Blogger Row interview with Ralph Reed
posted at 9:25 am on October 17, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
As part of the first evening of Western Conservative Political Action Conference, Ralph Reed spoke about the need for conservatives to run aggressively in all 50 states. The founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition noted that the changing demographics of the US requires conservatives to broaden the message and get better at communicating and organizing in order to win elections in the future. “Raising a bunch of money and putting it on TV” won’t win elections any more. The Tea Parties give conservatives a big opening for organizing, and Reed says that its bottom-up nature shows the untapped power in the electorate:
“We have to take this energy and guide it into a plan for victory.”
Reed also discusses the notion of a third party arising from the Tea Party movement, but warns against it. Reed doesn’t consider it an impossibility, but structurally, the American political system would make it very difficult to win elections for several years if they wind up splitting the vote on the Right. Better to contest primary election, Reed advises, to get better conservatives into the general elections.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
years ago, Ralph Reed did alot of consulting in Virginia. I met him then. He made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.
kelley in virginia on October 17, 2009 at 9:32 AM
You can do both, money for TV and grassroots, and that’s the ideal.
But none of it matters without a truly conservative candidate.
And, he’s right as rain about avoiding like the plague any third party efforts that would split our vote, guaranteeing defeat.
TXUS on October 17, 2009 at 9:36 AM
Aargh! They just don’t get it! The same leftists that have taken over the Democrat Party have infiltrated the Republican. They won’t give us a choice in the primaries- last years elections are the best example. True conservatives are constantly being marginalized and told to be quiet for the good of the party.
As for losing the next few years- WE’RE ALREADY LOSING!
Better to have an American Conservative Party where we are in control and conservative ideals are truly represented- leftists, me-too RHINO’s, and country club elitists need not apply.
Right as Rain on October 17, 2009 at 9:48 AM
Reed’s right on about a third party fragmenting the R party. Now, only if the evangelical right would shut their collective cake holes next year, and not drive away I’s then the R’s are golden.
Mr. Arrogant on October 17, 2009 at 9:48 AM
The only time when a third party is useful is when there’s no one running for a free market and personal liberties. Otherwise, why not just choose the better one? I’ve almost never met a Democrat that believed in freer markets, with one exception… the dem running against Lindsay Graham last time around was great. My only beef with him was his protectionism, but still much better than Graham.
Libertarian Joseph on October 17, 2009 at 9:51 AM
I agree with him completely, and am scared to death of a split right now as a result of the movement.
conservnut on October 17, 2009 at 9:53 AM
If you want to see what a true conservative can accomplish then you need to check out the senate race in Florida. Marco Rubio has prevailed in all 12 straw polls against current Gov Charlie Crist. Rubio has not only won the polls but he has won them by empressive margins. Now Crist is touting his conservative credentials which is laughable.
Rubio is on message and has the record to back it up. Crist is starting to feel the heat.
Nelsa on October 17, 2009 at 10:16 AM
crist is the laughing stock on all gay blogs for being the closet case that he is. has this not been made public???
Ghoul aid on October 17, 2009 at 10:22 AM
I agree with Reed. The 1992 election split the Republicans….Clinton(D)-43.0%, Bush(R)-37.4% and Perot(R)-18.9%. Let the Democrats start a third party.
yoda on October 17, 2009 at 10:36 AM
someone mentioned the evangelical right. i agree that they completely take over the message of a regular, fiscal conservative, support our military Republican. but they can get the volunteers out. catch-22.
as i said to someone yesterday, when the racial wars start, & a gun is aimed at your spouse or children while your house is robbed, will you discuss abortion?
and when the jihad starts in this country, will you discuss creationism when Achmed is be-heading your spouse? doubtful.
we need to pull together & move on (not that kind of moveon!)
kelley in virginia on October 17, 2009 at 10:36 AM
I’m throwin in with Ralph. Sign me up.
warriorlawyer on October 17, 2009 at 10:40 AM
“broaden the message”? We live in a world of wedge issues and there are exactly two parties. That means that anyone who differs with a single party plank on a wedge issue is now left out?
What are the conservative viewpoints which need to be broadened? I can think of only one — immigration — and it’s a biggie. If you want to go after the hispanic vote, you need to be soft on illegal immigration (which is where I am on this wedge issue); if you want to go after the African American vote, you need to be hard on immigration.
We are hard on immigration now, and it isn’t working, is it? What other parts of our message do not resonate with these communities? Low taxes? Self sufficiency? Regulating the marketplace but not playing in the marketplace?
Could it be that it is in these communities’ best interests to be Democratic, because they have been successfully bought by said Democrats?
Most minorities (Asian-Americans and Indian-Americans as a group are excepted) have per-capita incomes below those of whites. When someone talks about the “rich” what does that code word mean? Talk about taking the “excess profits” of the “rich” resonate with these groups as a whole, because their income is enhanced in the taking. When the tax structure is skewed such that the poor (and, by extension, the Hispanics (9% of vote) and blacks (14% of vote)) do not pay anything, lowering taxes falls on deaf ears, because their taxes are already as low as they can go.
Self sufficiency? You get self-sufficiency when your income is sufficient to support your lifestyle. You can either improve your income, or you can decrease your consumption to match your income. Does this message resonate at all with the poor, who have been bamboozled for years with handouts — to the point where the latest mega-handout (in the housing industry via NINJA loans) actually destroyed our economy?
To win elections the Democratic way, you just have to assure that 51% of the electorate gets enough freebies to be bought. To win it the Republican way, you have to assure that 51% buys into a viewpoint of not taking freebies and living within their means.
Which philosophy wins?
unclesmrgol on October 17, 2009 at 10:50 AM
Ralph Reed is a snake…
ninjapirate on October 17, 2009 at 10:56 AM
uncle: you are right. so the recourse now is to start repealing some of these giveaways & let people earn their own damn living.
one woman i know refuses to buy health insurance for herself or her child, willing to rely on a hospital’s mandate to treat anyone. she has had bad asthma attacks this week & had to buy alot of medicine. she called me & whined about her doctor’s bills & medicine.
but this woman is taking her whole family to DisneyWorld for Christmas.
stop supporting these people!
kelley in virginia on October 17, 2009 at 10:56 AM
Right! Let’s all shut up and throw out our moral values so we can all worship the “golden calf”. I’ll just trust my elected representative as a new “golden R” to legislate my Christian values. It’s worked so well in the past. Muslim’s will get their prayer rugs, while I can’t say God bless you when you sneeze without repercussions. No sir, I will not be silent while my rights of religious freedom continues to get whittled away by this secular government.
Rovin on October 17, 2009 at 10:57 AM
ninja: yeah, Ralph Reed is a little snakey. if you meet him in person, you can feel it emanating from him.
kelley in virginia on October 17, 2009 at 10:57 AM
ok, rovin. take your party platform (& i thoroughly agree with you in principle) & put it in action in my Congressional District (5th-VA).
on one hand, we have alot of rural bible belt areas to include Lynchburg VA, home of Liberty U (Falwell). on the other hand, our district spreads up to Albemarle county, home of the University of Virginia & some real academic liberals. very, very liberal.
how can the Republicans agree on a candidate to beat Dem Tom Perriello? We have approx. 5 or 6 Republicans making FEC filings already to run against Perriello next November. A Liberty U -type candidate will turn off alot of the other rural areas, & certainly the urban areas. A swarmy, smarmy professional-looking candidate from the Albemarle area might turn off the dirt road electorate.
that’s the dilemma of alot of Congressional Districts or even state senate & General Assembly delegate districts.
so many Republicans just need to quit their whining & work to elect Republicans. exceptions include the Maine sisters & that one Republican in the NY CD near Canada where the Republican candidate got endorsements from NARAL, ACORN & others.
kelley in virginia on October 17, 2009 at 11:05 AM
While you may be correct, Bush and Rove did this to get re-elected in 2004 by taking major democrat “planks” off their agenda, ie free prescription drugs, and other spending programs and look what it neted us in 2006? The fiscal conservatives stayed home and refused to vote.
Rovin on October 17, 2009 at 11:10 AM
I don’t have all the answers Kelley, and I understand the delimma you’re attempting to draw up. I’m just of the opinion that if the republican party decides to totally eliminate/alienate the Christian right, (which also carries strong fiscal as well as moral responsibilities), they may find their base will have shrunk beyond any winnable numbers. It’s a conundrum indeed.
Rovin on October 17, 2009 at 11:24 AM
I’m not afraid of a split. I’m counting on it. If the Social Cons want to take their ball and go home, let\’m. If I’m too much of a RINO for you (and I’m not even an R, so I guess that seals the deal), tough. All y’all can go cry me a river.
Stay away from the Tea Party. There are enough libertarians, independents, and middle-of-the-road freedom-loving, limited-government loving moderates to form a viable third party and fix the problems the two party system has created.
The Democratic and Republican parties have destroyed this country. It’s time to take you guys out of the equation. Go away. We’ll fix the problem without your meddling.
See, I can be just as exclusionary as you guys. I don’t need you. I don’t want you. You self-righteous right-wingers are every bit as bad as the self-righteous left-wingers. You’ve each done your fair share of taking this country down. It’s time to let the grownups play the game.
Fire in the hole!
nukemhill on October 17, 2009 at 11:38 AM
Since when are we hard on immigration? Sure, some rhetoric is, but Mexico is hard on illegal immigration. Not us. Guatemalans who cross Mexico’s southern border had better keep moving because they’re not getting gov’t services and they WILL be deported when caught.
If we want the hispanic vote we have to sell hispanics on conservative values, which is not that hard because a government which supports those values is to their benefit, and streamline our legal immigration system, which already needs to be done.
Laura on October 17, 2009 at 11:47 AM
At CPAC his called on us to Reed Rules for Radicals to understand the tactics used against us.
Reed is very valuable in the run up to 2012.
RobCon on October 17, 2009 at 11:54 AM
The “Boss” gets it. (and always has). Conservitism is on the rise and nothing can stop it.
Screw the “PC” crap and stand on priciples. That is the message of the day and will carry conservatives thru the 2010 election.
Charlie Crist is also changing his stripes to comform to the majority and he is failing. “Wind Sock” Charlie is starting to understand that the electorate may be more informed than he had hoped. He will probably call Lindsey Graham for advice……
Nelsa on October 17, 2009 at 12:04 PM
Thank you for the Link. I joined his site and donated to this wonderful young man. My money now goes straight to candidates now. NO $$$ for the Party of “progressive” Conservatism. I work to vote the “progressives” out of the GOP and Elect the Conservatives in. Unfortunately for them I put my $$$, time and effort towards this goal.
IowaWoman on October 17, 2009 at 12:33 PM
The problem with todays national Republican party is clear.
Last year we watched McCain gain the nomination by winning NY and CA in the Republican primary. McCain had no chance of winning EITHER state in the general election, but the left side of the Republican party, useless as it is in NY and CA, made the call for McCain. As long as the left wing of the Republican party is calling the shots, conservatives will simply NOT be welcome.
It would be very easy to go through this same primary process in 2012 and watch Lindsey Graham get the Republican nomination.
Freddy on October 17, 2009 at 1:57 PM
AS a religious person among “the Right,” I understand where you’re coming from, BUT, you’re going on to make irrational arguments.
“When the jihad starts” — what’s that about? The Jihadists are going to target religious first, and then use the rest of you as useful fools before then targeting you (“you” in the sense of the “non religious” among the Right).
Might there be room for you “non religious” persons to stop bashing the “Religious Right”? What’s the problem with people exercising their beliefs, supporting who and what they feel is the most aligned with their beliefs? I, honestly, don’t understand the ongoing Libertarian denigration “among the Right” about “the religious Right” — no one’s carting you off into churches, no one’s lassoo’ing you into temples, you aren’t being stoned for not wearing a burkha or a beard on your lower jaw…no one’s tying you up and demanding you memorize the Bible “or else”…
So I don’t get this targeting of “the religious Right” by the predictable Libertarian crowd. Most of whom want Ron Paul for President, want an end to U.S. economic support of Israel, want drugs (all drugs) rendered “legal” and don’t want the U.S. borders recognized, maintained or immigration laws enforced (“no borders” I believe it is), among a few other points that the “non religious” Libertarians (mostly) continue to “preach” that runs off most Conservatives otherwise and then the Right is in disarray.
I would just like to see the Libertarian segment (which is, actually, quite a small percentage among the Right but is the most vocal on many issues, particularly on the internet) stop bashing “the religious” among the Right.
Lourdes on October 17, 2009 at 8:01 PM
I agree. I do hope Rubio wins his campaign.
Lourdes on October 17, 2009 at 8:03 PM