The GOP's "Primary" Problem

This underscores Romney’s and frankly the rest of GOP’s problem. They have to cater to the extreme far Right whackos during the primaries in order to get the nomination but end up being so damaged by trying to appeal to such extremists that they can’t possibly win in the general. That is what you get for have such an out of touch base in your political party. The only thing that they seem to have in common is trying to paint Obama as an extremist but can’t come up with any examples of extremism.

WASHINGTON — A coordinated attack by Democrats on Mitt Romney's plan to "get rid of" Planned Parenthood to help balance the federal budget is part of a larger campaign to ensure that Romney and other Republicans lose credibility with female voters.

The Romney campaign contends that the remark has been taken out of context. Yet even the debate over what Romney meant or didn't mean underscores the political peril he faces as the GOP nomination fight rages on.

Facing continued conservative skepticism, Romney has been pushed further to the right to appeal to his party's right flank. In doing so, he risks alienating key constituencies — women and independents, among them — while drawing unwanted attention to his inconsistent positions on social issues.

The Planned Parenthood controversy stems from a recent interview with a Missouri television station in which Romney addressed his plans to cut the federal deficit.

"Is the program so critical that it is worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?" Romney asked. "And on that basis, of course you get rid of ObamaCare, that's the easy one. But there are others: Planned Parenthood, we're going to get rid of that. The subsidy for Amtrak, I would eliminate that. The National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, both excellent programs, but we can't afford to borrow money to pay for these things."

Asked to clarify the Planned Parenthood reference hours after the report aired, top Romney campaign adviser Eric Fehrnstrom said Romney did not mean to suggest his administration would eliminate the women's health care provider altogether. Indeed, in remarks before and after the Missouri interview, Romney indicated he would focus on eliminating the organization's federal funding, as Republicans in Washington and in state legislatures across the country have fought to do in recent months.

"It would not be getting rid of the organization," Fehrnstrom said. "They have other sources of funding besides government appropriations, but in order to achieve balance, we have to make some tough decisions about spending."

Romney has personally avoided the issue since Fehrnstrom's comments Monday night, but his campaign released a statement suggesting it was morally irresponsible "to borrow money from China to fund our nation's leading abortion provider."

"The real question should be why President Obama thinks that is the right course for our nation," Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said.

Democrats, meanwhile, have intensified their push to exploit Romney's remark. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi described it as an "an assault on the judgment of women." Democratic congresswomen and party officials from across the nation issued similar statements and hosted conference calls with reporters, and the Democratic National Committee released a new video seizing on the comment.

Democrats hope to keep the controversy going as long as they can. They seemed to score political points in recent weeks as the Republican presidential contest was consumed by President Barack Obama's decision to compel insurance companies to cover contraception, even for employees of religious institutions who oppose the practice. Republicans, Romney among them, criticized the president's decision, framing the issue as one of religious freedom, while Democrats charged it was about fundamental access to birth control.

The focus from the economy to social issues concerned some Republicans in Washington and on the campaign trail alike. In recent days, it appeared that the party was beginning to move on.

The Planned Parenthood debate offers new challenges for Romney, who has struggled to convince his party's most passionate voters that he's an authentic conservative.

As a gubernatorial candidate in 2002, Romney signed a Planned Parenthood questionnaire that documents broad support for the organization he now says he would like to strip of federal funding.

He said, for example, that he supported using state tax dollars to fund abortion services through Medicaid for low-income women, according to a copy of the signed questionnaire. He also pledged support for increased access to emergency contraception such as the "morning after pill," which he now condemns as an "abortive pill."

Romney concedes that he shifted from being pro-choice to anti-abortion after becoming governor. But he insists he has been consistent on all other social issues.

Saul offered this comment when asked about the Planned Parenthood questionnaire: "Mitt Romney is firmly pro-life and he explained his reasons for becoming pro-life many years ago."

It's unclear if that answer will satisfy his critics — Republicans or Democrats.

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20120315/US.Romney.Planned.Parenthood/

 

I always thought the GOP's primary problem was that they were Republican.

 

Primarily, yes!

 

Excuse me but as a democracy isn't it in the best interests of a democracy for a primary system to exist. Isn't a true democracy suppose to have candidates for a party's nomination to run for president have to go through some sort of election process. Why do leftwing liberals see a voting process as a weakness. Do they not realize that the Republican primary is what should be going on in a democracy? That it is suppose to be a political race and a test of one as well.

 

I don't think that the OP is asserting that the primary process per se is the problem. I think what it's pointing out is that the problem for Republicans is the slate of flip floppers, religious nutbags, and washed-up RW ideologues plus Ron Paul who are participating in it and the type of audience they have to pander to.

 

I haven't noticed either of us questioning whether the primary system should or should not exist.

 

Bingo Tak! That wasn't so hard yet Andy seems to come to a very strange conclusion anyway.

 

My answer was as much as in response to the media coverage of the voting process as the OP but as I also said it is a test as well as a race for we see where a person really stands by the amount of times they flip flop or not. So that means what is going on is a good thing for the people who look without sunglasses.

There is no true pro-american lets lead the way for democracy in the primarys for if there was then he or she would win by landslides as long as some sort of plan of action to back the words was provided. Ronald Regan did it and the only thing he flip flop after he won to the best of my memory was big government which he explained he did want to limit its intrusion into states rights and peoples lives but we also could not get rid of it for it provides to many jobs that could not be replaced.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think the current Republican primary is a wonderful thing. And I expect Republican primaries to get even better in the future.

 

Considering how exciting it all is with the Republican faction itself split and both sides battling each other for dominance, not to mention the personalities involved, not to mention the stakes, our resident RWers seem remarkably uninterested in what's going on. It's like they'd really rather talk about something else. Anything else. Are they maybe just waiting for a the choice to be made for them so they'll know who they're supposed to support?

 

I have found it interesting for quite awhile that none of them have come out and supported anyone of the 4 guys left. What could they be waiting for? With only 4 white guys left, it can't be that hard to pick one of them to get behind. I don't think that there is anything left to find out about any of those Republiclowns at this point.
As I have said before, none of our resident RW'ers have the courage of their convictions to get behind one of these losers. They would rather hide behind not making a choice so that they can criticizing the guy on the Left without having to defend one of the losers on the Right. Some courageous position that is eh? It's just like not having an opinion until one is forced on you by the group....I think they call that groupthink. Or maybe Republisheep.

 

As I have stated many times here (in answer to your numerous posts on the same identical topic), I have supported one of the candidates. Because you choose to try to make a big deal from our choices does not give you permission to continually lie - but apparently you think it does.

BTW, 1) you can go look it up, 2) I will avidly support anyone who runs against BO, 3) We have 4 candidates and you have 1. Yet we have "groupthink"? (Does that really sound as odd as I believe?).

 

I think that they simply don't want to talk about it. Any of it. Even who it is that they support and why. Reasonable questions on a political forum in an election year. You'd think anyway. But looking at it from the other side, if I were them I would probably rather talk about something else too.