Noemie Emery: Why can’t conservative candidates win Republican presidential primaries?

Hot Air ^ | March 21, 2013 | Allahpundit

[2ndDivisionVet]

An unsparing piece keying off the same Rick Perry soundbite at CPAC that inspired this post. Perry said that it’s unfair to blame conservatism for the GOP’s losses in 2008 and 2012 because, after all, our nominees weren’t conservative. Emery’s response: Then why did Republican primary voters vote for them instead of for a solid conservative like, say, Rick Perry?

Her answer? Between Reagan’s generation and the current crop of Rubio, Scott Walker, etc, there simply haven’t been many good conservative candidates.

Instead, against establishment types who were national figures, the conservative movement flung preachers and pundits (Pat Robertson, Alan Keyes and Pat Buchanan), has-beens and losers (New Gingrich and Rick Santorum), and others still worse (Herman Cain, for example), who on second thought lost even conservative primary voters.

To deny all this reality, some movement types invented a conspiracy theory. The Establishment met at the Country Club on alternate Tuesdays to undermine all the upcoming Reagans (who sadly enough never existed). This is untrue, and it keeps these movement types from facing the real problem — the failure of the conservative movement to find and develop successors to Reagan over the space of the past 20 years…...

[Hot Tabasco]

Because the MSM picks our candidates and promotes them.

Case in point: When was the last time you heard John McCain being refered to as "the Maverick John McCain"? We heard it almost daily since Nov. of 2004 and never again since Nov., 2008.........

[ansel12]

Palin proved in her many years in politics and elective office that she is a uniter and that people of all persuasions and parties like her and trust her, the divisive image is a creation of mass media and the two party’s national leadership and image machines, it is a result of unnatural forces, a false image, not of her governance and of the offices she has held, including that of Governor.

[robowombat]

Please explain this statement:

steal children (to sell to pathological, false parents)

[CharlesWayneCT]

Because there is no such thing as a conservative majority.

There is a majority of people who say they are conservative, but they don’t agree on everything.

So, conservatives get into battles between their competing “conservative” philosophies, and split the vote. Mostly because conservatives tend to be all-or-nothing, not wanting to compromise, which means not accepting anybody else’s conservative candidates.

When we stop confusing political compromise with abandonment of principles, we’ll probably end up with a much more conservative outcome. But so long as we can declare a man (like Rand Paul) the conservative savior one week, and a RINO-amnesty sellout the next, we’ll never be able to get together on a single candidate.

[robowombat]

The Establishment strategy if the past generation is transparent. To them it’s always ‘64, not ‘80. It’s as if Reagan never happened, and we’re perpetually in danger of being Goldwatered.

That is because the GOP establishment is all about its members holding on to their power and perks, not about winning. The GOP wins hands down on corporate campaign contributions. The Dems do well and now have Wall Street in their pocket as well as Hollywierd but the GOPers rake money in from every business PAC imaginable. That is the key. The GOP establishment just needs to keep its position as as insider stakeholders and they can make deals for their campaign contributors and make themselves rich. There is less and less community of interests between the party establishment and the largest block of Republican loyalist voters. People like Karl Rove (who was defended with near fanaticism on this site back in ‘06 and ‘07) detest most of the party base and just wish it would go away and let him and his ilk continue the important business; making deals and defending a wide range of corporate interests and pork.

[Timber Rattler]

Then why did Republican primary voters vote for them instead of for a solid conservative like, say, Rick Perry?

Next for GOP leaders: Stopping Sarah Palin

'nuff said.

[familyop]

I’ll explain it well enough. The doctrine of Parens Patriae should be abolished. It doesn’t belong in a free nation.

[robowombat]

Perhaps not but it was enunciated in England in the 16th century and was thus incorporated into the common law heritage of the U.S. The frequency of its abuse would be interesting to know. The fake ‘satanic ritual abuse’ hysteria of the 70’s and 80’s certainly makes this doctrine a problematical one.

[familyop]

Tell you what. Here’s one example.

Family’s Home Raided over Facebook Photo of Child’s Rifle (NJ)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2999174/posts

If Shawn hadn’t retained that attorney and had the attorney available on moment’s notice for a phone call, his kid probably would have been snatched. Others have had their children taken away for nothing more than temporarily not having running water in their homes.

[robowombat]

Can you provide something on this part of the statement?

‘to sell to pathological, false parents’

[familyop]

"The frequency of its abuse would be interesting to know."

Yes, it would. I'm not personally involved, but as an American,...

During the '90s, IIRC, hundreds of Texas social workers were prosecuted for crimes. A few years later, IIRC, there were similar problem in Florida. And many of us remember from universities, how many of the social work students behaved, dressed and so on (notorious).

Generally, beyond cases needed to be done and somehow with more due process (initiated by police), more of the children would be better treated by their parents. I wasn't complaining about all adoptive parents, but some, as we know, are influential and pathological (e.g., homo-activists trying to prove something).

[Soul of the South]

Pat Buchanan was the closest to a philosophical heir to Ronald Reagan. He ran against George H.W. Bush in the 1992 Republican presidential primaries and delivered a strong showing. Had he defeated the incumbent President Bush for the nomination in 1992, it is likely Ross Perot would not have entered the race and splintered the conservative/independent vote. A united conservative movement behind Buchanan might have defeated Bill Clinton, keeping the White House in Republican hands.

Since then conservatives have failed to field a candidate strong enough to overcome the moderate establishment favorite (Dole, Bush II, McCain, and Romney). The establishment candidate has the advantage of money and media support. In the last two elections, the liberal media displayed a strong bias toward McCain (2008) and Romney (2012) during the primaries, showing them with favorable coverage and while magnifying every gaffe or perceived imperfection in the conservative candidates. In 2012 the media was extremely effective in tearing apart Sarah Palin, the strongest potential conservative candidate, so that she would not even throw her hat in the ring. Once the nomination was sealed by the moderate establishment Republican, the media immediately began tearing him apart, even prior to the convention.

For a conservative to win the Republican nomination in this day, he/she will require charisma, superb communication skills, sources of substantial funding independent from the party, an unblemished moral background, tough skin, and the ability to fight with energy and conviction. Plus the ability to use modern communication technology and vehicles to go around the media. Other than potentially Palin, that candidate does not yet exist although Rand Paul and Marco Rubio seem to be trying. Paul Ryan and Bobby Jindal both lack the charisma and gravitas to capture the nomination. Palin has been successfully damaged with the general electorate by the media and has much to overcome before the election. Thanks to the work of the Democrats and media she is perceived as an intellectual lightweight. Her quitting her job as governor of Alaska, no matter the reasons, was not perceived well by the public who wants a President who will not wither under fire.

Since Buchanan conservatives have really not fielded a strong candidate with the charisma and communication skills, character, access to deep pockets, and strategic cunning required to mobilize the base and secure the nomination. Perhaps Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Rick Perry, possibly Paul Ryan, and perhaps someone off the radar today can build an image with the primary voter and the American people that makes him/her a powerful candidate. In the age of five second sound bites, and a media hostile to conservatives, this is a tall order.

[familyop]

On that part, see my last reply.

[robowombat]

That is true but I don't find anything about an arranged sale. Such children are dumped into the toxic foster care system. Are you saying that there are documented cases of corrupt bargains between the cops, family services/family courts and foster care providers in which there is a deliberate search by cops and child welfare workers for likely subjects to be hustled out of their homes and into connected foster care providers ‘homes’. This would be similar to the selling of ‘sturdy indigent lads and lasses’ to indentured servant brokers for resale in the colonies in the 17th and 18th centuries.

[hinckley buzzard]

Open primaries that allow liberal weasels to vote for the squishy among GOP candidates. Stupidest idea ever, and no one seems willing to address it.

[familyop]

Oh, no. I wasn’t saying that. I was equating fees and revenues with sales in some of the known dirtier cases, though. Adoption isn’t free. Sorry about the hyperbole.

We have seen in the news, though, international slavery from various practices of globalism. Not quite what we were discussing but maybe relevant to our future through deindustrialization, imports of cheap labor from other cultures without enough consideration of assimilation to American culture, etc.

[familyop]

"This would be similar to the selling of ‘sturdy indigent lads and lasses’ to indentured servant brokers for resale in the colonies in the 17th and 18th centuries."

Imagine legalized fees, political contributions, federal funding to local governments and the like, supporting a similar system.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks 2ndDivisionVet.

To deny all this reality, some movement types invented a conspiracy theory. The Establishment met at the Country Club on alternate Tuesdays to undermine all the upcoming Reagans (who sadly enough never existed). This is untrue, and it keeps these movement types from facing the real problem -- the failure of the conservative movement to find and develop successors to Reagan over the space of the past 20 years...

That paranoia is the same Victimhood mentality so often found among the Demwits and other libs and leftists, and at least as often derided by us.

[x]

To get elected president or get a major party nomination you usually have to demonstrate that you can win in a larger, more varied constituency. That means you most often have to be a governor or senator from a large or large-ish state. But to be elected a governor or senator from one of the larger states you usually have to appeal to moderates. To appeal to moderates you have to take stances that many conservatives will see as unconservative. So if you are a viable candidate (under most circumstances) you are probably not going to be seen as a true conservative.

It works the other way as well. To be seen as a true conservative, you have to take stances that probably will make it hard for you to get elected (and reelected) as a senator or governor of one of the larger, more diverse states. So "true conservatives" tend to be representatives or non-politicians (publishers, columnists, pizza magnates), and those are people who usually don't have the experience and skills to win elections.

So Cain and Bachmann weren't likely to be nominees or president. That goes for previous candidates like Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo or Bob Dornan or Steve Forbes. They didn't have the following, the appeal, the proven skills to win. Santorum couldn't win either. He couldn't even carry his own state. And Newt? Not likely either. Even people who liked him didn't really like him much. That leaves Rick Perry. In theory, he could have won. Just like in theory, Mitch Daniels or Tim Pawlenty could have won. In practice -- not so much. You can have the resume and look good on paper, but still not cut it on the campaign trail.

Also, I'm not saying that Romney didn't have a lot of money and endorsements that made for an uneven playing field. But he'd run before, as had McCain, as had Dole (as had Nixon, as had Reagan). For some people this looks like last time's loser just becoming the next time's loser. But they got experience. They made connections and formed relationships with donors, political bigwigs, journalists and consultants. That's what Reagan did himself. All of your candidates were running for the first time (except maybe for half-hearted efforts by Cain and Gingrich) and it looks like none of them will run again. So next time, you start off with equally unknown small-timers.

Ronald Reagan? Well, he was Governor of California, the biggest state. Nobody was going to say that he didn't have an administrative background and political skills. And he signed on with the conservative movement early on, so nobody was going to question his conservative credentials. Anybody else -- anybody since -- is going to have a harder time with that. Sometimes it looks like it's not so much that candidates lose because they're not conservative, as it is that they're not seen as conservative because they lose. If some of the losing candidates had won it might not be so easy to dismiss them. It's harder to pigeonhole at least one Bush as a moderate because he managed to win.

[lonestar67]

Bush beat McCain by being more conservative.

Reagan won in 80 after losing in 76

There is no inevitability to republicans losing.