Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

GOP Refuses to Nationalize the Election
conservativehq.com ^ | 9/23/14 | Richard A. Viguerie

Posted on 09/23/2014 10:39:10 AM PDT by cotton1706

A truism in American politics is that Republicans never win elections unless they are nationalized. Nationalizing an election doesn’t guarantee a GOP victory, Goldwater lost in 1964 in an election defined largely by national issues, but never in modern times have Republicans won a national campaign fought on local issues.

Democrats like elections that are fought state-by-state and deal with local issues because they are deliverers of services. If you want a pothole fixed, food stamps increased or federal grants for your local parks and museum, Democrats are only too happy to oblige.

The political brain driving the Democratic Party’s 2014 midterm election effort isn’t President Barack Obama; it is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. Reid’s plan is simple – don’t allow Republicans to nationalize the election.

In opposition to Reid’s plan one establishment consultant told the Washington DC publication The Hill, our strategy is a “prevent defense” designed to “first do no harm.”

Football fans will recognize that the team that sits on the ball and engages in a “prevent defense” often loses. Politically, the content-free “first do no harm” campaign may bring a Republican majority to office, but it will be a majority with no mandate to confront Obama and the Democrats, let alone lead the country in a conservative direction.

The Washington Post on September 21 ran an article detailing how Republicans are, “moving to the center,” and getting sucked into backing increases to the minimum wage, granting in-state college tuition to illegal immigrants and other red herrings that alienate conservatives and have nothing to do with the real issues that could nationalize the election and decide it in a Republican wave.

(Excerpt) Read more at conservativehq.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: elections
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last

1 posted on 09/23/2014 10:39:10 AM PDT by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

Interesting. Mr.Vigurie raises tons of money—but only if the election is nationalized on broad national issues that he can promote through emails and mail solicitations to single issue voters.

His company doesn’t work on local elections for local candidates as far as I know.


2 posted on 09/23/2014 10:49:48 AM PDT by wildbill (If you check behind the shower curtain for a murderer, and find one... what's your plan?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706
RE :”The Washington Post on September 21 ran an article detailing how Republicans are, “moving to the center,” and getting sucked into backing increases to the minimum wage, granting in-state college tuition to illegal immigrants and other red herrings that alienate conservatives and have nothing to do with the real issues that could nationalize the election and decide it in a Republican wave”

Minimum wage polls as very popular even with those who say they are Republicans.

One thing about Dems, they are always updating their arguments. They invented a whole bunch on the minimum wage. GOP seems happy repeating arguments 30 years old.

GOP seems to have two fractions : Those in safe seats who feel they need no arguments and those in competitive seats who as you see just give in.

Progressives progress in their goals. Win part of an issue and use it to fight the next.

3 posted on 09/23/2014 10:50:22 AM PDT by sickoflibs (King Obama : 'The debate is over. The time for talk is over. Just follow my commands you serfs""')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright
"Nationalize the Election" Stupid! [said to gOpE knucklehead consultants] ping .....

Run against two/six more years of 0bama/Reid/Pelosi big government unsustainable debt socialism ....

4 posted on 09/23/2014 10:52:06 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

I want candidates to run to represent their constituents. If they’re running for a senate seat they need to campaign to the people of their state. If they’re running for house seats, they need to campaign to the people of their districts.


5 posted on 09/23/2014 10:56:40 AM PDT by cripplecreek ("Moderates" are lying manipulative bottom feeding scum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

Nationalizing the election requires good Conservative principles to be enunciated forcefully. The Republican Party is almost as liberal as its parent company the Democrat Party. Republicans would rather lose to Democrats than win with conservatives or conservative positions.


6 posted on 09/23/2014 10:57:09 AM PDT by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson ONLINE http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

Quite frankly, and I can’t believe I am saying this, I agree with them. If there is anything America hates more than ODimwit it’s the GOP.


7 posted on 09/23/2014 11:07:04 AM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arthurus

Nationalizing the election requires good Conservative principles to be enunciated forcefully. The Republican Party is almost as liberal as its parent company the Democrat Party. Republicans would rather lose to Democrats than win with conservatives or conservative positions.
++++
Three sentences. Off to a good start with #1. And then off the cliff with #2 and with #3 I really don’t know how to characterize it.

This sort of nonsense may cost us the Senate. It is time to hold your nose if necessary and vote GOP. If you don’t then you are one of those who is willing to let the Dems win without a fight.


8 posted on 09/23/2014 11:12:01 AM PDT by InterceptPoint (Remember Mississippi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: arthurus

“Nationalizing the election requires good Conservative principles to be enunciated forcefully.”

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Concise and correct. We haven’t been able to do that since Reagan. The Left now pre-demonizes with all their might anyone since then who threatens to have a national, Conservative audience (Palin, Cruz, Tea Party), so as to minimize their impact.


9 posted on 09/23/2014 11:13:19 AM PDT by Eccl 10:2 (Prov 3:5 --- "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

Proof of what so many believe that the Pubbies are more than content to be the minority party, take none of the blame, do little or no work but enjoy all the perks of being in a BIG government.


10 posted on 09/23/2014 11:13:27 AM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Dennis Prager once considered the CA Senate, but concluded that once elected he’d spend the majority of his time “gladhanding” the moneybags so that he could run again.

He declined.


11 posted on 09/23/2014 11:21:48 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Democrats like elections that are fought state-by-state and deal with local issues because they are deliverers of services. If you want a pothole fixed, food stamps increased or federal grants for your local parks and museum, Democrats are only too happy to oblige.

I believe in 2014 this encouragement to "nationalize the election" almost solely refers to Senate campaigns. You can run a "nationalized" big picture vision campaign for such a statewide seat and represent your constituents at the same time. It is not 'either/or'. Just a winning, instead of losing, campaign strategy. IMHO

12 posted on 09/23/2014 11:23:33 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

Quote: “Goldwater lost in 1964 in an election defined largely by national issues. . .”

Goldwater lost because LBJ was a dirty SOB running on the memory of a murdered President. I’ll see the GOPe’s Barry Goldwater and raise them a Ford, Bush I, Dole, McCain, and Romney.


13 posted on 09/23/2014 11:38:46 AM PDT by FlipWilson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

The shell shocked PTSD republican strategy— don’t do ANYTHING cause it might make waves and disrupt our chance at winning the election

And if they gain control of the senate— we still can’t do anything, cause if we do, we might lose control of the senate in the next election.


14 posted on 09/23/2014 11:42:43 AM PDT by Cubs Fan (Where we're headed is worse than mere socialism http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

“Republicans never win elections unless they are nationalized.”

If this is true, and I’m willing to believe it is, it’s because Republicans are stupid and/or incompetent, and can’t or won’t follow the Democrats in the winning strategies of identity politics and going after the marginal voters (or “undecideds”). As for “movement conservatives,” get this: tge Republican party, except in relation to other parties, isn’t conservative. Parties aren’t ideological movements. They are open conspiracies by private interests to capture government for their own ends. They may use ideologies, and ideologists may use them, but the two are not identical and unless by freak chance they won’t happen to be, and then only temporarily.


15 posted on 09/23/2014 12:03:01 PM PDT by House of Burgesses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint

I am willing to let the Dems win. If the Bush II monopoly years were the best we can hope for, what’s the difference?


16 posted on 09/23/2014 12:04:00 PM PDT by House of Burgesses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: House of Burgesses
I am willing to let the Dems win. If the Bush II monopoly years were the best we can hope for, what’s the difference?

You need to go back and look at the Bush Years again. Compared to the Obama Reign they look like the Golden Years. Obama makes FDR look like the Tea Party President. The only thing that has kept Obama somewhat under control is the fact that the Tea Party Victories in 2010 returned the GOP to the control of the House.

OK, make that the GOPe control of the House.

In any case that is better than Nancy Pelosi - Barak Obama control. Winning the Senate in 2014 is IMPORTANT. It will further put the brakes on the Obama Agenda.

The very idea that there is no difference between the GOP or even the GOPe and the Dems is just nonsense. Go find a list of all the Republicans who voted for Obamacare. I will tell you how many GOPe or GOP Republicans are on that list: ZERO. Not one voted for Obamacare. There is a difference between Republicans and Democrats. A big difference.

17 posted on 09/23/2014 12:27:34 PM PDT by InterceptPoint (Remember Mississippi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint
Republicans would rather lose to Democrats than win with conservatives or conservative positions.

So true. The pinnacle of avarice and ambition meet in Rome-on-the-Potomac. Eric Cantor cast aside his duty to constituents and resigned once he lost his position of influence and power so he could cash in on Wall Street.

Uniparty elections cannot restore our freedom. Article V.

18 posted on 09/23/2014 12:44:53 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Article V. If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

SCOTUS is at issue in 2014. SCOTUS.


19 posted on 09/23/2014 12:50:21 PM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Eccl 10:2
We haven’t been able to do that since Reagan.

Incorrect. Gingrich stated the principles well enough in 1994 in the "Contract with America". We lack enough people who have the ability that Gingrich had to lay out the overall case and defend it ruthlessly from attacks from the Left.

We have some fine thinkers like Cruz, Lee and Paul in the Senate. Our bench in the House is weaker, but some of the talent we need is there. What we need is a new "contract" and have those with the communications skills -- even Palin can contribute to this -- lay it out in terms the bread-and-butter voter can understand.

20 posted on 09/23/2014 12:51:41 PM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson