Posted on 08/12/2013 9:24:46 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Against all logic, some prominent conservatives continue to promote the absurd proposition that right-wing candidates who fail to win over GOP voters in Republican primaries would magically succeed on November ballots. This assumption enables them to retain a naive faith in the claim that "true conservatives" who can't mobilize their own base to win nominations will somehow triumph in general elections by drawing support from moderates and liberals.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has most recently voiced this idea. "You know, if you look at the last 40 years, a consistent pattern emerges," Mr. Cruz observed in a July interview with ABC. "Any time Republicans nominate a candidate for president who runs as a strong conservative, we win. And when we nominate a moderate who doesn't run as a conservative, we lose."
Really? In 1988, George H.W. Bush sought the presidency by promising to deliver a "kinder, gentler" America. Despite the opposition of most conservatives (who passionately preferred Jack Kemp, Pat Robertson or even Bob Dole in the primaries), Mr. Bush crushed Michael Dukakis in the general election and swept 40 states and 426 electoral votes—the last Republican candidate to win the presidency decisively.
Mr. Bush's son won the White House twice by running as a "compassionate conservative" who had worked amicably with Democrats as Texas governor. Pledging he'd be a "uniter, not a divider," George W. Bush favored increases in federal education spending, a Medicare benefit for prescription drugs and immigration reform that included a path to citizenship.
Richard Nixon's first term featured wage/price controls, the imposition of affirmative action, intensified environmental regulations, and compromise agreements with Communist regimes in China, Russia and North Vietnam. One conscientious conservative congressman, John Ashbrook of Ohio, challenged "Republican in name only" Nixon in the 1972 GOP primaries with the slogan "No Left Turns,"
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Against all logic, some prominent conservatives continue to promote the absurd proposition that right-wing candidates who fail to win over GOP voters in Republican primaries would magically succeed on November ballots.Umm, the majority of the early GOP primaries, where the races are won or lost, occur mainly in blue states and allow crossover votes. (in order to be "inclusive")
The people that would come out in the general election to support a conservative candidate have little or no say in how the Republican choice is nominated.
All the "pundits" tend to gloss over that little factoid.
As soon as I saw “Medved”,
I mentally threw it in the trash.
Here’s my personal breaking point with Medved: when he got hot and bothered when we (conservatives) were calling McCain a “RINO”.
Medved whined and cried and said it wasn’t a winning strategy.
I despise Michael Medved. This guy has been dining out on his ‘conservative talk show host’ shtick for far too long.
Taking “conservative” strategic advise from Medved isn’t far from what mclame will tell us how to behave.
Look up GOPe in the dictionary and you find Medved’s pic along with the other usual suspects.
I used to listen to Medved until he got all touchy feely and started moving to the dark side.
Yes, the country has moved farther than we all would have thought, but the attempt needs to be made to bring it back because liberal polices simply lead to destruction in all areas of life.
The attempt at educating people to see that conservatism is the right way to approach life and politics, a positive way that leads to renewal and a better life is something that needs to be done, not capitulation to the destructive nonsense of liberalism.
Bush used that “kinder, gentler” phrase in his inaugural address, not during the campaign. Medved needs to take his Gingko.
The path to victory is paved with the likes of Romney, McCain, and Dole.
Medved was a McCain supporter from the get-go in 2008, and he was an early Romney supporter in 2012.
That neo-Con is now a Re-O-Lib.
Not much of a choice in my market on weekday afternoons—it’s Medved, Hannity or music.
If nominated, Medved will support him. ;-)
I’m having the growing feeling that the big talkers from both parties who claim to have the most influence have no party affiliation at all, and are just looking to influence events to favor their own interests. The talk of running Jeb Bush, for example, is downright frightening in its tone deafness. And on the Democrat side—Hillary Clinton, really? Surely they have some younger, more dynamic minority candidates to promote at some level. Do you see the masses rising up to support old-hag Hillary, with all her baggage? I don’t, and I’m amazed that any serious thinking political hack would think so.
All you have to do is stop giving them free stuff as prize for making it across the border.
100% correct. Yes, we would still have gang bangers and illegal criminals. But as the supply of prey dwindles, so would the number of predators.
If we were talking about a couple million instead of tens of millions, the problem would be far more manageable.
If we get and can rally behind a good conservative like Cruz, he'll breeze through as the RINO's split the vote.
Yep. You got it exactly right. Bush was elected in a landslide because of the success of the eight years of Ronald Reagan. Period. He picked up the baton and ran with it. During his term, he screwed up royally by trying to placate the democrat congress. Agreeing to tax hikes to seem ‘reasonable’. It coat him a second term.
As I grow older, I find I actually prefer the “sound of silence” over most of what comes out of the speakers.
A neat trick by Medved to attribute Bush 41’s victory to his moderate policies, instead of attributing 41’s victory on the record of accomplishment of Reagan. When 41 ran for re-election, he didn’t do so well.
To be sure, in each party, the nominee has to both motivate the base and appeal to marginal and swing voters. Moderates may be better at one part of this, but are handicapped at the other part. The last person to put up big numbers in his own name was Reagan. The only President since FDR to have been re-elected in a landslide and succeeded by the candidate of his party. But, Reagan had something special going for him. It wasn’t just his policies, but leadership. Reagan’s persona was key to his near landslide victory in 1980, and his persona plus the strong economic recovery delivered a true landslide victory in 1984, and the still strong economy propelled 41 to a near landslide victory in 1988.
If you will remember, back in 1980, even though Reagan named his chief rival from the moderate wing of the party as his VP, another moderate Republican - John Anderson of Illinois - still bolted the party and ran as an independent. Reagan kept enough of the moderates on the reservation to prevent Anderson from rupturing the party. (In contrast, going back to 1964, Goldwater was unable to prevent the rupture.) So, it is important that our candidate be effective like Reagan in keeping enough of the moderates with us, in addition to motivating the base and appealing to marginal and swing voters.
But, as for Medved’s thesis, no, moderates have not demonstrated any superior ability to conservatives in winning the general election.
Great points. Both those elections should have been shoe ins for GWB against those candidates. It is evidence as his weakness as a candidate they came so close.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.