What is Winning?
MrFancyPants got me to thinking. (Boy, there's a sentence I never thought I'd write.)
In "Not another Mike Murphy post..." he says:
When people like Mr. Murphy talk about winning elections, we actually agree with him- we just don't think winning on any term is a real victory. Because if we just win, but don't move the pendulum back towards sanity, we haven't won anything at all, and the end result is the same- horrors beyond imagining.
These words father many interesting questions:
What is "Real Victory"? How does/should the Right define winning? Is it simply moving the pendulum back towards sanity? Or something more?
Does winning in the short-term differ from winning in the long-term?
Is winning possible?
What is the relationship between election night victory and real victory? What should it be?
#WINNING
- Comment (39)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Mar '11
Re: What is Winning?
Beasley,
I liked your response because I think it gets us to the heart of the matter—not only tactically but also in the way we read the tea leaves (pardon the pun) for the next couple election cycles.
Your objection in citing GWB is an important one because it seems to suggest this: The biggest concern is that if we elect a “big government” conservative, we will take the wind out of the sails of the Tea Party.
That objection is not entirely groundless. I think it is a tactical consideration we must have in mind that a moderate chief Executive could also moderate some of the reform efforts and lead to more incremental and less far reaching reforms—and perhaps fail to address the underlying problems with our economy and welfare state.
But I also think that many of my fellow Americans are awake for the first time in a generation, and I am not convinced that they’ll be going back to sleep anytime soon.
Jan '11
Re: What is Winning?
Don't get me started!
Winning is more than Pyrrhic victories.
I keep on hearing - we have to be more ideologically pure, we have to push the needle to the right. And I get that, and that makes sense.
But sometimes stupid things are done, life example Christine O'Donnell. Sure, Mike Castle wasn't perfect, but so what?
If I'm in a foxhole, and the senior guy says to me - "we're supposed to take the hill, but we'll all be killed if we stick to orders" (or principles), "but I like to be ideologically pure and follow those orders, so let's all go out there and see what happens" - I would be most unhappy.
Be in it to win it
Mar '11
Re: What is Winning?
Jaydee,
I am a Republican of the 2nd sort: one whose primary concern is with accomplishing something.
I think that I addressed your concerns (a) and (c) above: whoever holds the office will accountable to their base.
On to (d): I want to hold the party and the coalition that we have together, but I think we also need to hold open the door to broadening it if we don’t want to be the old shopkeeper in Whittaker Chamber’s parable.
So (b) is where our paths diverge a bit. The question turns on what we are trying to accomplish in this electoral cycle.
The Paul Ryan plan (which I support) largely begins to enact changes in the 2020s, but sets the table for them over the next decade. Which means we can put the country on sound footing by starting now, but that we’re not going to reverse the growth of the welfare state in one fell swoop in 2012.
We are not going to turn the ship of state on a dime in 2012. The best we can hope for is to get the course plotted on the chart and get the rudder over.
Aug '10
Re: What is Winning?
Real victory comes from outside the confines of an election. Only then can elections have the outcome that we wish. The election of Pres. Obama is an example of that. If the people are convinced that they want hope and change they will vote for it. The electorate has to understand that statist ideologies (from the Left or Right) is not the answer. Freedom, and limited government are the keys to a prosperous nation. It doesn't help that the GOP leadership isn't advancing that message as hard as the Democrats are trying to demagogue them.
With that being said, winning elections do matter. Our tack can't change without securing branches of government. If we do elect Republicans or Independents to serve in government we can't walk away saying "Well, our work here is done." Pressure and scrutiny on how our elected representatives vote is required. Otherwise we repeat 2006.
Mar '11
Re: What is Winning?
I'm not sure what winning is, but we sure have a recent example of how to lose. Unless I miss my guess, the potent issue of the Democrat-created pathologies present in the black community has now been effectively taken off the table and rendered toxic for this election cycle as a result of the orgy of hand-wringing over the Bachmann "gaffe." Rather than take the issue and debate it, we've engaged in unilateral disarmament, allowing the left to suppress the issue once again. Our goal appears limited to holding down black voter participation by saying nothing that might irritate some black voters. Perhaps that's a good tactic, but it's lousy strategy.
Dec '10
Re: What is Winning?
What is winning?
A washed up RINO was once heard to say: "To crush your enemies -- See them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women!"
That will do for now.
Oh, sorry. He was speaking on what is best in life.
Same answer: Winning.
Edited on Jul 12, 2011 at 6:06amSep '10
Re: What is Winning?
If anyone but a conservative wins this time, I'm going to the mattresses. The GOP as we know it will be finished as a party. Not hard to predict there will be a real third party if either Obama wins or some statist Republican wins.
Mar '11
Re: What is Winning?
Is it fair to say we all agree that real victory equates to A) Stopping the runaway train with election night victories and B) Throwing that train in reverse after election night?
If you accept that definition, How far back do we need to push the train?
Jun '10
Re: What is Winning?
Too right. And the interesting thing is that the left hadn't even really weighed in yet. This was all done in an anticipatory way. Our side often sees things in leftist terms and responds accordingly -- rather than fight them. We are so very traumatized that we are weaklings with no grit. But, I have to admit, it is like going into a buzz-saw.
Coulter, Horowitz and Breitbart are treated badly by the Republican and conservative elites in anticipatory fashion.
Dec '10
Re: What is Winning?
Ahhh! I agree with all of you!
We need a real conservative president to push hard to the right.
We're at a moment in history where losing the election means losing the character of the country.
As always, it's the culture that really matters and presidents have very little ability to affect the culture.
Any loss or compromise is likely to produce a real third party, which will cost us time we don't really have.
Nothing, including Democrats acting like Democrats, has done more damage to the country than Republicans acting like Democrats.
Our current crop of candidates are either weak, uninspiring, un-electable, Democrat-lite, or fatally flawed.
Eject! Eject! Eject! -- Bill Whittle
Jul '10
Re: What is Winning?
Larry Koler: I understand what you are saying but the left has us on the ropes -- let's face it. They win when they shouldn't. We are in the majority and still we get knocked down time and again.
Every major thing that the left in this country wants -- except the Cold War where they eventually just withdrew from the field -- they get.
Can you name me one thing on your list that passed without the support of a Betrayer RINO Republican?
Abortion on Demand? Harry Blackmun was a Nixon Appointee who was portrayed as three steps to the right of Atilla the Hun.
The point is this thread describes the very problem in all of what you have just said. As long as an Olympia Snowe will come out in the face of 70 percent public opposition and say "When History calls, History calls," just to look good for the media we aren't winning.
Every time a Ruth Ginsberg glides through the Senate because Republicans are too busy preening themselves rather than tending to the job they were sent there to do, we aren't winning.
Betrayers have provided cover for Democrats in all of the above.
Mar '11
Re: What is Winning?
Somewhere within all these different posts about Mike Murphy and this idea of winning elections is something that I've been saying for a LONG time. Well, I'm 40 so . . . not VERY long. The point: We conservatives want ideological fights. We want them because we believe we can win. We believe our ideas are correct. We believe they are correct because we have the facts, principle, and history on our side.
But, when people like Murphy get involved, it robs us conservatives of the fights we desire to have. Suddenly, everything becomes a soccer game--a series of near wins and near losses with a lot of draws mixed in. When really, the games . . . should . . . never . . . be . . . close!!! And all this does is allow liberalism to thrive wherever it takes root and it keeps liberals believing their ideology works. Whereas, if we blew them out--time after time--like I believe we could with a true conservative candidate, we might get many liberals to start re-thinking what they are trying to do to this country. But, as long as we keep playing for the tie +1, we keep them believing their ideology is equal to ours.
Jun '10
Re: What is Winning?
Jaydee and GOV: The Republicans are still only able to do what the country wants ultimately. The country listens more to the Left than the Right -- even though polls show time and time again that we are a 70-30 (or 80-20) conservative to liberal country. Once conservative ideas are presented and understood we win. Problem is we don't get that chance -- at least historically via the MSM.
What's happening now is the Internet and all the uses of new media but it is fighting and winning a war of attrition with the MSM. But, the MSM still has the passive voter in their pocket because the late, low-interest voter doesn't go out looking for information like we active ones do. By default, the MSM gets them first, convinces them of the meme of the day, keeps conservative ideas from getting any fair treatment and, then they destroy the reputations of every conservative who gets traction.
There are exceptions but this is the main problem.
Dec '10
Re: What is Winning?
Winning is taking the presidency for the next two terms. To put it bluntly, actuarial tables and the grim reaper are going to very substantially prune the current Democrat leadership by that time. Our up and comers are young by comparison. It resembles the nation's demographic future in a nut shell. The right will out breed the left if the Hispanic population can be won over to freedom and disdain for dependency. The left's Roe v Wade's chickens finally come home to roost. That's what happens when you sign on with Moloch. He gets the last laugh.
Edited on Jul 12, 2011 at 3:00pmMar '11
Re: What is Winning?
Jim Brown: Winning is taking the presidency for the next two terms. To put it bluntly, actuarial tables and the grim reaper are going to very substantially prune the current Democrat leadership by that time. Our up and comers are young by comparison. It resembles the nation's demographic future in a nut shell. The right will out breed the left if the Hispanic population can be won over to freedom and disdain for dependency. The left's Roe v Wade's chickens finally come home to roost. That's what happens when you sign on with Moloch. He gets the last laugh. · Jul 12 at 2:59pm
Edited on Jul 12 at 03:00 pm
Does a Republican loss in 2012 = Game Over?
Jan '11
Re: What is Winning?
"Every major thing that the left in this country wants -- except the Cold War where they eventually just withdrew from the field -- they get...Doesn't seem to matter a whit what we think, how much we rail against this obscenity - they win."
Larry Koler
You are wrong.
Gun control.
Those who take issue with my more aggressive, no-compromise, beat-them-over-the-head and ignore their arguments attitude should study the success of the NRA in their battle to preserve America’s Second Amendment gun rights.
The media, the liberal establishment, the Democrat Party, the universities, the mainstream churches, even police groups were in favor of gun control. They took opportunistic advantage of every mass-shooting or assassination to demand action.
But the NRA opposed them every step of the way. No compromises. No nuances were entertained. They didn't apologize or buddy-up to the Democrats. To the NRA you were either pro-gun or you were the enemy, and the enemy had to be defeated.
And the Left has retreated. Democrats buddy-up to the NRA. Get the picture? Hurt your foes and you’ll win. Block their blows and you’ll lose.
Jun '10
Re: What is Winning?
Freesmith: Excellent exception. Great point about the NRA's superb defense. But, you have to admit that they have been helped here greatly by a very specific amendment in the Constitution. A little different than any other case. But, great point.
Jul '10
Re: What is Winning?
I guess you missed Amendments 9 and 10 somewhere there.
Jun '10
Re: What is Winning?
Jaydee_007
I guess you missed Amendments 9 and 10 somewhere there. · Jul 13 at 12:40am
Please explain.