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.
Anyone that wants to divide the conservative coalition by calling social conservatives “suicide bombers” is not to be considered Presidential material under any circumstances! That’s just plain offensive (and doesn’t help his chances with the conservative electorate)!
J.S.
What did he do to deserve a zot? Making a reasonable, though out post?
You don’t have to agree with it, but I see no reason to zot him.
Do you really think if we managed to find a Jim Inhofe to run against Boxer or Murray, we would have won? - that the real reason we lost was that the swaths of conservatives in WA and CA stayed home at the chance to unseat these two?
Fine if you don’t want to nominate Daniels - just giving my perspective.
All he was saying was that we need to broaden our coalition if we want to save the republic from economic ruin. Daniels is a social conservative and really has an outstanding pro-life record. Blasting someone because he’s a RINO on one or two issues only weakens us because it pushes independent voters away.
I agree with you. Daniels is, at the moment, my top pick. But you can’t have Christie. We LOVE him here in NJ. We need him to finish this term and then serve a second one right here in NJ. Find another VP. You are right that Christie would seal the win-—there’s something about a guy who is competent, confident, and honest that people just can’t seem to get enough of.
It's not like Katie's questions were that tough. Look at Palin's totally pathetic answer here:
KC: What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with? [besides Roe v Wade]
SP: Well, let's see. There's, of course in the great history of America there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but …
Couric: Can you think of any?
Palin: Well, I could think of … any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But, you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a vice president, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.
Ouch. Total bafflegab, and lousy at that. Here I am, a mere guitar player, and I could rattle off a few cases, new and old, that I disagree with. How about Kelo? If you're a libertarian, how about Raich? If you like limited government, how about Wickard? Hell, if you want to be a little zany, how about Marbury? If you don't like Roe, how about subsequent rulings like Casey?
She had NOTHING. Is that too much to ask, that someone who wants to be president has at least the level of knowledge about the SCOTUS as a guitar player?
I'd like to see that same question asked in the GOP primary debates. It was a great question actually, and exposes not just someone's philosophy, but how much they actually understand about this government and its Constitution.
That's funny. Last time around, a vote for anyone but Romney was a vote for McCain. I almost didn't bother to vote in the primary, but somehow mustered the energy and voted for Romney. What a waste of time.
This time, if it comes down to Palin or Romney in the primary, I'm staying home.
Cheney was an awful VP pick. GWB left us with an open primary, and hence, McCain.
True, although he is not really all that charismatic. He just ‘reads real good’. He’s actually pretty cold much of the time. He does have good interpersonal skills one-on-one. Clinton was the master of both.
For 2012, we can’t out speechify Obama, but the person has to be able to draw people in. I am afraid Daniels would just not draw people in. He does have an honest likability factor which could be successful. I look forward to seeing him in the GOP debates if he does get into the race. He could quickly win me over.
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
You left out Nixon. In 1968 you have to say he ran as (and was perceived as) a conservative. In 1972 it’s not so clear. 1972 might be the exception to your rule, in that Nixon played the moderate against the McGovern lefty (much like McCain vs Obama in 2008). No?
And then your analysis completely breaks down in 1964. Goldwater was the clear conservative and lost big.
I think Oswald had something to do with that...
Yes, you’re right...
“Fine if you don’t want to nominate Daniels - just giving my perspective.”
Giving your perspective is OK. This has been a civil discourse, just as I like ‘em!
Finding a candidate who can win, as you point out, is problematical in some states. I was surprised when Reagan won back in 1980. (I’ve been voting since 1971.) Years afterwards, I had a chance to review how it happened.
Ronald Reagan was a great communicator. He was elected despite the bashing he took from the MSM. Why? Because he convinced a broad swath of the public that he loved this nation, had a positive vision of our future, and told people what he was going to do and then did it.
Reagan was honest and straightforward, and more importantly, he radiated those traits to the extent that even if a person didn’t agree 100% with Reagan’s politics, they voted for him nevertheless.
Conservatism and moral values travel hand-in-hand. Others on Free Republic have stated why much better than I ever will, so I’ll not say more on the issue.
Daniels made a statement about social values that alarmed conservative voters. I doubt he’ll receive much support from strong conservatives if he seeks to be President - just giving my perspective.
Daniels has been a good governor, and I’d take him over any of the crop of pubbie candidates now. He’s pretty low-key which could prevent him from beating Obama. Unless the country implodes I think too many people will vote for a charismatic doofus over a competent leader.
It’s hard to argue with anything you say. My strategy is trying to figure out what the country will go for - I think Daniels has positioned himself well to clean up with the independents and conservatives will turn out for him, no matter what they say Of course, my opinion is subject to change. Either way, I think he would be a gamble - I don’t know of any other candidates talking about entitlement reform, which could either carry us or kill us, depending on the mood of the country and how effectively he can overcome the MSM smear machine and get buy-in from the voters on his ideas. I hope (pray) voters are ready to get serious about entitlement reform.
Thune just just chimed in today seems to want to fill the void on the social issues front, saying today there will be no truce. He seems mainstream enough so that I think he can win independent voters, but he’s had a pretty unremarkable career and isn’t a big draw like Chris Christie. It’s also hard to call Obama a do-nothing loser if you’ve just nominated your own junior senator, but maybe that’s not so important.
Christie’s RINO proclivities on some issues aside, I think he’s our best shot but seems intent on not running (though he could be posturing). He’s really the opposite of Obama in EVERY way - most importantly, he speaks directly and frankly, which will go a long way with voters. If he can hold a 51% approval rate in NJ, he would be lethal to Obama. He would be a fund raising machine. I’m going to go on record and say he will at least be our VP nominee, no matter who we pick.
I kind of wish I could take Gingrich’s wit and expertise, give him Daniels’ record, Christie’s magnetism, and Jim DeMint’s conservatism and combine them into a can’t-lose super-candidate. Stinks we have to choose from what we’ve got, but hopefully we can scrape together enough votes to end this nightmare!
There may very well be a potential candidate out there no one has thought wants to run, and who is just waiting for the right time to announce.
Whoever it may be, I will not vote for man or woman who will not support ‘rule of law’. Illegal aliens have damaged this nation and caused corruption and injustice within our legal system. Our laws should be applied equally to everyone; if you’re here illegally you’re deported, period.
Daniel’s “truce” on social issues with the left is unacceptable, and his rhetoric against us who are social conservatives are not doing him any favors, you might want to get to him and let him know “that”!
J.S.
>>I’m from KY<<
So was my grandma. She always hated being called a brier hopper.
I can’t force you to tell me the truth, but if we put up a weak illegal immigration candidate against Obama, you would actually stay home and not vote? Or, are you talking about primary requirements?
Why would I ever vote for someone who doesn’t believe in upholding the laws of this nation?
It would be like voting for Barak Obama!
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.