There are many better pix of Rush available.

Not again… What is SO freakin hard to understand here?

We have tried the bull poop “big tent” garbage and LOST BIG TIME!

We have tried the “Center” and LOST BIG TIME!

We have tried the “mavrick” and LOST BIG TIME!

*** ANY IDIOT AND MORON CAN SEE A PATTERN HERE!!!

I’m with RUSH, morals, values, core Conservative principals will WIN… EVERY TIME CONSERVATIVISM IS TRIED IT WINS!

So screw going up or down… GO CONSERVATIVE!

The debate among conservatives is whether voting for stupid Republican is worth the effort.

Conservatism is just as valid and can be just as appealing to downscale voters as to upscale voters.

If these guys don’t get it, let’s get some new guys who do.

Like a large corporation, a national party must be able to target multiple (dare I say diverse) groups at the same time. And why not? The Democrats are doing it, taking both roads at the same time.

If you really believe that conservative ideas are superior then they must be good for everyone. We can change the packaging, we can formulate new policies for new challenges, but the ideas are what they have always been and they are right.

Of course, we are being told our ideas are bad for the little guy, minorities and women and help only the rich. We are also being told that our ideas scare the rich, educated and tolerant voters. No, no, no. The real problem is that the other side gets to define us. Our ideas are harder to explain because they are more complex and less based on emotion. If going upscale means becoming me-too liberals, we will have failed.

But in the end, it´s a basic marketing exercise. The GOP must get better at aggressively explaining their ideas, defending their record and most of all, they must get better at attacking liberalism.

The deteriorating blue states from Michigan to California offer an opportunity and the only thng that can stop us are fake Republicans who are afraid of their own shadow.

http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/thoughts-on-the-therapeutic-style/

Scott H on February 2, 2009 at 8:40 AM

Upscale/downscale is a measure of the ability to reach the higher levels of job recognition/remuneration. It has no place in defining one’s politics.

I’ve known many manual workers who are as right-winged as I am, and not a few bankers who are absolute lunatics in their left-wing stances.

In the case of the manual workers, they have often worked in dirty and/or dangerous jobs, and are determined to hang on to their hard-earned money.

Bankers, on the other hand, seem able to indulge in flights of egalitarian largesse because their money comes too easily, or, at least, without risk to life and limb.

Geez, talk about complicating all things simple.

1> The Republican candidate must show a significant difference in his/her political ideology from that of the other party.

2> The Republican candidate must show energy, enthusiasm, love of country, and a fierce believe that government should have a limited role in the American household, that government must not stand in the way of it’s own people’s greatness; capitalism, entrepreneurism…

Want to win elections? Tell the people that more government is a really bad thing, that government is not the answer to most problems that plague Americans. Promise to shrink government’s long arm reach, while getting out of the way of small businesses around the country.

The 24/7 news cycle has not been good for our country, nor has it been good for the rest of the world. Too many media heads inventing reasons to justify their own existence.

Oh, and progressoverpeace: I certainly would agree with you on Obama overall. Perhaps you felt that I was not conservative in my statement?

Scott H on February 2, 2009 at 8:46 AM

No. Not at all. I should have been clearer. I do agree with you that many, elsewhere, seem to believe that BHO is intelligent, but I was really more just using your comment as a jumping off point than directing it to you.

And I think it’s important to keep in mind that when liberals (and many in the media) talk about “intellectuals”, they are really talking about “psuedo-intellectuals” and I just feel the need to point this out from time to time. I should have just stated it as I did here. Oh well. … Next time.

Reaching “educated” youth is a difficult task because our colleges(and k-12 schools) are overwhelmingly run by Leftists who don’t educate so much as indoctrinate. I look forward to seeing what Michael Steele proposes to tear down those walls.

Buy Danish on February 2, 2009 at 7:51 AM

Yes! We’re destined to lose at the polls so long as we let the gubmit teachers continue to indoctrinate our children. But will we ever run a candidate with the courage to address this squarely?

…

Re: Obama’s intelligence, I think that he views himself as very intelligent. I certainly would call him cunning. However, since I consider that nearly everyone here shares your view of Obama, I’m not sure how that moves the discussion forward.

Perhaps a better way of stating my goal would be to say, “All else being equal, ‘upscale’ voters would vote for Obama, while ‘downscale’ voters would vote for Palin.” This of course assumes that everyone has no political beliefs. The overall utility of such discourse may be limited, but it should be noted that Democrat methods for winning elections (the legitimate methods, anyway) have always focused on winning over ‘downscale’ voters, because those are the voters that generally have the least in common with their candidates.

I feel that targeting ‘upscale’ voters would be a mistake for the Republican party, since those are fewer in number by almost every definition of the terms ‘upscale’ and ‘downscale’.

I also feel compelled to point out that I mean ‘winning over’ as ‘winning over to our philosophy’, not ‘pandering to the group’s agenda’.

Limbaugh: Improve the product and market it to all.

There’s nothing wrong with aiming specific messages to specific groups, but if the product is crappy no one is going to buy.

I think that many more people would self-identify as ‘upscale’ than would be found by an independent analysis based on objective performance measures.

My main purpose was to show that Obama appeals to self-identified ‘upscale’ voters on his ‘merits’. Palin does the same to ‘downscale’ voters.

Barone is quite fallacious in his thinking if ‘upscale’ is who needs to be targeted by conservative philosophy. Perhaps he wishes to see a ‘trickle-down’ effect, and there is some small argument to be made there. (E.g., switching one professor from liberal to conservative, assuming that the professor makes such feelings known in his classes, could influence far more people than someone not in such a position.) However, that professor has a single vote (just like everyone else), and there is an implication here that people want to be told how to think.

You can either influence people who can influence others, or you influence everyone directly. I was under the impression that conservatives preferred the latter approach. This is what Reagan did when he addressed the people directly to explain proposed legislation.

Obama cannot ever credibly claim that he ‘understands where the American people are coming from’ on almost any issue, because of his background. His background may work well from a foreign policy perspective, but I haven’t seen any sparkling gems from him so far on that. Also, Obama may forget that the American people elect their President, not the world.

There is something to be said for taking the fight to college campuses, which is the main breeding ground for liberal votes. (Consider that abortion is killing off the black vote, feminists and gays don’t generally reproduce, and that new (Hispanic) immigration, legal or not, is generally socially conservative.) However, taking a stand on ‘upscale’ vs. ‘downscale’ is exactly the kind of elitist statement that will haunt the Republicans for years if they want to represent conservative belief in this country.

He who frames the debate usually wins it.

Scott H on February 2, 2009 at 6:06 AM

I won’t answer your survey, as is, because I think that an “intellectual” is not intelligent, merely a mouthy activist, with one bee in the bonnet.

To me, upscale means one who is both highly educated and intelligent, using both to earn a higher than average income. (Inherited wealth doesn’t count).

Downscale is any one under that level.

A Harvard degree confirms that it’s recipient is someone who has learned more and more about less and less, and now ultimately knows everything about nothing.

The ‘ in the contraction it’s replaces an i. Since you aren’t trying to say it is recipient, drop the ‘ in its . It is best not to knock education while demonstrating a lack of it.

And don’t blame the lousy education system. Teach yourself. Learn the difference between then and than and fewer and less. And avoid the use of like and you know. In this way you won’t turn off educated voters who identify with downscale. There is a right way and a wrong way of doing things. With the government in the hands of those who usually take the wrong path equip yourself to be able to correct them.

A Princeton degree confirms that it’s recipient is someone who has leaned less and less about more and more, and now ultimately knows nothing about everything.

And avoid needless repitition.

Barone is correct when he says that Republicans need to broaden their appeal to reach “upscale” college kids, but pitting one group against the other is a loser. As I said when this was in the headlines, freedom is a universal value.

Reaching “educated” youth is a difficult task because our colleges(and k-12 schools) are overwhelmingly run by Leftists who don’t educate so much as indoctrinate. I look forward to seeing what Michael Steele proposes to tear down those walls.

But my examination of the exit poll results and county-by-county election returns has led me to conclude tentatively that going upscale is the right move

I suppose I count as “upscale” in that description as I seem to agree with those positions more. I still think the GOP can appeal to both.

To me, ‘upscale’ means intellectual, college-educated, and generally urban and ’sophisticated’.

[ ... ]

If you answered ‘upscale’ to the first question, and ‘yes’ to the second, then you should be satisfied that Obama is President, as he is exactly ‘upscale’ in every way.

Scott H on February 2, 2009 at 6:06 AM

Actually, the idiot messiah is only upscale (by your definition) in the superficial criteria (college-educated, urban, sophisticated [on the surface]). He is not intellectual in any way, except for the sense of the leftist “intellectuals” we see slithering around every revolutionary spasm.

To put it simply, BHO is not a smart person – not even close. But one need not be smart to be a leftist intellectual, since idiotic ideas like the idiot messiah’s declaration that judges should use empathy more than law in their rulings are considered “intellectual” to people whose normal state is foaming-at-the-mouth and whose policy positions are all (as the idiot messiah stated) emotionally driven.

I would start list all the other bone-headed mistakes that the Precedent has made, but in less than two weeks he has given us such a long listof missteps, moronic pronouncements, and foolish policy changes that it boggles the mind.

BHO is anything but intellectual – his joke law degree and affirmative action Review Precedency notwithstanding.