorities within the party. “We’ve done a real lousy job sometimes of bragging about the success that we’ve had” with minorities, in particular Hispanic candidates, Priebus said. To target African Americans, he plans to launch a pilot project in 2013 mayoral races aimed at identifying and turning out potential supporters in urban areas.

“The way we communicate our principles isn’t resonating widely enough,” he said. “Focus groups described our party as ‘narrow-minded,’ ‘out of touch,’ and ‘stuffy old men.’ The perception that we’re the party of the rich continues to grow.”



  1. #1 : Go back to the principles of the American Conservative Union.
    #2 : Just because the opposite major Party declares one thing in their platform does not mean that this major Party has to declare the opposite in their platform. (There is the option that the government should not be involved at all with such an issue!)
    #3 : Do you really need to move the convention earlier (making the general election process LOOOONGER)?? How about reversing the trend of earlier-and-earlier primaries in the first place? Sure, MAYbe keep a few States with the “first in the nation” status. But then move as many as possible to a single “Super-Tuesday”, for instance. — yes, not a decision to be made by a single National Committee, but there’s some influence to be used here.
    #4 : I laugh when he re-mentions that they’re the Party with the big tent, especially when I recall the ouster of the Ron Paul delegates last year. And I read further and see that they want to change the rules to counter-act the Ron Paul strategy of last year. It’s not that I disagree with them changing their rules (seemed like an unfair set of rules in the first place), it’s that I disagree with their motive.

  2. The RNC has maligned the President since 2008 and opposed everything that would help the country recover but now view their loss as a marketing problem. They need to quit and disband.

  3. Brian Opsahl

    They lost so bad, Paul Ryan not only lost his own State of Wisconsin he even lost in his own district, yes he is still a Congressmen but, the ideas and plans were voted down and now Reince is saying all they got to do is change a few messages…really
    Insanity is described as doing the same thing over and over expecting differant results…
    Just sayin..!!

  4. They “lost so bad”? Even if that is true, that doesn’t mean the basic idea are wrong. It means the American people aren’t ready to accept the inevitable.

    This Harvard guy thinks the Republicans, and Mr. Ryan, are correct.


    No president has believed more in the miracle of the multiplier than Barack Obama. Across four years he has led the country on a kind of Keynesian death march, pushing federal spending to 25% of GDP and producing weak growth. We’re looking at four more years before the Keynesian mast unless the Republicans can offer an intellectually respectable alternative.

    Mr. Alesina has identified the alternative. His, and others’, work the past decade with how struggling economies revive suggests that the Obama spend-more solution is the opposite of what the U.S. should be doing.

    There is general agreement on at least two things about the current U.S. economy. It is emerging from the deepest recession since the Great Depression, and its debt level is unsustainable. The path back to stronger growth, argues Mr. Alesina, is a combination of significant, permanent cuts in public spending and relatively small tax increases, if any.

    This view isn’t born of “right-wing” ideology. Mr. Alesina is an Italian, as are many of his co-authors. As Europeans, Mr. Alesina and his colleagues were forced to confront the biggest challenge facing Western economies the past 40 years. Europe rose from the ashes of war, but how would it rise from the ashes of debt, as benevolent postwar spending programs outstripped revenue?

    Mr. Alesina and his colleagues wanted to answer the most basic question: What works?

    They sought the answer (which they published in an August 2012 paper on “fiscal consolidations” for the National Bureau of Economic Research) by analyzing an International Monetary Fund history of all the fiscal plans that 17 OECD governments enacted between 1978 and 2009, including the U.S., Canada and Japan. Together, these countries tried everything to grow—raise spending, cut spending, raise taxes or cut them, in endless combinations. What helped?

    “Adjustments based upon spending cuts,” the economists concluded, “are much less costly in terms of output losses than tax-based ones. Spending-based adjustments”—that is, cuts—”have been associated with mild and short-lived recessions, in many cases with no recession at all. Tax-based adjustments”—tax increases—”have been associated with prolonged and deep recessions.”

    The debate over “failed austerity” is misleading because it emphasizes spending cuts but rarely mentions tax increases. “Austerity” plans, the Alesina studies suggest, fail to revive growth when they too heavily rely on raising taxes on income and capital—as across Europe and now in the U.S.

    There is no magic ride back to prosperity. The Alesina team is describing the least-bad antidote for the long-term poison of destructive national debt. Fiscal plans based on large, permanent spending cuts are associated with renewed growth more than any alternative policy mix that has been tried. Indeed, spending cuts without big tax increases look to be the only thing that really works. The leading example the past 15 years is . . . Canada. And just an observation: The Dow proceeded to its high after the sequester happened. The cuts were the first credible step in rebuilding private-sector confidence.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *