Posted on 08/12/2013 9:24:46 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Against all logic, some prominent conservatives continue to promote the absurd proposition that right-wing candidates who fail to win over GOP voters in Republican primaries would magically succeed on November ballots. This assumption enables them to retain a naive faith in the claim that "true conservatives" who can't mobilize their own base to win nominations will somehow triumph in general elections by drawing support from moderates and liberals.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has most recently voiced this idea. "You know, if you look at the last 40 years, a consistent pattern emerges," Mr. Cruz observed in a July interview with ABC. "Any time Republicans nominate a candidate for president who runs as a strong conservative, we win. And when we nominate a moderate who doesn't run as a conservative, we lose."
Really? In 1988, George H.W. Bush sought the presidency by promising to deliver a "kinder, gentler" America. Despite the opposition of most conservatives (who passionately preferred Jack Kemp, Pat Robertson or even Bob Dole in the primaries), Mr. Bush crushed Michael Dukakis in the general election and swept 40 states and 426 electoral votes—the last Republican candidate to win the presidency decisively.
Mr. Bush's son won the White House twice by running as a "compassionate conservative" who had worked amicably with Democrats as Texas governor. Pledging he'd be a "uniter, not a divider," George W. Bush favored increases in federal education spending, a Medicare benefit for prescription drugs and immigration reform that included a path to citizenship.
Richard Nixon's first term featured wage/price controls, the imposition of affirmative action, intensified environmental regulations, and compromise agreements with Communist regimes in China, Russia and North Vietnam. One conscientious conservative congressman, John Ashbrook of Ohio, challenged "Republican in name only" Nixon in the 1972 GOP primaries with the slogan "No Left Turns,"
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
The rest of the article is not viewable to non-subscribers.
MM has well, I am not sure but he is not who he once was.
O.K. Mike, no need to change strategy.
The path to victory is paved with the likes of Romney, McCain, and Dole.
He may or may not realize it. If he says that constitutional principles will no longer sell in America, he is saying that he believes America as a constitutional republic is dying or dead.
This may be true. If it is, he should for the sake of clarity say so.
Well then Michael, lets just run as democrats and be done with it.
Agreed. That is indeed what he is saying. Sadly, it is also very very true.
Hogwash. Bush ran as a strong, "kinder and gentler" conservative in that election and ran a very conservative campaign. His team often referred to it as being Reagan's third term. Remember "Read my lips"? - That was a conservative promise not to raise taxes. If was Bush's failure to govern as a conservative that cost him a second term becasue he broke his promises.
In 1988, George H.W. Bush sought the presidency by promising to deliver a "kinder, gentler" America. Despite the opposition of most conservatives (who passionately preferred Jack Kemp, Pat Robertson or even Bob Dole in the primaries), Mr. Bush crushed Michael Dukakis in the general election and swept 40 states and 426 electoral votes—the last Republican candidate to win the presidency decisively.
Yeah, and that's because Bush ran as a continuation of Reagan's policies. When he jerked back to his RINO roots in governance, he paved the way for a very weak (at the time) Bill Clinton.
Medved loves the Doles, McCains, and Romneys of wobbly class. He loves losing.
And that path is paved with most supposed conservatives that will run out, vote for them, and argue to the death it is the conservative thing to do.
I cannot imagine why the GOP keeps running evermore leftist candidates....nope. Not a clue.
“Reagan himself (whose gubernatorial record of...endorsement of legalized abortion”
Is this true?
RE: The rest of the article is not viewable to non-subscribers.
Try this link and click on the first item that comes up:
You don't need to deport one, single illegal alien, Mikey.
All you have to do is stop giving them free stuff as prize for making it across the border.
RE: “Reagan himself (whose gubernatorial record of...endorsement of legalized abortion”
Is this true?
_______________
Yes, as governor of CA, he signed into law an abortion bill, which he later regretted.
He also signed into law as president, one of America’s most generous amnesty bill in 1987. Which he again expressed regret for later.
RE: I quite listening to Medved fifteen years ago when he was peddling the tripe that the US cannot enforce its immigration law because it would be physically impossible to deport that many people.
He still holds to that view today.
Thanks, I added Medved to my list!
(Of “experts pundits” that I no longer need to waste time reading or listening to.)
Typical whitewashing. Bush won in ‘88 as a continuation of Reagan and won in landslide. When he ran on his own moderation, he lost.
Nixon in both ‘68 and ‘72 ran as a law and order, to hell with the hippies conservative. And the conservative movement was just getting its footing when Nixon ran.
It is only since 1976 that the real record should be looked at i.e. Reagan’s challenge to Ford. Ford lost barely, Reagan won big, then big again, and Bush won on Reagan. Bush lost, Dole lost, Bush won barely and then barely again (victories mind you from a candidate running as a conservativ), McCain lost and Romney lost.
The fact remains that we haven’t had a strong conservative as the nominee since Reagan and we haven’t had a large victory since Reagan (Bush’s first victory is essentially Reagan’s third).
Medved apparently doesn’t want candidates’ moderation to be considered as a factor in their continual losses.
Michael is your typical Big-Spender Republican. Not quite fiscally conservative, embraces the practical, and supports the establishment. Not a quite a liberal. Religious in his own home. ‘Tolerant’ of abberant behavior.
Jeb Bush is his man, Sarah Palin is a ‘Persona non-grata’.
He represents the Republican party and the reason why we will be saddled with every entitlement program the DemocRATs will shove up our collective *sses, while all the time telling us he is against it.
W.A.S.S.
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.