Sarah would be more effective if she stayed above the fray and focused on issues instead of individual personalities in the Republican Party. In fact labels such as “rogue” and “maverick” are a distraction.
Ronald Reagan was successful because he talked about big ideas. He spoke of a vision for the country, he consistently demonstrated his pride in the country and its accomplishments, and he never apologized for either loving his country or loving liberty.
For a conservative to win she or he must rise above the petty politics of personality and speak directly to the American people about a vision of America as a great country with free people. She should illustrate how things will be better if the yoke of government can be removed from the people. Reagan never sounded mean spirited because he focused on ideas and not people.
The establishment wants to trap conservatives into playing the mean nasty game of petty partisan politics. Sarah, Cruz, Lee, and Paul should define new rules and play by them. If they stay true to their principles and refuse to play in the mud, the American people will take notice and respect them. Let Christie be who he is and don’t waste time trying to define him. Spend the time talking about the potential of this nation to be great again.
The problem with rising above disturbing political personalities and lifting opinion above smallness to speak of big ideas is that Americans are incredibly more stupid than they were during Reagan’s terms.
As unbelievable and scary as it sounds the dumbing down of American intellect has been going forward at full speed night and day. It makes progressives deliriously happy but scares the hell out of the rest of us who still possess functioning brains.
A conservative has little chance to win if that 2012 primary is any example. The perfect conservative is the enemy of “the good-enough conservative who can win”
Very well put.
Excellent post. Reagan made two of the greatest political smackdowns of modern times in debates first against Jimmy Carter and later against Walter Mondale, and in the latter case, Mondale laughed right along with the audience.
It’s possible though that Palin was simply responding to a question when she said what she said — in my view, correctly — about Chris Christie and Rand Paul.
It might have been better for her to articulate those of Paul’s ideas with which she agrees and then say something along the lines of: “to the extent that Chris Christie is willing to go along with these policies, there’s a place for him in the conservative movement. But these principles are no longer negotiable, and conservatives are growing increasingly frustrated with politicians who will sign them away.”
Same message, without the personal wording.