The M Word
Pat Sajak ·
May 24, 2011 at 4:48am
It’s fun to see news outlets using the m-word (moderate) to describe certain possible GOP presidential candidates. John Huntsman has been one of the most frequent recipients of the accolade/epithet (depending on one’s point of view). It’s fun in that it reminds me of when John McCain was dubbed a maverick. The term was used as a compliment because he was willing to face down all those wild-eyed right wingers, including George W. Bush. Once he was nominated, however, McCain was suddenly “Bush II”, and he was just as crazy as those he once challenged. So for those who think a Republican needs to be a moderate in order to be elected, rest assured that once the conventions end, there is no such thing as a moderate GOP candidate.
- Comment (9)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Aug '10
Re: The M Word
Or an honest press. Constant drumbeat of these journolist talking points at many levels must be the ibogaine of the overload.
Pat ? Have you seen any evidence of burden of proof weigh on the mass media anywhere ?
And to what end ? When you realize that you've been reading NR for more than 20 years , you begin to understand the uneasy peace you get.
Sep '10
Re: The M Word
And now that McCain is denouncing interrogation techniques as "torture," he suddenly has absolute moral authority.
Aug '10
Re: The M Word
So who is the tallest Torquemada in a town full of midgets ?
Apr '11
Re: The M Word
If the next nominee is going to be accused of being a right-wing extremist, then we might as well nominate a right-wing extremist. It would be nice to have a candidate confident in what he believed in, rather than bellyaching that he's really not as bad as the New York Times says.
Mar '11
Re: The M Word
Pat makes a great point: purusing the 'moderate' label is a sucker's game, because the liberal mainstream media (this is really an NYT word) will support Republican 'moderates' until they become powerful, at which point they become ideological extremists. This is all part of the Liberal Elite effort to crush all dissent and expunge eccentricity from the culture, as well all march lockstep in a Puritan sensibility of strict conformity and discipline to the Ideal.
Give them their due: moving the goalposts like this is clever, as I'm sure McCain realized when he thought he'd cash in on his moderate credentials, only to be greeted with a You're An Adultery story in the NYT as payback for his efforts. Caveat Emptor.
Mar '11
Re: The M Word
Indeed - you maybe need to work more on Rob.
Jan '11
Re: The M Word
The conventional wisdom is (roughly) ...
But that strategy depends on a key premise. It assumes that once you've courted your base and won the nomination, they're locked in. You own them. You can ignore them without consequence. After the nomination, you can wink-wink to the independents that you didn't really mean what you promised The Base.
We never find out until you're elected which group you lied more to. These days, moderate means someone who lied more to The Base. But a moderate shouldn't take The Base vote for granted. True, a Base Republican will never vote for a Democrat. but maybe The Base just won't turn out.
The game is whether pandering to the independents is worth risking a weak turnout. It hasn't worked lately.
Jun '10
Re: The M Word
KC Mulville: ... After the nomination, you can wink-wink to the independents that you didn't really mean what you promised The Base.
We never find out until you're elected which group you lied more to. These days, moderate means someone who lied more to The Base...
Interesting formulation, KC. If follows that a conservative should lie to the "independent moderates," confident that they will promptly go back to sleep until two weeks before the next election cycle while the base never forgets. (I regret the cynicism we both imply: The only way to get elected is to lie to some significant part of the electoriate. Can conservative truth ever defeat liberal lies?
Aug '10
Re: The M Word
Oh come now, Mr. Sajak. The Left never turned against Arnold Vinick!