I’m sorry to say I have listened to this surrender monkey in the past.
We cannot out democrap the democraps.
Our country needs to reform their social agenda past.
Well he’s right. There’s no way in hell if you can’t win the primaries you can win an election. Conservatives need to find a candidate who wins both.
In 1988, George H.W. Bush sought the presidency by promising to deliver a “kinder, gentler” America. “
Nope.
That line came up after he was elected.
How did that McCain / Romney thing work out for you, Michael?
In 1988, George H.W. Bush sought the presidency by promising to deliver a “kinder, gentler” America. “
In fact, now that I thik about it, and apparently I have in about sixty seconds thought more about it than Medved, Bush ACTUALLY ran as a brass balls conservative.
Ever heard of Willie Horton?
How about Lee Atwater?
Medved is simply wrong on his facts here.
I used to listen to Michael a lot and have recently been thinking of hunting him down again. This article convinces me to not even bother.
He conveniently doesn’t discuss Reagan’s 2 landslides by running as a staunch conservative and credits Bush I as winning on the GOP move to the left. The reality is that Bush I only won because the voters expected it to be a “third term” for conservatives.
Then I scan further down and he seems to be crediting Nixon as some great President. I would rank Nixon as one of the worst 5 Presidents, simply because he gave us the EPA and the WOsD. Both of which are majorly trampling on our individual liberty and freedom.
MM, I thought I knew you...I guess I was wrong. Maybe you’ve just seen too many movies...
Bush won on Reagan’s name. Nixon won on Vietnam. This Guy is an IDIOT
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.Umm, the majority of the early GOP primaries, where the races are won or lost, occur mainly in blue states and allow crossover votes. (in order to be "inclusive")
The people that would come out in the general election to support a conservative candidate have little or no say in how the Republican choice is nominated.
All the "pundits" tend to gloss over that little factoid.
As soon as I saw “Medved”,
I mentally threw it in the trash.
Here’s my personal breaking point with Medved: when he got hot and bothered when we (conservatives) were calling McCain a “RINO”.
Medved whined and cried and said it wasn’t a winning strategy.
I despise Michael Medved. This guy has been dining out on his ‘conservative talk show host’ shtick for far too long.
Taking “conservative” strategic advise from Medved isn’t far from what mclame will tell us how to behave.
Look up GOPe in the dictionary and you find Medved’s pic along with the other usual suspects.
Yes, the country has moved farther than we all would have thought, but the attempt needs to be made to bring it back because liberal polices simply lead to destruction in all areas of life.
The attempt at educating people to see that conservatism is the right way to approach life and politics, a positive way that leads to renewal and a better life is something that needs to be done, not capitulation to the destructive nonsense of liberalism.
That neo-Con is now a Re-O-Lib.
If nominated, Medved will support him. ;-)
A neat trick by Medved to attribute Bush 41’s victory to his moderate policies, instead of attributing 41’s victory on the record of accomplishment of Reagan. When 41 ran for re-election, he didn’t do so well.
To be sure, in each party, the nominee has to both motivate the base and appeal to marginal and swing voters. Moderates may be better at one part of this, but are handicapped at the other part. The last person to put up big numbers in his own name was Reagan. The only President since FDR to have been re-elected in a landslide and succeeded by the candidate of his party. But, Reagan had something special going for him. It wasn’t just his policies, but leadership. Reagan’s persona was key to his near landslide victory in 1980, and his persona plus the strong economic recovery delivered a true landslide victory in 1984, and the still strong economy propelled 41 to a near landslide victory in 1988.
If you will remember, back in 1980, even though Reagan named his chief rival from the moderate wing of the party as his VP, another moderate Republican - John Anderson of Illinois - still bolted the party and ran as an independent. Reagan kept enough of the moderates on the reservation to prevent Anderson from rupturing the party. (In contrast, going back to 1964, Goldwater was unable to prevent the rupture.) So, it is important that our candidate be effective like Reagan in keeping enough of the moderates with us, in addition to motivating the base and appealing to marginal and swing voters.
But, as for Medved’s thesis, no, moderates have not demonstrated any superior ability to conservatives in winning the general election.
I don’t think a TRUE conservative republican candidate will ever be elected again. The days of Reagan in America are over. This nation is now One Nation Under Socialism. This nation will never, ever be what it was. America is dying. It is a self inflicted, give me free stuff, wound. Everything I grew up loving about this nation no longer exists. As a kid in the 50s and 60s, everything was great, of family, God, what was truly good about America. Most of all that has died or taken on new names.
We need to end this “open primary” business and we need to slam the liberal media whenever we can.
Medved: Another RINO on my ignore list.
Romney was the best of a bad lot and many conservatives on this board refused to vote for him because he wasn't conservative enough.
Even still, charasmatic he was not. W/O a truly popular candidate we're staring down the barrel of a hillarity president.
God help us.