Is anyone below the age of 50 posting in this thread?
Train in Vain- The Clash
Seven Nation Army - White Stripes
Really surprised that no one has mentioned Sweet Emotion by Aerosmith. I don't really like the rest of the song, but the intro is great.
During the interview did you ever have to fight the urge to throttle the leftist silliness out of His Excellency, Peter?
I did not hear or see any sort of similar request at our parish, also in No Cal. Have never seen or heard of any effort to sign any similar petition for the other life issues you mentioned. I hope you said something to your pastor about this.
Let's see- who was the last radical conservative to run for president for the GOP? Reagan. And he won. Twice. Though he was too conservative for the establishment GOP. How have we done running moderates?
The country was considerably more conservative culturally and temperamentally in 1980 than it is today. Yet Reagan still had a much more centrist message than the Tea Partiers champion now. If Reagan ran today, he would be called a squish. His views on immigration alone would be a problem. Not to mention his willingness to cut deals on domestic spending and entitlement programs. People have such a selective memory about who Reagan was as a politician.
There was nothing he could have said at that point. He was already fighting an uphill battle because of the damage the republican brand had suffered from the Iraq war. Once economic and financial chaos exploded on a GOP watch there was nothing that was going to convince voters that freer markets and less intervention would solve things. Especially not when you had a shameless opponent and hostile press demagoguing the already confusing issue. He had no card to play at that point. He was doomed. His defeat was not a messaging problem. It was circumstantial. period. It's a miracle that election was as close as it was.
It was statism that helped inflate the bubble; it was more statism that was prescribed as the remedy. How conservative (i.e., classically liberal) can you be if you don't trust/understand markets enough to explain them to the people?
On the campaign trail five weeks out from a presidential election while peoples retirement savings are imploding in front of their eyes is no time to start trying to educate the average voter about economics. If your campaign strategy is to teach people why Smith, Hayek and Friedman had all the answers you're doing it wrong. The answer to allay a panic to a crisis that no average voter had any real understanding of wasn't to give economics lessons. This is just silly.
Paul Ryan's terrific -- but not as tip of the spear.
Yeah, I'm pretty tired of the military language and analogies. We aren't fighting wars, we're engaging in politics. Politics is about getting people to like and trust you. Too many on the right are focused on the politicians on the other side that they don't like, viewing their policies as miltary assaults. That's not how we should be looking at politics. We need to focus on the voters and convince them that what we want to do makes sense and will make things better for them. Instead we get name calling, foolish, quixotic gambits, and apocalyptic rhetoric which just freaks people out.
Like I said, he's done some stupid things, but that doesn't mean he isn't conservative. I find him to be annoying and not temperamentally suited to the profession he's chosen, but I don't really consider him moderate in his ideas.
The one main area, other than campaign finance reform, which to me was dumb but not especially harmful, where he's gone off the reservation is immigration. But I don't think that immigration policy should be a litmus test for your conservatism, because the current policy is severely broken and we need a policy that is more than border enforcement. Wanting sensible immigration policy isn't unconservative.
Christie is not really a moderate either. He is an absolute tiger on reigning in spending and taking on entitlements. Those are supposedly the things the Tea Party is most concerned with. Well, Christie would be better at taking those problems on than anyone, but he's not good enough for them anymore. He's also willing to take on the education status quo, and he proudly supports strong defense and is solid on social issues. He is very conservative. That he is not as uncompromising as Jim Demint doesn't really make him moderate. He is a fierce champion of conservative values and policies. It is truly bizarre that he is not seen as such.
You've said yourself that moderate candidates McCain and Romney lost because they couldn't get their own message out and counter the liberal attack machine so why do you insist that continuing to run moderate candidates is some path to success?
McCain wasn't a messaging problem as much as a Bush hangover problem and a bad luck problem with the melt down happening on a Republican's watch.
Romney's was mostly a messaging problem, but it was a self-inflicted messaging problem. He could have overcome media bias and offered a positive reasonable sounding message that appealed to the middle better. He just didn't because he put a narcissistic moron in charge of his campaign.
And I disagree with the definition of moderate many in the grassroots use. People like Paul Ryan, Tom Coburn, or even Chris Christie aren't moderates. Disagreeing with the way the Tea Party messages or tries to win elections doesn't make one a moderate. And for that matter, while McCain is often a loud mouth, who occasionally supports foolish bipartisan efforts like McCain/Feingold, his voting record is very good. He's no Lincoln Chafee or Mike Castle.
Like I said, no one here will listen. They all believe running as many Ted Cruz's and Jim Demints, everywhere, that they can is the solution.
Only serial defeats will wear them out or teach them the truth.
How about we walk AND chew gum, rather than deliberately choosing to do one OR the other.
So McCain and Romney losing is a mark against the Tea Party minded conservatives?
The McCain loss was a rebuke of the GOP for the failed execution of the Iraq war by the Bush administration and a misplaced belief that republicans were responsible for the financial melt down.
Romney's loss was the result of a timid response to the barrage of smears Obama unleashed, an overemphasis on entrepreneurs rather than normal working people, and being thoroughly outclassed in the targeting of ad messages and getting out the vote.
Which is to say that neither of those defeats were caused by the Tea Party, but they also weren't the result of insufficient fealty to the principles of Jim Demint. The idea that going harder right will produce better results shows that the grassroots don't understand the problem they are facing, from the standpoint of political messaging and forming a winning coalition.
Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:
Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place. Join today!
Already a Member? Sign In