You forgot her $$$$ gig at FNC. Pretty good work if you can find it.
Posted on 03/19/2012 9:02:16 PM PDT by techno
Before I get into the 10 primary reasons for conservative self-destruction in 2012 I first want to say that the conservative movement is NOT monolithic or one-dimensional, that each reason I offer that points to its political self-destruction may NOT apply to each conservative. But in terms of the movement itself as represented by tens of millions of American patriots, these reasons do encapsulate why conservatives almost invariably end up as the bridesmaid and never the bride, are left out shivering in the cold or end up shooting themselves in the foot during presidential election cycles where the GOP President himself is not up for re-election.
Now specifically to the 2012 election cycle, it has always been my contention since the fantastic GOP midterm victory in 2010, that the only way that conservatives could bring about the re-election of President Obama is to fail to learn from this recent political triumph, to continue to make the same dumb mistakes or missteps as they have in the past election cycles, and through various adverse decisions in this primary cycle to facilitate the eventual nomination of Mitt Romney, who I feel is destined to lose to Obama in the fall.
I have already in previous postings, offered my opinions to why I believe that Romney will fall short to Obama so that is NOT the purpose of this post. But what is the purpose is to explain why and how the conservative movement in 2012 has missed the boat and done its part to ensure Romney is finally nominated and the consequences that will entail:
Here are the 10 reasons:
1)The conservative movement failed to rally around Sarah Palin after the midterm election and embrace her as its white knight after her mighty contribution to the midterm results. In fact in 2011 many in the movement rejected her potential candidacy outright because they deemed her unelectable or believed the media narrative that she was. I'm NOT saying this was the only reason Palin did NOT run--the GOP establishment, the media and the Left all did their part to torpedo her presidential ambitions--but objectively can anyone honestly say that Sarah Palin would NOT have been a better conservative candidate against Mitt Romney than Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain or Rick Perry?
Take fundraising: Is there any doubt or argument that Palin had the potential to raise a lot more money than any of the above five candidates given she has attracted over 3m Facebook members and has over 500,000 Twitter followers?
Think about it: What is the #1 reason Romney is beating up so badly on both Santorum and Gingrich? Money.
In contrast the GOP establishment always has gravitated towards the presidential candidate in each election cycle who has the requisite cachet and has the potential to raise the most amount of money.
2)After Sarah Palin bowed out of the presidential sweepstakes on October 5, 2011, I called for conservatives to hold a national convention for the purpose of choosing one conservative candidate to rally around to take on Mitt Romney one-on-one. Critics of my suggestion said it was impractical or too late. The critics won: Ultimately my suggestion was not taken up by the movement.
Conservatives are still NOT united.
3)As in the past conservatives have simply not exercised their power of numbers to tip the scales towards a conservative candidate being chosen by the GOP. The facts are generally in each state primary/caucus from 3/5 to 2/3 of all voters (including independents and Democrats) tell exit pollsters they are conservative, the rest being liberal or moderates. Rarely or seldom do you hear any conservative cite this advantage in the vote. Are conservatives ashamed of their advantage? Why does the movement apparently ignore it? Inferiority complex. Makes you wonder.
4)To follow up on (2), conservatives insist on being independent and willful and that is manifested in conservatives continually splitting their votes among two, three or more conservative candidates.
I'm NOT saying conservatives are mathematically challenged but I will say their unilateral and unrealistic insistence on being or remaining politically dogmatic rather than becoming practical or pragmatic in their primary voting decision is one of the main reasons why Romney is in the ascendancy and why Obama will be re-elected to another term.
Even at this late date, conservatives refuse to coalesce around one conservative candidate. And Mitt Romney is laughing all the way to the bank.
5)Since the Arizona and Michigan primaries at the end of February, many national and state polls have shown many "very conservative" voters, evangelicals and Tea party supporters moving in Romney's direction for the first time thereby narrowing the lead that Rick Santorum has over Romney in all three demographics.
For example two weeks ago, Rasmussen showed Santorum and Romney neck and neck among TP supporters and last week showed Santorum only up by 5 over Romney.
If not for this "ideological crossover" most likely, Romney would NOT have won either Michigan or Ohio.
Think about it: Wouldn't the race look a lot different now if Santorum had eked out wins in both of these states?
6)And when these new conservative supporters of Romney are asked to why they are now supporting him, they cite his electability against President Obama. Either they are clueless dimwits and totally ignorant or have fallen for the media narrative that Romney is a "superman" on par with the Messiah, because there is no way objectively anyone should come to the conclusion that Romney has a monopoly on electability, based on several polls over the past month that also show Rick Santorum very competitive against Obama.
7)PT Barnum supposedly coined the phrase, "There's a sucker born every minute."
He must have known a lot of conservatives in his day. For how else do you explain that the same "snake oil" is sold every election cycle, that the nomination of a conservative by the GOP would be catastrophic for the Republican Party, bringing back memories of the Goldwater debacle, and that only by nominating a moderate can the GOP build a broad enough coalition to win a presidential election. And conservatives like sheep vote for the establishment candidate even though there are clear examples where this strategy did NOT work: Dole (1996) and McCain (2008).
Are conservatives really that stupid or do they have a death wish? Or are they simply insane?
The definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
8)Conservatives are simply NOT sophisticated or knowledgeable enough to deal with the media propaganda machine of the Left and/or the GOP establishment/political class propaganda that although generated from different sources and out of different motives act in unison to construct a false narrative (in this case the inevitability of Mitt Romney)and premise (Romney is the only one who can beat Obama)and thereby convince conservatives they would be foolish or ill-advised to vote for someone other than Mitt Romney.
Propagandists know the best way to influence someone to change his or her behavior is to shame them into making the change for fear of political embarrassment (Goldwater) or make them fear voting for someone the media has NOT anointed, the fear being it will lead to the re-election of Obama.
Unfortunately for the conservative movement, too many of its members are too wrapped up in the spiritual realm, spend 2/3 of the day devoted to keeping their business alive or thriving or devote most of their spare time to raising their kids or pursuing their avocations. And our enemies know this all too well. To them most conservatives are like babes in the woods politically ready to be taken for a ride. And our enemies know exactly which buttons to push at a given time to elicit the results that they want.
9)And then there are the conservatives in the movement who are ready and willing to sell out their values and political principles and convictions in 2012 while forgetting the lessons of 2010 where the conservative enthusiasm gap was sky-high due to the conservative movement advocating conservative ideas and ideals.
Of course during the midterms, the conservative movement was led by the charasmatic Sarah Palin.
In the game rock, paper, and scissors, rock beats scissors, paper wins over rock and scissors claims victory over paper. Rock is the Democrats (the Left), paper is our side (conservatives who adhere to and affirm conservative values and principles) and scissors is the GOP establishment/RINO's.
The Democrats (rock) can be defined by SECULAR HUMANISM.
Conservatives (paper) can be defined by MORAL CLARITY.
The GOP establishment/RINO's can be defined by CRAVEN EXPEDIENCY.
In a nutshell why Romney will in all likelihood win the nomination is that enough conservatives have abandoned their bedrock of MORAL CLARITY to hop onto the bandwagon of and into bed with CRAVEN EXPEDIENCY. Perhaps betrayal is too strong a word. But could some in the conservative movement be accused of voluntarily abandoning the high moral ground? I think the accusation is justified. The proof is in the pudding. How many so-called social conservatives are now convinced that our side has to abandon its pursuit of social values for the expediency of the moment, fiscal and economic concerns? Why can't you have both? Because the media has convinced them that they can't by creating a false dichotomy.
10)And the last reason I believe the conservative movement has self-destructed lies in the steadfast belief of the movement that it does NOT need one leader or at least a leadership council to represent all conservative, evangelicals and TP supporters in the nation. Think about it: What other large group that boasts tens of millions of members is not represented by leadership that speaks for all the members.
As a result each autonomous unit within the conservative movement sets its own priorities and often offers varying opinions and when there are hundreds of units, there is bound to disagreement, disunity and sometimes even internecine warfare. Simply, the conservative movement never speaks with one clear voice.
And our enemies know that; with that in mind they plan and strategize to muddy the waters to what the conservative movement really believes (eg the birther movement), pick each unit off one by one or to play one group off against the other, the goal always to keep the conservative movement disjointed and at odds with each other. In other words, while conservatives are expending time and energy fighting each other, Romney, the GOP establishment, the GOP political class and the Left can stay on course and eventually prevail on behalf of the ruling class of elites.
And once the 2012 election is over, our enemies will put their presidential election playbook on the shelf for another 3 years or so, only to be dusted off again for 2016. And the tragedy of this resurrection is, our enemies won't have to change their playbook one iota, for the conservative movement in all likelihood will be as naive, clued out and gutless then as they are now.
Many of us have said something similar.
I have said that conservatives could and should build a party-within-a-party, hold its own conventions, have its own structures, have its own fundraising mechanisms.
There were a number of feasible conservative candidates, but they chose not to run.
You forgot her $$$$ gig at FNC. Pretty good work if you can find it.
I disagree. I think that we need to keep this going.
However I am frustrated by all the sneaky bills being floated in by Obama during moments of buzz in the primary.
I am NEWT first, but I actually don’t care if he becomes president. I just want his voice to last.
I want Santorum to clean his act up, he is fumbling constantly. He may become really sharp in the next few months, if he is the nominee he needs it.
Romney.. jeez I don’t even know where to start other than to say I hope we get a brokered convention and his liberal agenda gets the dump right a long with his partners coulter and drudge.
Many of us wanted Jim DeMint to run. The good ones stayed out of this race. We got dreck.
I’m not so sure. There are many conservatives who are closet liberals
Don’t blame me
For falling in love with you
I’m under your spell
But how can I help it
Don’t blame me
I was for Attila the Hun, but what could I do?
#9 is the main reason. Voters got distracted by a fiscal socialist (Rick Santorum) who is in it solely to plunder the country. The Tea Party was not solely about abortion to the exclusion of economics.
The Tea Party was mainly about the economy but also opposed abortion in Obamacare. Then came RINO Santorum who changed the message. He has shifted the focus to the usual stuff - abortion and homosexuality to the EXCLUSION of economics. So the rhetoric will focus on this and make it an election like any other.
The Tea Party anger was due to TARP, Auto industry bailout, various handouts like cash for clunkers, the economic stimulus program AND Obamacare (this includes the abortion clause in Obamacare as well). It was not just the stuff in parenthesis in the previous sentence like Karl Rove stooge Santorum is making it out to be.
Did you get a look at Attila’s birth certificate?
Better Obama than McInsane.
Right?
If Obama is re-elected it will be the fault of the GOP not conservatives.
Actually, conservatives are united -- in support of Newt Gingrich. These are Constitutional conservatives. Their agenda is simple, it is Constitutional, and needs no deception.
People who want to establish a religious tyranny are united behind Rick Santorum. There is nothing conservative about this bunch. Ask them, "exactly what is it you are trying to conserve?" You won't get a straight answer. They can't be honest about their agenda, which is why Santorum can't clearly articulate what the heck he stands for.
Liberals who are masquerading as Republicans are united behind Mitt Romney. Their agenda is the same as Obama's, only with different beneficiaries.
3)As in the past conservatives have simply not exercised their power of numbers to tip the scales towards a conservative candidate being chosen by the GOP. The facts are generally in each state primary/caucus from 3/5 to 2/3 of all voters (including independents and Democrats) tell exit pollsters they are conservative, the rest being liberal or moderates.
What you fail to realize is that you don't own the definition of the word "conservative." You and others sit here in your little echo chamber telling one another that a conservative has to agree with you on every little point to be classified as a conservative. When you see exit polls of a majority of people self-identifying as conservatives, you then jump to the conclusion that all of those people agree with you on each point of your definition of conservative. You think that someone just needs to gather them all together to win elections.
The whole situation would be funny if not so sad. You don't own the definition of "conservative." Plenty of people out here in the real world will self-identify as conservatives without agreeing with your defining points. These people couldn't care less that you think they are wrong to define themselves as conservatives even though they don't agree with you on what a conservative is. They are not your allies in your quest to have everything done your way. We all have to face this reality at one time or another. I'm just surprised that you and everyone else on here writing these rants hasn't faced this reality sooner.
9)And then there are the conservatives in the movement who are ready and willing to sell out their values and political principles and convictions in 2012 while forgetting the lessons of 2010 where the conservative enthusiasm gap was sky-high due to the conservative movement advocating conservative ideas and ideals.
An important lesson of 2010 is similar to an important lesson of 2006, 1998, 1994, and numerous other mid-term election years. Many Americans don't think in terms of ideology. They get a vague sense that things aren't going as well as they'd like, so they vote for change. They get a sense that those in power are going too far in one direction, so they try to turn the wheel to another direction. One of the great contrasts of 2010 was the difference in the Florida and Delaware Senate races. In Florida, Marco Rubio stayed on message. He presented a reasoned, intelligent image of a man who knew how to identify the important factors and focus on them. We knew in a general sense that he is pro-life and pro-gun, but he wasn't a sputtering, angry ideologue. In Delaware, Christine O'Donnell wasn't on message. We learned that she had strong opinions about masturbation. We learned that she wasn't a witch. She seemed to represent the angry ideologue. I have no doubt that the media played a huge part in keeping her off message, but that's the field on which we play. If we are going to win, we need candidates who can stay on message and whose past will not seem odd to the average voter (who may claim to be conservative but still doesn't see the world through your eyes).
Since the Arizona and Michigan primaries at the end of February... Think about it: Wouldn't the race look a lot different now if Santorum had eked out wins in both of these states?
Rick Santorum was clobbered in Arizona. He lost by 20 points. Even if all of Newt Gingrich's votes had gone to Rick Santorum, he still would have lost. You're talking about eking out a win in a state where he wasn't even in the game. That kind of talk is delusional.
Rick Santorum was a little more than 3 points behind in Michigan, but he was that close only because the Democrats encouraged their people to vote for him because he's the weakest GOP candidate. Talk of eking out a win in Michigan is a little more realistic, but Rick Santorum is still a candidate who had only 2% base of support at the start of the campaign. Two percent of the GOP voters really thought he'd be a good president. The rest of his voters are just looking for an alternative to Mitt Romney. Even with these negative, anti-Romney votes, he's consistently losing.
And conservatives like sheep vote for the establishment candidate even though there are clear examples where this strategy did NOT work: Dole (1996) and McCain (2008).
In addition to being "establishment" candidates, Bob Dole and John McCain have something else in common. They were both senators. Senators do not defeat sitting presidents. Even conservative senators like Barry Goldwater do not defeat sitting presidents like LBJ. I can't remember a senator beating a sitting president in the past 100 years. In spite of that, some people actually want to run Rick Santorum against Obama.
Who does defeating sitting presidents? Governors defeat sitting presidents. Bill Clinton defeated GHW Bush. Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter. However, conservatives insist that we can't nominate the only governor left in the race.
1)The conservative movement failed to rally around Sarah Palin after the midterm election and embrace her as its white knight after her mighty contribution to the midterm results.
This one is silly. See the comparison of Marco Rubio to Christine O'Donnell. While I admit that Sarah Palin had a better resume than Christine O'Donnell did, she wasn't good at staying on message and her past made staying on message harder. In the public eye, she didn't represent the reasoned, intelligent, competent leader. Instead, she represented the boiling passion of extremists. That image of her wasn't entirely fair, but that image wasn't going away. Furthermore, posts like yours make clear that many of her supporters embraced that image specifically. A majority of Americans were not going to vote for that image regardless of whether they held generally conservative views on the individual issues.
10)And the last reason I believe the conservative movement has self-destructed lies in the steadfast belief of the movement that it does NOT need one leader or at least a leadership council to represent all conservative, evangelicals and TP supporters in the nation.
In earlier paragraphs, you want us to remember the successes of 2010, but in 2010, we succeeded without a designated leader or organization. TEA Party was a term that described a disconnected movement of people of various backgrounds and interests. In some areas, "TEA Party" people were religious conservatives. In other areas, they were mostly libertarians. The movement's first success was the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts. Scott Brown is a very different senator from Marco Rubio who is different from Rand Paul who is different from Christine O'Donnell who was a little too similar to Sharon Angle who is different from Mark Kirk. If we'd had a single leadership who gave us Christine O'Donnells and Sharon Angles in every race, the Democrats would still have about 58 Senate seats. If we'd had a single leadership who gave us Marco Rubios, Rand Pauls, and Scott Browns where necessary, we'd probably control the Senate, but you probably wouldn't be happy with our senators.
I'd love to see this country move in a conservative direction, but your "strategies" are not going to get us there.
In 2009 I saw him on a show, it may have been Cavuto, asked if he would run for POTUS. He said “There is no way I would want that job”
I was obvious to me and I posted it that he was being 100% truthful. Who with any common sense would want that job?
“I was obvious to me and I posted it that he was being 100% truthful.”
I remember the post
“Who with any common sense would want that job?”
That is why we have the weak ones running now....
“The problem with “Conservatives” is that many of them are just closeted big government types “
You can’t even differentiate between a conservative and a RINO ?
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.