Posted on 11/05/2008 5:25:47 AM PST by VaBthang4
I'm not making the case that he was OUR view of the ideal economic libertarian, but I would say that the rhetoric he was campaigning on was much more so than what Obama was churning out (which would be hard not to do, admittedly). We need to face it, however, that McCain's rhetoric about less spending/lower taxes - which are the heart and soul of the "soft" economic libertarianism of Reagan and the GOP for the past 30 years - didn't resonate with the voters.
There's no way he would've beaten the Dem machine. This wasn't a presidential election as much as it was an American Idol contest. It was all about style, not substance, and RP would've been beaten easily.
Duncan had dropped by the time the MN Primaries came around, but he was my first choice.
Evidently you didn’t read Post #59. Guess you can’t read.
Apparently you missed man’s inalienable right to “LIFE....”. Perhaps you don’t know what conception means?
Who ever said anything about “easy” or “simple”. The Constitution was, afterall, drafted by some very bright and learned men. The original intent of the our founding fathers was to have a well educated citizenry so it could understand complex ideas. Today’s public education does not meet the standard.
The allure of “isms”— like communism, socialism and facism— is their seeming simplicity. But, in the end, they don’t work because they are too rigid and they make no allowance for man’s tendency to greed and elitism.
Our system has worked so well specifically because it allows for adaptation without compromising the important underlying constitutional tenets of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and property ownership.
Morevoer, the creation of three branches of government was designed to create sufficient tension to prevent one person or idea from prevailing. However, with the establishment of the political elite in this country, the checks and balances are not working as they were envisioned. Politicians are in the same office far longer than is healthy. Of course, the founding fathers never saw elected office as a full time job either.
Their expectation was that people would do their public duty, but still have non-political careers to which to return. Those who chose to, would serve a couple of terms and then return to the private sector. They never imagined elected office would become a full-time job—let alone a career.
There were many things in your post that I agreed with.
However, this
“And it was this same constipated old man thinking that ran the Republican campaign. The only real youth and vigor that Republicans had captured, had been through Ron Paul’s leadership. So what did the Republican Party do with Ron Paul & his followers? They kicked him (and them) out of the tent, and wouldn’t let Paul speak at the Republican Convention. Did anyone think about the fact that we were throwing out the most internet savvy, the best grassroots organizing, the best fund-raising, the youngest and most dynamic people in this whole election — even better than Obama’s? No. They weren’t Neocons, so they were categorized as “left-wing loonies”.
I am 55 years old and even I feel like I am talking to “my dad’s generation” in dealing with the Republican Party. And that should tell you something.”
-—was simply outstanding. I supported BJ Lawson in the run against David Price (he was solidly trounced) in the 4th NC district. He did not even plan to run until the primaries (he was a huge Ron Paul fan), and the party leadership sort of stood over to the side, horrified that he attracted the youth, the unwashed, blacks, split ticket Obama voters, and other ne’er do wells. His message of liberty, freedom, fidelity to the constitution, rejection of militarism, integrity, fiscal common sense..., all through a netting based on a deep personal commitment to Christ..., they were strong pulls for the most eclectic group of people I have ever seen among Republicans. A sold contingent of black people, tatooed and pierced, button down conservatives, and a WIDE group of people..., but mostly YOUNG people.
I am 53 years old, and I share your feeling that the Republican party is dominated by a bunch of blue haired geezers who are basically dyspeptic hating old churls who can’t figure out if they are conservative because they believe in it or because they are angry that life has moved on and passed them by. Maybe there will be a real time of soul searching among the Pub leadership. I sincerely hope so.
You can’t sell anything to people with closed minds. Today’s PC public education is producing generations of young adults who have no concept of critical thinking and/or problem solving. The only thing they are receptive to is a free ride.
Without fixing education, any effort to compete with the communists is a waste of time.
Lessee....Constitutional government, reducing and eliminating some taxes, 2A supporters....yep, those libertarians are really liberal leftists in disguise!
Want to find blame? Look to the GOP for the candidate they chose.
When a product fails, no sane person blames the consumer for not loving the product...only the GOP does that!
I won’t disagree with you about the education system at all...I used to teach college and quit shortly before PC became mandantory...
The selling, though, is in the presentation.
Considering the crap that gets sold in this country, it’s possible to sell anything, even worthwhile stuff. And that’s what we have to figure out...how to compete in the market of ideas and jargon and desirable stuff and get our message out. And then do it.
If we can’t then we don’t have something worth as much as the latest doodad, and that’s a sad commentary on what we believe in. It’s not worth as much as the latest “as sold on TV” gadget.
I can’t believe we would believe that.
-—When a product fails, no sane person blames the consumer for not loving the product.-—
We need to think more like advertisers. Blame the campaign, or sometimes the product, or the packaging, but not the product.
So we need a new way of packaging it that makes it desirable.
McCain could not be packaged as a Conservative and still maintain his integrity or credibility.
Does Palin have to be packaged? Or should the product be allowed to shine?
Packaging a candidate is almost always dishonest.
Really wasn’t thinking of the candidate, per se, as much as how to get the message about conservative values into people’s heads.
We need to pick candidates who match the values.
We need to pack the message in ways that compete through all the noise and soundbytes and sink into the guts of people...right now a lot of folks have a filter that tune out HOW we say it. They don’t even look. They don’t hear. They see: EVIL RIGHT and stop looking. That’s what we need to break through. It’s not content (substance), it’s technique, I suspect.
We’re being outcompeted in presentation.
Who owns a citizen's vote? Does the citizen own his/her own vote? Or are citizens' votes owned by the government agents, and lent to citizens on election day with the expectation that citizens will use them as the government "owner" wishes?
If a citizen owns his/her own vote, then it's correct to rephrase your comment thusly: "McCain cost himself the election by failing to earn Libertarian votes in many states."
Not at all!
Palin had no need for artificial presentation, neither do actual, honest, Conservatives....like Chuck Baldwin...who can articulate the values of Conservative politics.
It is when you get the Rudy's and Arnold's and McCain's out there who are by no means Conservative that you need to present them as something they aren't...just like Biden and Obama had to do.
The real heart of the matter is that a large part of the population doesn't understand Conservatism. Therefore it is afraid of Conservatism, or simply rejects Conservatism no matter how you present or package it.
Does anyone really think that Democrats do this? That they look at supporters and say, "No you are too clean cut for us?" Of course not, they say, "Welcome aboard! And here's what we'd like you to do -- go house to house in poor neighborhoods, reach out to the apathetic and get them to vote for us."
Unfortunately, a candidate like BJ Lawson didn't stand a chance dragging the weight of the Bush legacy, McCain and an old "Republican Guard" determined to undermine him.
But I was looking at the results and Lawson actually did better than McCain in most of the districts, so he succeeded beyond what would have been expected even if he didn't win. Small consolation, but a good possible indicator of the future.
I disagree. It's not that the message didn't resonate. The problem is that given the spending excesses of the GOP and McCain's own high-spending proposals, the less spending/lower taxes rhetoric was not believable.
That’s what I am talking about. You have to find out ways to present conservativism in a way that Joe Blow will think it matters to him.
If he doesn’t understand why it matters, or why it’s good, how can you expect him to want to vote for the conservative candidate?
McCain could never do that, nor could Arnold or Rudy.
If the candidate/product isn’t what the voter/consumer wants, then salesmanship will only sell a few more units but may dissappoint if the product underperforms.
Best is to stop with the mediocre candidates!
Great post Boka :)
Best to stop with mediocre candidates indeed! That never helps!
But the message is a lot more than just campaigning. We need to get the why it matters message out regularly, in and out of campaign season. This was more of what I was talking about.
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.