Posted on 10/27/2014 6:57:57 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
This is why I have no interest in National Review. I’m not forgetting the Alamo, either.
Henry Olsen, a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, studies and provides commentary on American politics. His work focuses on how to address, consistent with conservative principles, the electoral challenges facing modern American conservatism.
This work will culminate in a book entitled New Century, New Deal: How Conservatives Can Win Hearts, Minds and Elections.
Mr. Olsen has worked in senior executive positions at many center-right think tanks. He most recently served from 2006 to 2013 as Vice President and Director, National Research Initiative, at the American Enterprise Institute. He previously worked as Vice President of Programs at the Manhattan Institute and President of the Commonwealth Foundation.
Mr. Olsens work has been featured in many prominent publications, including The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, National Review, and The Weekly Standard. His pre-election predictions of the 2008, 2010, and 2012 elections have been particularly praised for their remarkable accuracy.
Mr. Olsen started his career as a political consultant at the California firm of Hoffenblum-Mollrich. He then worked with the California State Assembly Republican Caucus before attending law school. He served as a law clerk to the Honorable Danny J. Boggs, on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and as an associate at Dechert, Price & Rhoads. He has a B.A. from Claremont McKenna College and a J.D. from the University of Chicago Law School, where he served as Comment Editor for the University of Chicago Law Review.
NR online or otherwise lost its credibility long ago.
I stand with Ted
Also a stupid article since the ONLY national election one can win is for the presidency
The reason for the repeatedly weak GOP numbers is that the party stands for nothing, and millions truly believe that the Democrats stand for “democracy” and “people like me.” Those old false precepts won’t die.
The point is a valid one - an election is won by assembling a coalition of people to win.
Conservatives have never constituted a majority of Americans and they live in a liberal culture.
To expect the rest of the country to agree with us on every point, is looking to be consigned to eternal opposition in the wilderness.
If we look overly ideological, we will lose. We win when we persuade other Americans there are things we both find necessary to preserve without agreeing with each other on every last item.
That’s the way it is in a free country. The Republican Party is a coalition after all. A purely conservative party has zero chance of winning anywhere in this country.
Do I bother to read Another GOPe anti-conservative screed? I’ve long since cancelled National GOPe Review....
Yep, blame the messenger.
But, what about the electoral facts that underscore the reason that Cruz faces a difficult challenge becoming the GOP nominee, much less winning?
Intellectually I agree with those here on FR whose consistent response to 2016 is “Cruz”. But whenever I ask “ok, exactly how will that ever happen, given the realities of who control the GOP and it’s money”....the response is silence. If his most ardent conservative supporters can’t articulate a pathway to victory, who ever will? The GOP elitists?
Obama disproved your theory by winning 100% of leftists, none of whom stayed home. TURNING OUT YOUR BASE COMPLETELY IS WHAT WINS.
The demographics have changed.
Run as a conservative in California and New York and see if you can win.
Ted Cruz faces simple math. Even Ronald Reagan couldn’t win given that America is now a hyper-Sweden between the Atlantic and the Pacific.
He also won over people outside the base.
The Democrats have been shrewd enough to position themselves as moderates.
They know most people are not too ideological.
Sometimes they’re arrogant and overreach like they did in 2010.
But that proves the point - they still need a coalition to win.
It took him over 1,200 words to intentionally miss Cruz’s point. That’s impressive.
As soon as Ted’s immediate 10 Senate Action items become disseminated (and achieved), he will have proved himself to the people as the leader they so desperately want and need.
That’s why retaking the Senate is imperative: it gives Cruz two years to demonstrate his leadership ability before Perry starts grandstanding all over him.
When Jeb Bush declares, Perry’s run will be merely to siphon off conservative votes to sideline Cruz.
The establishment wants Bush; neocons want Rubio and social conservatives want Cruz.
Every Republican faction has their preferred candidate for 2016.
It is far more complicated to get others who lean more toward the middle or even across the aisle, yet are still conservative, to agree to vote for Cruz. I didn't read the article and don't care to. What I know is that after watching a very reasonable, conservative Scott Walker work hard to do what's right in a democrat leaning (+4 Dem) Wisconsin, to get himself re-elected governor.
Nixon ran as a Conservative, Ashbrook ran as a real and very conservative Conservative. Doesn’t make you a moderate to realize with so much liberal crap to undo that there are some things that wouldn’t be possible to get done and would waste time and effort as Reagan did with medicare. I don’t know if we can salvage the Republic or not but we need Ted Cruz if we are to have a chance. The “moderates” being mentioned certainly aren’t going to actually fix anything and democrats will get back in and finish us off. If I am going to end up at the Alamo I would rather it be with Cruz than with one of these surrender guys.
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.