Posted on 11/14/2012 1:22:44 PM PST by jazusamo
The most successful Republican presidential candidate of the past half century— Ronald Reagan, who was elected and reelected with landslide victories— bore little resemblance to the moderate candidates that Republican conventional wisdom depicts as the key to victory, even though most of these moderate candidates have in fact gone down to defeat.
One of the biggest differences between Reagan and these latter-day losers was that Reagan paid great attention to explaining his policies and values. He was called "the great communicator," but much more than a gift for words was involved. The issues that defined Reagan's vision were things he had thought about, written about and debated for years before he reached the White House.
Reagan was like a veteran quarterback who comes up to the line of scrimmage, takes a glance at how the other team is deployed against him, and knows automatically what he needs to do. There is not enough time to figure it out from scratch, while waiting for the ball to be snapped. You have to have figured out such things long before the game began, and now just need to execute.
Very few Republican candidates for any office today show any sign of such in-depth preparation on issues. Mitt Romney, for example, inadvertently showed his lack of preparation when he indicated that he was in favor of indexing the minimum wage rate, so that it would rise automatically with inflation.
That sounds fine. But the cold fact is that minimum wage laws create massive unemployment among black teenagers. Conversely, one of the lowest rates of unemployment among black teenagers occurred in the 1940s, when inflation virtually repealed the minimum wage law passed in 1938, since even unskilled labor was paid more in inflated dollars than the minimum wage law required.
(Excerpt) Read more at creators.com ...
Nice to see you too. [big grin]
That’s true.
Journalism and socialism are joined at the hip. Journalism is about bad news, and ingratitude is the font of an unlimited supply of bad news. producers can be viewed either as the source of all goods or -the reason why we don’t have infinite supply of goods. It is only necessary for the socialist to promote the ungrateful vision in order to generate an unbounded supply of “great copy” for the journalist.
All of them, instead of explaining what it is and why it's good for the country and beneficial for the people of every race, gender and income level, spent time and effort to repudiate conservatism one way or another by stating that they are not "evil conservatives" but rather "kinder and gentler," "compassionate conservatives" or "care about all the people, all 100%, not just 47% (or is it 53%?)" etc. etc.
In other words, they never run on explaining and articulating the proven conservative ideas, but instead go into defensive mode by distancing themselves from Reaganism and small(er) government ideas (while at the same time claiming to be Reagan heirs and/or associating their record with his legacy)
Instead of articulating conservative solutions and any sense of vision, Romney's campaign spent $1B trying to redefine Romney from a stiff socially awkward uber-rich banker and political/ideological flip-flopper from Massachusetts (à la John F. Kerry, with an (R) after his name) and has failed to connect with Republicans, let alone "regular" people. You don't normally win on ABx ("Anybody But" ...) except by a fluke (GWB in 2000 and 2004).
Romney stated he was going to make a campaign a "referendum" on Obama presidency. Original, eh? Ya think, with un/under-employment, deficits, debt, fiscal policy and foreign policy worthy of Jimmy Carter? But "referendum" goes for both candidates, and the sitting President has distinct advantages in running a campaign. You can't beat "something" with "nothing."
People vote for the candidates they can relate to, not the party or the VP (e.g., see the Senatorial fiascoes in "safe" Republican states IN, MO, ND, and close presidential race in NC while easily taking over entire state legislature and governor's office). And Paul Ryan (whose budget and Medicare "plan" were the main cause of Republican budget and debt ceiling standoff fiasco) was a weak choice and of no help whatsoever, nationally or in WI. Yet GOP overall now has 30(60%) governors and about three quarters of legislatures nationwide, so it's not the conservative brand that's in trouble.
People like to vote for and could change their vote in favor of the "exciting" candidate they can trust - without it they either don't go to the polls or vote for the "default" candidate. Mistaking and confusing the size of crowds at the "concert" rallies for the groundswell at the polls will cost you every time, especially with more early and vote-by-mail voting in most states. Here is a chart of what real "Excitement Factor" looks like: Colorado Algorithm Predicts a Romney Triumph - FR, post #25, 2012 August 26
Instead of helping some Senate candidates, a man who just wanted to be a President (because he already had everything else he wanted) without a vision and ideas, just sucked $1B into his own campaign and was either absent, a non-factor or had some negative coattails, just like McCain in 2008.
Selling himself as a "businessman who created 100,000 jobs" was a fraud to begin with - it wasn't Mitt's own money, though he sat on the BOD of Staples as representative of Bain. In short, the supermarket chain veteran Thomas Stemberg (who invented the concept of "generic label" food and groceries) and his former competitor Leo Kahn took the supermarket model and "roll-up" concept popular in 1980s in other industries and applied it to the office supplies market, funded with the money from Kahn and several PE firms, which included Bain.
It's one thing to run Olympics or private equity / money management / consulting firm, where you have hundreds or thousands of "people" doing things for you, it's another to compete with someone real and skillful (not an "empty chair") for people's votes - empty chairs don't talk back, to borrow from Bloodsport (1988) - "Very good but brick not hit back!"
Apparently, it seems that he isn't such a good manager or a good technocrat, either, as the horror stories of internal disarray and disorganization in his campaign now come to light: Insiders Explain How Mitt Romney's Campaign Completely Fell Apart On Election Day - FR / BI, by Grace Wyler, 2012 November 12
Romney doesn't need to "apologize for his success" in making money, but it doesn't make him a "businessman" or a "job creator" and as a politician he was nothing but a failure, from his run for Senate, to his one term as a liberal Governor of MA, to failing to win a nomination against widely despised by conservatives and badly outspent John McCain despite pouring $50M of his own money. No wonder he found such a firm support from GOP-e in the next cycle - he was the most liberal and Bush-like in the bunch.
That leads to stupid mistakes like "I like to fire people" and "47%" (many people who don't pay income taxes and/or receive some form of permanent or temporary government assistance - e.g., military, temporarily out of work, retired etc. - are not freeloaders) or accusing Obama of "picking losers" (Solyndra, Ener1, A123 etc.), as if government "picking winners"> would be OK - so Obama nailed him with GM and Chrysler who are now declared "winners" because they are in business, with little debt and profitable - courtesy of taxpayers, of course.
Free advice to GOP, which they won't hear, won't see and won't take - Stop picking losers!
I’m late to this thread, and when I saw redgolum’s post I wanted to respond.
Then I saw your post, and now I post Thank you. You hit the nail square on the head.
Another great article from Dr. Sowell. Thanks for the ping jaz.
Why, you’re very welcome.
Romney had a really basic problem. There was very little he believed in.
He probably believed in tax cuts for the rich (as he is rich) and cutting some regulations, but that was it and as I saw it he ran as play-dough saying anything he thought sounded good at the moment.
And he came off some-what weak except the first debate where O played passive. There was no vision, he was a robot.
Compare these:
Conservative visionary:
“ I have been traveling the country on my campaign and what I see is the great American spirit thirsting to succeed but being held back by powers both government and private almost too great and complex to even understand. Americans don't want handouts from others. They want to succeed and feel proud of themselves for it and to be able to lift others up by being able to offer them good paying jobs with a future.
Obama doesn't offer them a future. He offers them the chains of government dependent slavery. That is death, a living death. Americans wont accept that on election day. That is not what being American is about.
Well I tell voters: elect me and I will break those chains that are holding them back,
I know what the government is doing wrong and what it can do to stop this. I have turned around companies and created XXxs of real jobs, not government make-work jobs and food stamps that he offers that just put this country in more debt. Please vote XX on election day and help turn this country around.
And God bless”
Uninspiring Loser(Mitt) :
Whispering to contributor while being secretly recorded:
“ Things are really bad out there. Half the countries voters are a bunch of lazy moochers who just want free handouts and they they want the government to take them from us to give to them. You need to deep in your pockets for $$$ so I can try to hold them off for a while”
Insulting the voters always works Mitt.
Romney was a loser. He shamed himself by running.
I have little concern for him shaming himself, and I’m sure you don’t either. It just galls me that he took a slot an actual Conservative could have taken.
I’m banking on it being Jeb Bush that will fill the Romney roll in 2016.
we really needed a mittens photo-op of him buyin a gallon of milk or a hamburger to show how he relates to the proles...
What I was getting at there was that he gets caught on tape trying to make that remark in secret, and it worked great for O because MR had no related message to general voters such as the example I made up (in 15 minutes yet), now he comes up with this sore loser stuff after the fact.
All he is doing is causing problems for us with this statement. Its not dignified for a (ex-) POTUS nominee to talk like that. Leave that to talk radio.
AHHHH, Grasshopper
Because most people would reply that you SHOULD pay a few more cents for your big MAC to help out some poor black kid who works at McDs whose Mom is on welfare. I know better than to use that argument. Try your arguments with those who dont usually agree with you.
Sowell would say (has said) the the minimum wage is hurting the unskilled worker (the most) who is only qualified for those jobs. In other words it is hurting the poor it claims to help out of compassion. It creates less jobs for them and less opportunity for them to get critical work experience they need to move upward.
That is why Reagan pushed for the earned income tax credit instead of raising the minimum wage.
No one cares if we have to pay more for a Big Mac and fries, or if someone on welfare has to pay more. But how do you get them off welfare if you are killing those jobs?
maybe so, but most people have no ability or desire to think thru the econ model 101 that is minimum wage...
however, anybody who makes $1 above min, can plainly see his *loss* when the min is raised $.75...
*THEN* youve prepared the soil for econ 101...
I put that whole comment together in a few minutes and wanted to finish making that concise point. I could have put it this way.
“ Romney shamed himself and us by running such an empty POTUS campaign about nothing; and now he is making excuses for his failure which is just making him look worse.
Its not dignified for a (ex-) POTUS nominee and losing candidate to talk like you are Mitt. Leave that to talk radio. Go away and stay off TV. You have done enough.“
That is what I am getting at. Few people have been exposed to why we have a capitalistic system and why we allow prices. Sowell is best at explaining that.
More specifically, why gubment compassionate policies do the opposite as they are intended and claimed, by explaining econ 101.
Look, Obama and Dems come out with fancy big word claims that come from ‘the educated experts’ to back up their compassion policies so voters who vote for them can tell themselves that they voted for the smart guy who knows how to fix things, and be 'fair'.
Then they claim that everyone knows that Republican policies dont work citing old W once again.
Time for Rs to stop using simple arguments that are
based on assumptions that they havent proved or even explained to voters, so easy to trash.
1) raising the price of those employees beyond what they are worth to employer.
2) Raising the price of a burger so people buy less, requiring less employees (extends your point)
Dems will counter “ Everyone knows that employers just need/want more ‘demand’ and that only comes from more gubment stimulus and investments (spending)”
They repeat this hundereds of times on TV and not one R has challenged it. I know Dems inside and out and I know econ 101.
I was talking about Romney in this ‘Rs’ reference.
2) Raising the price of a burger so people buy less, requiring less employees (extends your point)
problem is multi fauceted tho...the welfare queen wont believe point 1, as employee *cost* is apparently not a big deal to someone who gets a check for *free*...and point 2 is similar in that when its OPM, the cost of the burger is irrelevant anyways...
years ago i noticed that in the hood, the price of that big mac was a full .10 higher than on the upscale side of town...IOW, it was the minority franchises that seemed to be *price gouging* because they simply knew they could... Dems will counter “ Everyone knows that employers just need/want more ‘demand’ and that only comes from more gubment stimulus and investments (spending)”
full circle back to my 'laying the field' for econ 101...as even the welfare queen can be enlightened to the fact that when big brutha *spends* money on stimulus, that there is less *pie* for her fat snout to munch upon...
anybody [dem drones] who works to collect a check can be easily shown that they are getting a pay cut when the min is raised, simple math and all...they have to be shown that the fedzillas appetite is never satisfied, and that 'stimulus' requires more of a difference between their 'net' and 'gross' on their stubs... I know Dems inside and out and I know econ 101.
yep, but have you figgured out how to make the blind see ???
i cant articulate this stuff on the fly, so it remains to be seen how to do it wholesale...i get frustrated and wanna smack em in the mouth...politickin and gilbo dont mix...
My points are not targeted to the welfare queen silly. If she votes at all its certainly not for an R, more like Marion Barry LOl.
Mine is for all those middle class voters and even some of those working poor who think its their job to vote compassion and Obama’s lecturing about experts in a confident (arrogant ) tone give them intellectual cover for it.
If Republicans dont start the tuitorals then they will rarely win any battles.
Look at Mitt, he just gives up and says have the gubment raise it and the cheering for him here was deafening from many. Mitt COULD have just said that its the states job to raise it instead of playing Obama-light.
Reagan said he was not an actor and he had thirty movies to prove it.
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.