Media wrong about 2016 GOP prospects

The media has no clue what republicans need to do to win in 2016. Take a recent article by Phil Rucker at the Washington Post, "Large GOP field has party leaders anxious about their chances in ’16," as an example. Consider the first paragraph:

To take back the White House after eight years in the political wilderness, Republicans think they must soften their image and expand their appeal in particular to women and Latino voters. As Jeb Bush, a leading presidential contender, puts it, “We’re going to win if we show our hearts.”

That might be what the party leaders think, but that's exactly the opposite of what we need to do. This paragraph is wrong on two accounts.

1. We don't need to soften our image.  This is essentially saying we need to give up on our core principles to win.  They basically want us to give up on our fight preserve traditional marriage, and against the welfare state, amnesty and abortion. If we caved on principles liberalism would win. 
2. We don't need to cater to women and Latinos.  I say this because what the republicans need to do is cater to all Americans, not groups of Americans. Liberalism tries to separate people into groups, as though America is a salad bowl.  They want to pit one group of Americans against another, such as the rich verses poor. Conservatives believe we are all together as a melting pot, and we should create an environment whereby everyone benefits, not just one or another group.  

Later, Rucker explains that the "large and diverse" republican field, along with the fact that Jeb Bush has failed to jump out ahead of the fray, may impact the amount of money that can be raised to win a general election.  He said:

This could cost presidential aspirants tens of millions of dollars; pull them far to the right ideologically, from hot-button social issues to foreign policy; and jeopardize their general-election chances. And in such a muddled lineup — officials are planning to squeeze 10 or more contenders onto the debate stage — candidates will be rewarded for finding creative ways to gain notice.

Sure, this sounds great if you want to turn the republican party into the democrat party.  This is fine if you want both parties to be the same.  This is fine if you want the republican party to return to being the liberal party it was when Teddy Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover were presidents.

But that's not the republican party the rest of us want.  We want the party to be the opposite of what the democrat party has become.  We want the republican party to be the party of the people.  We want the republican party to stand up for the principles that made this nation exceptional once, and what can make this nation exceptional again.

We do not want two parties running whereby the choice, as it was when Obama ran against McCain, is whether you want to spend $200 million on global warming or $200 billion on global warming.  We want one of the choices to represent something other than the liberal values the media and the current White Houses wants.

We do not want republicans to continue to negotiate with democrats in order to soften their image. Most republican voters are adamantly opposed to the rapid influx of immigration in the country, and believe amnesty would simply turn these immigrants into democrats.  Yet the republican leadership is trying to help Obama in order to soften its image and cater to Latinos.  This, in my view, is political suicide.

If Jeb Bush wants to give up on principles to win in 2016, he's going to be met with a lot of opposition within his own party.  So, in this way, the media is once again wrong.  This is another reason why the media cannot be trusted.