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. Olsen’s 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....
It took him over 1,200 words to intentionally miss Cruz’s point. That’s impressive.
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.
The article, basically, ignores the concept of actually changing the perspective of voters, not on candidates & parties, but on the issues on which we now are in the minority. Ted Cruz is very skilled at that.
Moreover, a logical consistency--as opposed to temporizing for the sake of popularity--has a great appeal to many. There are more voters out there, to whom integrity to principle appeals as a concept, than there are to whom moderation, for the sake of moderation, appeals. Reagan's biggest advantage over Goldwater had more to do with his ability to smile at the right time, than any departure from their common beliefs.
Of course, the key to any debate--any contest which calls for viewers or listeners to exercise the ability to discriminate intelligently between positions--is in the ability to focus those viewers or listeners on the most appealing concepts. We should never overlook the importance of Perspective & Focus.
I would take the NR article with more than a grain of salt, but certainly not as a reason not to enthusiastically support Ted Cruz.
William Flax
Amazing what 30 years of anti God cultural Marxism can do. There is now no national culture or identity. There has been no assimilation. Rather, ideological anti assimilation. Thus we are a divided nation, and the majority have little in common. Membership in interest or grievance groups trumps all.
It is not 1980.
Todays Democrat party is like the Weather Underground in 1980. Indeed, education ideology is informed by Bill Ayers.
Todays GOPe leadership is like the Democrat party of 1980.
National Review and the Weekly Standard staff & management are part of the RINO cocktail circuit in the Beltway. They know j@ck$h1t about what real conservatives think.
This Olsen guy is a Yankee educated at the University of Chicago, that famous bastion of Yankee conservatism/sarc.
His comment “The Alamo defenders did die, and needlessly, as their position was neither strategic nor defensible” shows he obviously didn’t study history. Both the Alamo and Goliad “strategically” delayed Santa Anna’s pursuit of Sam Houston allowing him to pick and choose when he would kick the Mexican general’s derriere.
All that being said, I tend to agree that Cruz’s path to the nomination and victory will be extremely difficult. I voted for him and believe he is 99-44/100’s % right on issues but unfortunately the country is in the toilet.
Every indication so far is Cruz will not be put in a box, what I find amazing is so many freepers buy this national review crap, don't shoot the messenger they say...I say damn the messenger and damn you too.
Cruz if he enters the race he will win so long as he resists the foolish advise of such as national review, I'm confident he has the wisdom to do so.
“He claims that beginning with Richard Nixon, every Republican nominee who was elected ran as a “strong conservative,” while every loser ran as a moderate.”
He should clarify that. Every Republican nominee who was elected ran as a “strong conservative”, *and* was believed by the public to actually *be* a strong conservative. Conversely, losers ran as mealy mouthed moderates *pretending* to be conservatives, but who actually were either liberals or “internationalist corporationists”.
Yeh National Review who will likely be touting Jeb Bush as the new Reagan in a few months.
I think Ted Cruz knows exactly what he is doing. I’m not worried about his compass it points due right. He will not fail to draw a sharp contrast between himself and any Dem running in 2016. If you offer the masses a clear choice you will likely do a lot better.
Okay, fine, whatever..... I’ll continue to stand with Cruz.