ShareThis Page

GOP needs vision, not hubris

| Friday, March 22, 2013, 8:57 p.m.

GOP Chairman Reince Priebus recently said at the Conservative Political Action Conference that Republicans need to change their message and welcome everyone under their “tent.”

But after watching the CPAC, I wonder how they can project inclusiveness with these comments from two of the party's “best and brightest”:

• “The architect(s) can head on back to the great Lone Star State and put their name on some ballot!” — Sarah Palin, on Karl Rove making millions of dollars as a losing Romney consultant.

• “Even CPAC had to cut back on its speakers this year by about 300 pounds.” — Ann Coulter, referring to Republican New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

Using Palin and Coulter as spokespersons for the Republican agenda ahead of someone with the charisma and likability of Chris Christie is like the Democrats using Bill Maher instead of Hillary Clinton at their conference. What is going on here? We need a vision for jobs, not sophomoric rhetoric.

Is this Republican “inclusiveness”? The GOP used to be the party of respect; the party of Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan. Now it's the party of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. It will continue to be a small-tent party as long as this hubris is the perceived future of the Republican Party.

Raymond Anthony

Fawn Township

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.