Posted on 02/16/2011 8:46:31 PM PST by cartervt2k
I don't post here every day, but I do often enough that you to page through the archives and check my conservative bonafides. I am staunchly pro-life, pro-gun (own an AK-47, Glock .45 and a Ruger 9mm), anti-climate religion, anti-gay marriage, anti-VAT, and anti-Obamacare. I listen to Rush occasionally. I listen to John Gibson in the afternoons, Levin every night. I live in reddish-purple Virginia, in Jim Moron's district, specifically. I know a lot of Obama voters - some of them leftist automatons, some of them squishy Independents.
The conventional wisdom among conservatives on here and other blogs is to always elect the most conservative candidate - period. They say the reason we lost in 2008 was because we ran McLame on the top of the ticket, and had we run a real conservative, we would have won. This theory is mostly false.
The reason we lost in 2008 was because all the organs of the democrat machine were able to define McLame as a clueless establishment geezer and Palin as a ditz. Neither of them were able to shake these caricatures and often times made them worse. Obama had enough baggage with his associations with terrorists and racist ministers that the election was competitive until the bottom fell out of the economy. They were then able to successfully (however falsely) pin it on Republicans, and it carried them to victory.
The fact of the matter is, if you can define yourself and your opponent, you will win the race. We beat Kerry in 2004 with devastating video of him lying about Vietnam, betraying his unit and flip-flopping on his record. Rove further rallied the base with worries about proliferation of gay marriage, and Bush got more votes than any other president in history. While you may think we should go back to the gay marriage well, I would submit to you that with 9-17% unemployment or underemployment and the FACT public opinion has softened on gay marriage, this is not the trump card it once was. In fact, social issues specifically will not carry a candidate from either party to a presidential victory - especially in this economic climate.
I look at Obama, presiding over the worst economy, job market and housing market in a generation, and he somehow has around a 50% approval rating. This is as stupefying as it is disappointing. Then, I look at the field of candidates and really start to think this is going to be an uphill slog. Obama is damaged but still has the upper hand with his incumbency. Those of you pointing me to last year's elections, I would refer you to NV, CO, DE, CA, CT, and WA (the last 4 for reasons you might not expect).
Case study 1: Nevada. If you think beating Obama is going to be a slam dunk, here you have the most despised member of the senate pulling out a last minute victory with the sheer brute force of his bank and ground game. In fairness, I'm not sure Sue Lowden would have won, but I am certain it would have been closer. Angle or Lowden would have received the similar tons of money from groups looking to unseat Reid, but Sharron was not a polished candidate and stuck her foot in her mouth too many times ("2nd amendment solutions", etc.).
Case study 2: Colorado. Here we have another purple state with the wind at our backs and blew it. Buck is a smart guy and articulate, but he walked right into the gay marriage trap down the stretch, comparing homosexuality to alcoholism on Meet the Press. He never recovered. Even though I do think homosexuality is an identity disorder, if you're trying to get elected, shut up about it and keep hammering away on fiscal issues. You can get away with that in Alabama - not Colorado.
Case study 3: Delaware. I hate Castle, so this was the least significant for me. He was basically the 2010 version of Dede Scozzafava and glad we don't have to defend him in the senate. However, it hurt us from the standpoint in that it allowed the DSCC to mostly ignore the race, where Castle would have forced them to spend more money there (a point I'll get back to a lot).
Case study 4: California and Connecticut. Carly was the best we could have ever done there and had a lot of money. Linda may not have been the best candidate in CT, but she is also extremely wealthy. Both of them pulled a LOT of DSCC resources away from other states and really helped us, even in defeat (stop me if you see a pattern here).
Case study 5: Washington. Dino isn't uber wealthy like the last 2, but he is an extremely polished, solid candidate and forced the DSCC to spend a lot of money there.
Here's the thing: believe me if I tell you I could bring back Barry Goldwater from the dead and install him in the White House without having to worry about losing an election, I would. But I recognize we cannot win without a plurality of Independent squishes. This is just a fact. It is also a fact that conservatism will suffer more with the re-election of Obama than any Republican in the mix right now. We can win with 100% orthodox conservatives, but they MUST be able to connect with independents in a way so that they feel comfortable voting for them, even if the sources of their comfort are for superficial reasons. I felt like Pence could have been that guy, but he's running for IN governor. There's really no one else like him left right now.
If I were Obama, of the names being mentioned, I would fear Daniels the most. How could they label him? He's a competent, accomplished, books-balancing, budget-slashing, Harley riding, ivy league educated state executive. They would be unable to easily label him a racist (hello Mississippi Barbour), an idiot (hello Palin), a hypocrite (hello Romneycare), or a Bible beater (hello Huckabee). What are they going to attack him for - his height? Having once worked for Bush? If that's the worst he's got in the way of baggage, he's in good shape. If he put Christie on the ticket with him (a true RINO to be sure, but a star with gravitas nonetheless), Obama would have to go and dump money into NEW JERSEY. The midwest would be an electoral killing field from PA to WI. There would only be a few states Obama wouldn't have to defend. I think we'd have a similar shot with T-Paw, but he hasn't really impressed me in one-on-one interviews.
Back to the social issues, all I want out of our next president is to reinstate the Mexico City Policy and to elevate as many Scalias to the bench as possible - bonus if he can defund Planned Parenthood. Ginsburg is probably going to expire pretty soon, and Kennedy is wanting to step down soon. Do you want to risk their seats with a candidate likely to lose?
I'd be interested to hear your feedback of why you think I'm right or why you think I'm wrong. I'm on your team, so let's keep it civil.
I remember the response he gave on the VAT, I'm a little leery on trusting him, but if I recall correctly, he denied saying he actually endorsed a VAT, and was supportive of a flat tax, and that what he did was explain what a VAT was, and he claimed that it was twisted on him, but I don't know how true his claims were.
If you listen to Levin nightly, then you know the many Caveats Levin has regarding him...such as fact that he was the OMB Director for Bush.
1. DE, CA, CT, and WA are liberal states....you don’t need those states to beat Obama, so what’s the point on how those loses in 2010 in liberal states means Obama is almost unstoppable?
2. some Republican strategist have pinpointed concern about his lack of fire in the belly or the desire for the rigors of hard campaigning....Obama will have his billions, the MSM in his back pocket, the Unions...etc. We need someone who will go toe to toe with Obama and not back down and will be the captain that is willing to “Give them Hell, Harry”......To beat Obama one has to go for the jugular not play “smart and cute”...so their is a concern on that part.
3. Moderates don’t win -
Ford(moderate) lost
Reagan(conservative) won
Bush 41(moderate) lost after he was away from Reagan’s coattails
Dole(moderate) lost
W (conservative/moderate) won by running as a conservative
McCain(moderate) lost
His paternal grandparents were Syrian immigrants ( Christians ), but Mitch was given an award by the ARAB-AMERICAN LEAGUE.
He divorced his wife and several years later remarried her. Boy, could I make a big deal out of that one!
His work for President Bush WILL get him blugeonned.
His pro VAT statements have never really been cleared up.
He is BORING, has NO real following in the base, and has about as much charisma as moldy bread, and that's just for starters.
Every single GOP pol announced or not announced WILL be trashed, sliced up, pounced on, with every single ounce by Obama and the MSM.
What we need is a candidate who can excite and bring out the broken glass base; Daniels isn't going to do either.
Daniels is the best governor that I have ever seen (I am very old) he tells it like it is, pulls no punches, and gets the job done...is it painless?? nope... but it is necessary Indiana is in MUCH better shape than any other midwestern state by far....he is a fiscal genius, conservative as far as I'm concened, pro-life, aware of the pitfalls in Washington, don't think he has any skeletons in the closet, well spoken (no tele-prompters needed)and intelligent
I like DeMint. I think he’s a much better communicator than Palin, and so I like his chances in a general better than hers. But, I think he would lose too. He’s made some controversial remarks about gays and Christianity which would hurt him with the necessary independent vote. “Extreme” would be the meme du jour on the nightly news, even though their president is a marxist.
RE: Palin. I got to be honest - I LOVE her, and she would be a monumental upgrade to Obama, but she would lose big in an election to him. She is on the right side of every issue and has great instincts. I do not think she’s an idiot, but I don’t think she’s a rhodes scholar either. If you don’t know your crap backwards and forwards on every facet of government and foreign policy and you run for president - especially as a conservative woman, they hyenas in the media will feast on you, a la Katie Couric.
I don’t think he’s Ronald Reagan (Presidents like that are literally once in a generation) BUT he might be the right man for these particular times when the N0.1 issue is our crushing national debt. His CPAC speech framed it better than any other potential candidate...so far anyway.
Bush, despite his faults on other issues, was the right man to deal with the aftermath of 9/11 and the war on terror in my opinion.
Obama, on the other hand, isn’t the right guy for ANY time.
1. I mentioned those states to illustrate the necessity of draining democrat resources. It will be imperative that we force Obama to spread out his money in as many places as possible.
2. Daniels will have a LOT of money behind him. He won’t be playing with any of this public financing crapola, and the business community will be solidly behind him. People are tired of the grandstanding pretender and ready for the boring, tried and true manager, IMHO.
3. Look at his record - he is not as moderate as you think.
His wife left him,ran off with someone else and came back,maybe he put her to sleep also. He is a numbers guy,and does not draw on any kind of emotion. It is sad, I thought he was a good candidate until I watched and listened more closely. I still think he could be second on the Palin ticket,she has enough personality for both,and then some. He is great on the budget and all matters financial way above most other candidates,but there it ends.
This upcoming election is so important that we need to call a truce and put aside any notion of supporting Mitch Daniels for higher office.
I want David H. Koch as our next President.
(pronounced as “coke”)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_H._Koch
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer
Just say, “Things go better with Koch.”
Is this breaking news?
And Zot.
I hate to beat a dead horse, but I don’t see any way Palin can resuscitate her numbers with critical independent voters. I love her and will support her if she’s the nominee, but I just don’t see how she wins.
If this election turns into a charisma/popularity contest, we lose no matter who we pick. We win by picking the exact opposite of Obama - boring but competent and effective.
He won't have any money woes? REALLY? Who do you imagine is going to donate to this guy?
And FYI...............Daniels won't win the primaries.
Let’s start with your case studies—
1- Nevada voters chose Nevada over their country. They could not afford to throw away Reid’s seniority and clout in the Senate in exchange for a newbie. His opponent had little effect on the outcome.
2- Bad candidates can’t win elections. The Republican candidate for Governor in CO was a disaster and Buck was only somewhat better.
3- O’Donnell might have had a chance to win that election if establishment Republicans hadn’t been sore losers and refused to support her. They sounded like little kids. “Gov. Palin came in here and stole our candy and we’re not gonna play anymore”.
4- You are probably correct about CA and CT. I will say that I was not a great fan of Carly although I supported her in the general election. I don’t think she had the energy to effectively campaign against Boxer. If Chuck DeVore had been elected to the Senate,he would be among the five or six smartest in the body. His lack of fund raising ability kept him out.
5- Rossi is a repeated loser in WA. A confident conservative may have had a chance to win that seat.
What you are suggesting is that for a Republican to win, they must go to where the independents are. This is not what happened in 2010. In 2010, led by Gov. Palin and the TEA party, independents came to where we are. It is almost impossible to know where independents are because they lack core beliefs held by liberals and conservatives. Democrats win them over by lying and submerging them with media propaganda. The TEA party effort opened their eyes and many saw the truth about the liberal agenda. That truth still exists and will carry over to 2012 because the job was only half done in 2010. It will carry over because Obama is still intent on implementing Obamacare which they oppose. It will carry over because he still wants to bankrupt this country. If you want to lose those independents, try nominating a squishy Republican who is afraid of the social issues and who is afraid to call Obama out on his policies.
Yes, they will call Palin an idiot, but they would call Daniels an idiot too because name calling is what they do. When the campaign starts, all of those myths will evaporate in the face of truth and reality.
In 2008, many white voters wanted to see the first black President get elected. Of course black voters did also. Now, that ship has sailed. In 2012, the same effect will occur among women voters to see the first woman elected President. You can cite all the polls showing Palin doing poorly among women and independents but they tell us nothing because those polled are still thinking Palin is Tina Fey. When voters get to see the real Palin campaigning, those myths will fall like popped balloons. If you remember back to 2008, the selection Of Gov. Palin actually put McCain in the lead until the economy blew up (or was blown up) and McCain fumbled his response.
Gov. Mitch Daniels has no charisma. He comes off as a nice man ala Calvin Coolidge. Against Obama, he would be blown off the stage while women fainted on cue for Obama. Governor Palin dominates a stage. Obama will be upstaged and stuttering like a fool and when she asks him why he is intentionally trying to destroy the country he was elected to lead, I want to hear his attempts to answer and so do a lot of independents.
The fact of the matter is, if you can define yourself and your opponent, you will win the race. We beat Kerry in 2004 with devastating video of him lying about Vietnam, betraying his unit and flip-flopping on his record. Rove further rallied the base with worries about proliferation of gay marriage, and Bush got more votes than any other president in history. While you may think we should go back to the gay marriage well, I would submit to you that with 9-17% unemployment or underemployment and the FACT public opinion has softened on gay marriage, this is not the trump card it once was. In fact, social issues specifically will not carry a candidate from either party to a presidential victory - especially in this economic climate.
I look at Obama, presiding over the worst economy, job market and housing market in a generation, and he somehow has around a 50% approval rating. This is as stupefying as it is disappointing. Then, I look at the field of candidates and really start to think this is going to be an uphill slog. Obama is damaged but still has the upper hand with his incumbency. Those of you pointing me to last year’s elections, I would refer you to NV, CO, DE, CA, CT, and WA (the last 4 for reasons you might not expect).
Case study 1: Nevada. If you think beating Obama is going to be a slam dunk, here you have the most despised member of the senate pulling out a last minute victory with the sheer brute force of his bank and ground game. In fairness, I’m not sure Sue Lowden would have won, but I am certain it would have been closer. Angle or Lowden would have received the similar tons of money from groups looking to unseat Reid, but Sharron was not a polished candidate and stuck her foot in her mouth too many times (”2nd amendment solutions”, etc.).
Case study 2: Colorado. Here we have another purple state with the wind at our backs and blew it. Buck is a smart guy and articulate, but he walked right into the gay marriage trap down the stretch, comparing homosexuality to alcoholism on Meet the Press. He never recovered. Even though I do think homosexuality is an identity disorder, if you’re trying to get elected, shut up about it and keep hammering away on fiscal issues. You can get away with that in Alabama - not Colorado.
Case study 3: Delaware. I hate Castle, so this was the least significant for me. He was basically the 2010 version of Dede Scozzafava and glad we don’t have to defend him in the senate. However, it hurt us from the standpoint in that it allowed the DSCC to mostly ignore the race, where Castle would have forced them to spend more money there (a point I’ll get back to a lot).
Case study 4: California and Connecticut. Carly was the best we could have ever done there and had a lot of money. Linda may not have been the best candidate in CT, but she is also extremely wealthy. Both of them pulled a LOT of DSCC resources away from other states and really helped us, even in defeat (stop me if you see a pattern here).
Case study 5: Washington. Dino isn’t uber wealthy like the last 2, but he is an extremely polished, solid candidate and forced the DSCC to spend a lot of money there.
Here’s the thing: believe me if I tell you I could bring back Barry Goldwater from the dead and install him in the White House without having to worry about losing an election, I would. But I recognize we cannot win without a plurality of Independent squishes. This is just a fact. It is also a fact that conservatism will suffer more with the re-election of Obama than any Republican in the mix right now. We can win with 100% orthodox conservatives, but they MUST be able to connect with independents in a way so that they feel comfortable voting for them, even if the sources of their comfort are for superficial reasons. I felt like Pence could have been that guy, but he’s running for IN governor. There’s really no one else like him left right now.
If I were Obama, of the names being mentioned, I would fear Daniels the most. How could they label him? He’s a competent, accomplished, books-balancing, budget-slashing, Harley riding, ivy league educated state executive. They would be unable to easily label him a racist (hello Mississippi Barbour), an idiot (hello Palin), a hypocrite (hello Romneycare), or a Bible beater (hello Huckabee). What are they going to attack him for - his height? Having once worked for Bush? If that’s the worst he’s got in the way of baggage, he’s in good shape. If he put Christie on the ticket with him (a true RINO to be sure, but a star with gravitas nonetheless), Obama would have to go and dump money into NEW JERSEY. The midwest would be an electoral killing field from PA to WI. There would only be a few states Obama wouldn’t have to defend. I think we’d have a similar shot with T-Paw, but he hasn’t really impressed me in one-on-one interviews.
Back to the social issues, all I want out of our next president is to reinstate the Mexico City Policy and to elevate as many Scalias to the bench as possible - bonus if he can defund Planned Parenthood. Ginsburg is probably going to expire pretty soon, and Kennedy is wanting to step down soon. Do you want to risk their seats with a candidate likely to lose?
I’d be interested to hear your feedback of why you think I’m right or why you think I’m wrong. I’m on your team, so let’s keep it civil.
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Chit/Chat; Miscellaneous; Click to Add Topic
KEYWORDS
1) Your choice of states for case study don’t make sense. These states are nowhere near swings states and Senate races are far different than for the POTUS.
2) McCain IS an establishment geezer. He also had the anchor of Bush fatigue and a miserable campaign. He shut the dam thing down during the financial crisis for crying out loud! He also refused to go after Obummer on his Commie background (See Mark McKinnon). He did not define himself as a Conservative. He ran as a moderate.
3)If you think the Rats won’t be able to label Daniels, you are crazy. Just because the guy rides a Harley does not make him edgy. His CPAC speech whined about right wing radio for crying out loud. His record as Gov. is spotty. He supports an INTERNET TAX and supports GREEN INITIATIVES.
Maybe you should have spent more time going though the points of how Daniels will trump Obummer issue by issue instead of somehow tying in lost Senate races.
Remember, the electoral landscape has totally shifted on Obummer because of the ‘10 Landslide. States he relied on have turned solid red overnight. PA, OH, VA ect. He will not have the advantage this time and there does not seem the need to run another Moderate looking candidate. Maybe Daniels will change my impression of him in the debates.
I absolutely don't believe Palin is an idiot. I think she's an extraordinarily smart and competent woman, and I was a fan before she was chosen to be the vp candidate. I admire her greatly. However,
1. Yes, I do agree with the original poster than the Left has succeeded in making most Americans believe she's an idiot. Wherever I go, all over the US, whoever I talk to in any sociocultural or educational group, I hear the same thing: people who are not liberals like her but think she's a lightweight, an airhead. Even if they can't point to something specific she said that they don't like, they consider her young, perky, cute. Not a person with gravitas. Not someone who can face down Putin and Hu, Kim and the Muslim Brotherhood.
2. I'm going to get crucified for this because on this forum apparently our fellow Freepers won't allow us to say anything negative about Sarah, but here goes anyway: In 2008 Ann Coulter said that Sarah should go back to Alaska, finish her term, and spend the next several years reading Constitutional law and history, and traveling. This was very good advice. People who are really sharp know what they don't know, and try to fill the gaps. I wish I could see Sarah studying.
3. I don't think a woman will impress the Chinese or make the Muslims quake in their sandals. They're misogynists. That's not my fault or Sarah's; it's just a statement of fact. They won't fear her, no matter how many nukes she commands.
caveats would be an understatement - i hear him give it to Daniels with both barrels the other night. Still, I don’t think being bush’s OMB is that big a problem. Bush signed his own budgets, Daniels signed his own budgets in IN.
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.