Noemie Emery: Why can’t conservative candidates win Republican presidential primaries?

posted at 12:49 pm on March 21, 2013 by Allahpundit

An unsparing piece keying off the same Rick Perry soundbite at CPAC that inspired this post. Perry said that it’s unfair to blame conservatism for the GOP’s losses in 2008 and 2012 because, after all, our nominees weren’t conservative. Emery’s response: Then why did Republican primary voters vote for them instead of for a solid conservative like, say, Rick Perry?

Her answer? Between Reagan’s generation and the current crop of Rubio, Scott Walker, etc, there simply haven’t been many good conservative candidates.

Instead, against establishment types who were national figures, the conservative movement flung preachers and pundits (Pat Robertson, Alan Keyes and Pat Buchanan), has-beens and losers (New Gingrich and Rick Santorum), and others still worse (Herman Cain, for example), who on second thought lost even conservative primary voters.

To deny all this reality, some movement types invented a conspiracy theory. The Establishment met at the Country Club on alternate Tuesdays to undermine all the upcoming Reagans (who sadly enough never existed). This is untrue, and it keeps these movement types from facing the real problem — the failure of the conservative movement to find and develop successors to Reagan over the space of the past 20 years…

When things worked less well for conservatives who lacked Reagan’s luck and his genius, they decided their failure was explainable only by sabotage — after all, how else could they lose? On the way, the Right developed a sense of entitlement (the Republican Party owed them a nominee of their liking); an embrace of victimhood; a habit of translating their tactical failure to win over more voters into a moral failure on the part of those voters for not sensing their value; and a belief that they can manage to win more elections by purging all factions (and people) not wholly in sync with their views.

This isn’t the outlook with which Reagan won landslides. The GOP owes conservatives nothing beyond a chance and a hearing. The onus is on them to win over the voters. They are victims of nothing beyond their own much-too-high self-esteem.

Usually it’s “Beltway cocktail parties,” not the country club, where the establishment’s assumed to be plotting, but otherwise fair enough. Two things, though. First, conspiracies aside, surely no one doubts that the GOP’s consultant and donor class trends a bit more centrist than the base. I saw an article about that somewhere just the other day vis-a-vis gay marriage: Many socially conservative grassroots Republicans remain firmly opposed, but there’s widespread (if often quiet) support for legalized SSM among Republicans on the Hill and in other corridors of power. Go figure that that more centrist professional class would gravitate towards centrist candidates like Romney in the primary and bring their money and electoral expertise with them. Karl Rove, the mastermind of “compassionate conservatism,” is building a group right now that’s designed to head off ostensibly unelectable conservative insurgents in House and Senate primaries. Emery’s right about the quality of candidates on the right in presidential races lately, but let’s be fair: They’re swimming upstream against a centrist tide among party power-brokers.

Two: Because Obama was such a political and cultural phenomenon in 2008, and because the country’s Bush fatigue was so profound, I think GOP voters that year put a premium on “electability” in choosing McCain. That premium then carried over to 2012 because, although Hopenchange wasn’t the juggernaut that it was four years earlier, Obama was still an incumbent president with a fearsomely formidable organization. With no well known, charismatic conservative hero on the order of Reagan to captivate Republicans, some GOP voters figured that a moderate nominee with centrist cred was their best bet to steal some independents from O. 2016 should be different because, by almost universal acclaim, the quality of conservatives in the field will be solid: Rubio, Paul, Jindal, maybe Ryan. They’re all electable in theory, or at least more electable than righties in the classes of 2008 and 2012.

That’s when we’ll get an answer to a question that Emery suggests in her piece but doesn’t explore: Namely, were Reagan’s victories in 1980 and 1984 due more to the movement or more to the man? You often hear O’s critics claim his current majority is more about the man himself than the product of a broader ideological realignment; once he leaves office, the theory goes, Democrats will have difficulty replicating the heavy turnout he generated among young voters, minorities, and liberals. It’s his unique gifts and singular identity as a politician — and weak opponents, natch — that have led him to two terms. Was the same true of Reagan, though? It can’t be true entirely: The GOP won three of the next five elections after Reagan left office, so there was obviously some sort of movement behind him. But of course, as any grassroots conservative will happily tell you, the Bushes’ claim to the label “conservative” was always … problematic. The next primary might well produce the most conservative nominee since Reagan, and he might well have to face a much, much more difficult opponent in Hillary than Reagan did in a failed, flailing Jimmy Carter. That’ll be a real test of Emery’s theory.

Update: Lots of commenters are pointing to a primary system that starts with Iowa and New Hampshire instead of, say, Texas and South Carolina. Fair point. That would definitely boost more conservative candidates right out of the box, although Perry’s point at CPAC is that conservatives can win even national majorities if given the chance. There’s no reason in theory they can’t win among Republicans in IA and NH too, even if they lean a bit further toward the center. (Actually, Iowa Republicans are famous for leaning further to the right on social issues than the GOP electorate nationally. That’s how Huckabee and Santorum managed to win in 2008 and 2012, respectively. And the early boost didn’t help them to the nominations.)


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

The establishment of both parties is significantly to the left of the base of both parties.

So the Democrats have run left wing extremists since 1980, and the Republicans have run moderates (both Bushes) and liberals (McCain, Romney) since 1984.

Interestingly no Republican candidate seen as a conservative by the electorate has lost since 1964 (Reagan, Bush 41 1988, Bush 43 2000/04) and no Republican candidate not seen as a conservative has won since Nixon.

18-1 on March 21, 2013 at 2:15 PM

REAGAN WAS A SUCCESSFUL GOLDWATER!

Goldwater’s latter days in the Senate were pretty ugly as his libertarian side completely took over and he was influenced by second wife, who was a flaming liberal.

Goldwater’s popularity nosedived in Arizona. In 1980 Goldwater was re-elected with just 49% of the vote. Reagan won 61% of the vote in Arizona in 1980. Goldwater saw the writing on the wall and retired.

bw222 on March 21, 2013 at 2:15 PM

Nothing demonstrates the arrogance, sanctimony and political naivete of rightwing conservatives more than their continued and unabated adoration of Sarah Palin–a woman who will never win a national election.

Ms. Emery’s article is spot on. She sounds like she could be acquainted with HA and the constant post-election whining of conservatives. It’s ironic that they so dislike Obama and his propensity for always finding someone else to blame for his failures when they are so spectacularly guilty of the same thing.

Meredith on March 21, 2013 at 2:11 PM

Got anything better? That boring weaksauce ain’t working, sorry.

Midas on March 21, 2013 at 2:16 PM

OMG.

IlikedAUH2O on March 21, 2013 at 2:13 PM

Youtube Reagan’s 1966 speech against socialized medicine. It’s one of the most unapologetic defenses of conservative principles I’ve ever heard.

John the Libertarian on March 21, 2013 at 2:17 PM

Nothing demonstrates the arrogance, sanctimony and political naivete of rightwing conservatives more than their continued and unabated adoration of Sarah Palin–a woman who will never win a national election.

Generally, conservatives consider government as a (limited) necessary evil. So one’s affiliation with, or perceived possibility of future affiliation with, government should generally be expected to have little (positive) impact on whether or not that individual is subject to “adulation.”

Ms. Emery’s article is spot on. She sounds like she could be acquainted with HA and the constant post-election whining of conservatives. It’s ironic that they so dislike Obama and his propensity for always finding someone else to blame for his failures when they are so spectacularly guilty of the same thing.

Meredith on March 21, 2013 at 2:11 PM

Your whining is just as, if not more so, annoying.

besser tot als rot on March 21, 2013 at 2:17 PM

APACHEWHOKNOWS on March 21, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Perry at best was a croyn conservative. At worse he isn’t any different from the GOPE.

unseen on March 21, 2013 at 2:17 PM

Nothing demonstrates the arrogance, sanctimony and political naivete of rightwing conservatives more than their continued and unabated adoration of Sarah Palin–a woman who will never win a national election.

Ms. Emery’s article is spot on. She sounds like she could be acquainted with HA and the constant post-election whining of conservatives. It’s ironic that they so dislike Obama and his propensity for always finding someone else to blame for his failures when they are so spectacularly guilty of the same thing.

Meredith on March 21, 2013 at 2:11 PM

Because running moderates has been a winning strategy. The best showing these clowns had was when the TEA Party had a say. And then… Romney. That worked out well.

Because something about electability. Sorry if most of us are tired of being Charlie Brown to the GOP’s Lucy. But it’s our fault or something like that.

BTW, most of us “complainers” sucked it up and voted for Romney. Can’t speak for anyone else, but getting the distinct impression that this particular well is now dry.

kim roy on March 21, 2013 at 2:17 PM

… because the past few cycles all of the conservative candidates have had incredibly weird, turn-off personalities and one or two “colorful” policy positions that caused even the diehard supporters to question them?

You don’t think Romney and McCain has “colorful” policy positions?

Yes, the State Media played them down prior to the general election to help them…but the oddities were certainly there to those looking…

18-1 on March 21, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Youtube Reagan’s 1966 speech against socialized medicine. It’s one of the most unapologetic defenses of conservative principles I’ve ever heard.

John the Libertarian on March 21, 2013 at 2:17 PM

I have watched that speech at least a dozen times, it was watching a news replay in 1980 of that speech that converted me to Reagan. I am always struck by how knowledgeable and intelligent Reagan was.

SWalker on March 21, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Screw your inside baseball, I campaigned for Reagan, I went door to door for Reagan. You are so full of it you sound like Barky O’Dogeater.

SWalker on March 21, 2013 at 2:02 PM

What year? 2012?

I want to argue more about the early treatment of Reagan bu I can’t get the material.

Oh well.

IlikedAUH2O on March 21, 2013 at 2:20 PM

OMG.

IlikedAUH2O on March 21, 2013 at 2:13 PM

Youtube Reagan’s 1966 speech against socialized medicine. It’s one of the most unapologetic defenses of conservative principles I’ve ever heard.

John the Libertarian on March 21, 2013 at 2:17 PM

A Time For Choosing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY

sharrukin on March 21, 2013 at 2:21 PM

We need a conservative candidate choice in our primaries. Then, we need to stop allowing NH from choosing our candidate by one big old primary vote in May.

And Meredith, we all kow your real reason for hating Sarah Palin. It’s an issue for women when another woman, beautiful, successful, and intelligent, is getting attention. But, don’t worry, you can latch on to the Sandra Fluke party, they don’t shave their egs or their arm pits, their mushy mashy on their ideals, and you might not even need that plastic surgery if you hang around bitter, unfortunate, and jealous women like yourself.

RovesChins on March 21, 2013 at 2:22 PM

People din’t think Reagan was conservative at the time.

IlikedAUH2O on March 21, 2013 at 1:42 PM

By the 1980s Goldwater was a full-fledged libertarian. Goldwater became a bitter old man who at odds with Reagan and the rest of the GOP. His personality in the 1980s was very much like the man who took his seat – John McCain.

bw222 on March 21, 2013 at 2:23 PM

And Meredith, we all kow your real reason for hating Sarah Palin. It’s an issue for women when another woman, beautiful, successful, and intelligent, is getting attention. But, don’t worry, you can latch on to the Sandra Fluke party, they don’t shave their egs or their arm pits, their mushy mashy on their ideals, and you might not even need that plastic surgery if you hang around bitter, unfortunate, and jealous women like yourself.

RovesChins on March 21, 2013 at 2:22 PM

Very true. Sarah is hot; they are not.

bw222 on March 21, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Nothing demonstrates the arrogance, sanctimony and political naivete of rightwing conservatives more than their continued and unabated adoration of Sarah Palin–a woman who will never win a national election.

Meredith on March 21, 2013 at 2:11 PM

I dunno. Her chances are better than Romney’s. Always have been.

ddrintn on March 21, 2013 at 2:25 PM

The establishment tends to weed out good solid conservatives. They don’t want legislators with strong core principals. They also tend not to support more conservative-leaning candidates. Right, Allen West?

hawksruleva on March 21, 2013 at 2:25 PM

YEA… FoxNews reporting that 5 of those city officials in Bell California that took 6 figure salaries for doing nothing were convected of misappropriating city funds… Off to prison with them. Now when can we start convicting Congress and Senate personal of the same thing and sending them to prison.

SWalker on March 21, 2013 at 2:28 PM

One of the best arguments for Conservative third party is that the RNC has had tumescence on steroids for any candidate outside of their RINO performance window.

Time and again we’ve seen the Republican party literally take out the Conservative and let or help the liberal win, even to the point of running ads supporting the liberal.

The Republican elitists are why Obama is back in office with nothing to lose.

Speakup on March 21, 2013 at 2:30 PM

It’s tough to win when the RNC Chair openly invites a civil war within the party. Here’s a column by Michael Goodwin in the New York Post that discusses the stupidity of the RNC “autopsy”:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/jumbo_blunder_KcdGiDxKWG6qkLcRPe8RLP

bw222 on March 21, 2013 at 2:30 PM

In 2012, we didn’t have a conservative candidate with Reagan’s speaking ability and ability to “connect” with middle-class voters. Perry was a lousy debater, Santorum was a has-been, Gingrich was plagued by his past “woman problems” and Herman Cain by more recent “woman problems”. Romney was nominated because he was “squeaky clean” with a record of success in business, but he probably lost against Obama because he didn’t connect favoring small business owners with favoring those hired by small businesses, and his earlier stances on immigration during the primaries hurt him with the Hispanic vote.

Some of the younger, up-and-coming Republicans such as Sen. Rubio, Gov. Jindal or Walker, or Rep. Paul Ryan are more conservative than Romney, and better speakers than 2012 candidates Perry and Santorum, and none of them have “woman problems”. Governor Walker will likely be in his second term, and Jindal in his third term, by 2016. Paul Ryan, as a failed VP candidate, is in the same position now as Sarah Palin was in 2009, but has the advantage of staying in Congress as Chairman of the House Budget Committee, and having more influence over national fiscal policy than Palin ever did. Senator Rubio would definitely pull more Hispanic voters than anyone else (with the possible exception of Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas), but would be faced with the choice of running for President or for re-election to the Senate in 2016.

IMHO, Sen. Rand Paul should stay out of the Presidential race in 2016. In the conservative state of Kentucky, his margin of victory was relatively slim in 2010, and voters are tired of the quixotic off-the-wall primary campaigns of his father. Rand Paul needs more time to “become his own man” in the Senate (particularly if he wins a second term in 2016) before running for President.

Steve Z on March 21, 2013 at 2:32 PM

Speakup on March 21, 2013 at 2:30 PM

The interesting thing about the RNC is that it talks about the need for minority outreach. Yet, most of the minority candidates have won because of Tea Party support against RINO primary opponents: Haley, Martinez, West, Scott, Cruz, Rubio, etc. Even unsuccessful minority candidates like Mia Love and Star Parker had heavy Tea Party support.

bw222 on March 21, 2013 at 2:34 PM

I dunno. Her chances are better than Romney’s. Always have been.

ddrintn on March 21, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Ouch! :D

katy the mean old lady on March 21, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Sanford/Schwarzenegger — 2016

Schadenfreude on March 21, 2013 at 2:42 PM

always finding someone else to blame for his failures when they are so spectacularly guilty of the same thing.

Meredith on March 21, 2013 at 2:11 PM

…Romney has yet to own that he is responsible for his loss. He blames it on the free stuff Obama gave out, the lies Obama told about him. Few pols seem willing to own their mistakes. Your guys are no better.

alwaysfiredup on March 21, 2013 at 2:42 PM

Found the article ill-informed. Two thirds (mostly conservative) didn’t vote for Mittens in the primary but there were so many conservative-named candidates running (Bachman, Newt, Perry, et al) they split the conservative vote (particularly in the first five primaries which are generally all-eastern states) and we ended up with mittens, the truly moderate eastern republican. If the Conservatives were at all smart (are you listening CPAC?) we would have a run off of conservatives BEFORE the republican primary so that we had one conservative candidate running against the eastern republican blueblood (aka Liberal-Lite) flavor of the week and he would be soundly throttled…er…retired to moderate pasture and we would have a conservative candidate as the Republican nominee…but then again, WHY DON’T THE LEADING CONSERVATIVE VOICES CALL FOR A CONSERVATIVE PARTY PRIMARY??? Afterwards, we can always vote Republican and run in their primary. Either that or change the Republican primary so that it becomes a runoff of the two top vote getters. The bluebloods would never agree because by splitting the conservatives vote, their man always wins……

colonelkurtz on March 21, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Heritage should break this speech into 30-sec and 1-minute segements and air them as commercials.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY

hawksruleva on March 21, 2013 at 2:43 PM

If a conservative candidate had the backing of a 24-hour cable news channel and the best consultants in the business, the conservative candidate would win republican presidential primaries.

Follow up: WHY do the major media players and consultants back the most liberal republicans they can find?

alwaysfiredup on March 21, 2013 at 2:44 PM

Ah yes, Meredith, charming and persuasive as always.

Missy on March 21, 2013 at 2:44 PM

…a crazy theory of conspiracy or vendetta by Republican insiders…

IlikedAUH2O on March 21, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Where do you get that from what I said?

It is ridiculous to pretend that Democrats, the media, and elements of the Political Class Republicans, specifically the Romney camp, didn’t attack Sarah Palin simultaneously. Some of them didn’t even wait for the actual election in ’08 to start smearing her, and some of those early attackers wound up on Romney’s team shortly after they failed with McCain.

They all had their own reasons for attacking her, and the fact that they acted in parallel does not mean they were engaged in a coordinated conspiracy and I suggested no such thing.

Republicans want to win? Political Class Republicans want to win, and that doesn’t mean electing new blood on a mission to end the ******* gravy train. That means electing the next guy in line who will go along to get along and has the fundraising capacity to feed a river of cash to other Political Class Republicans and “consultants”. Sarah Palin derailed more than a couple of cars on that gravy train in Alaska and put more than a few political parasites on both sides of the aisle back in the private sector. The wailings of the Murkowski camp were plainly heard inside the Beltway.

In 2010 conservatives ignored Republican Party structure, self-organized, and gave a tidal wave of victories to the GOP. Despite having taken heavy fire for two years, Palin played a significant role. Instead of seizing that momentum, Political Class Republicans, immediately recognizing the threat to their fiefdoms, tacitly cooperated with Democrat Media campaign to demonize the Tea Party when they weren’t engaged in their own sleazy misrepresentations. Disgusted if not discouraged, many of those 2010 voters just didn’t bother to vote.

You don’t know which side of this fight Rove is on?

novaculus on March 21, 2013 at 2:45 PM

I wasn’t politically aware when the AIDS research effort took place. But my understanding of it wasn’t that Reagan was punishing people for homosexuality, but that the amount of AIDS cases were so small at the time and the demands for funding so huge and exorbitant that it just didn’t make sense. So the liberals did what they do best and smeared him as a homophobe, even though his son Ron is gay.

John the Libertarian on March 21, 2013 at 1:59 PM

There are folks out there who believe if Charlemagne had spent enough money, he could have had a space program. Money is not a substitute for technological advancement. Back in Reagan’s Presidency, the human genome had not been sequenced, antivirals were in the Stone Age, and we baaarely had an understanding of the mechanisms of the HIV infection itself.

Reagan could have emptied the Treasury with no appreciable advance in curing AIDS.

Sekhmet on March 21, 2013 at 2:46 PM

Either that or change the Republican primary so that it becomes a runoff of the two top vote getters. The bluebloods would never agree because by splitting the conservatives vote, their man always wins……

colonelkurtz on March 21, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Great idea and you are right, the establishment would NEVER agree…

Missy on March 21, 2013 at 2:47 PM

Ironic how the comments on this thread underscore her point, no?

Foxhound on March 21, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Foxhound on March 21, 2013 at 2:51 PM

No,Francis. Quite the opposite.

kingsjester on March 21, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Ironic how the comments on this thread underscore her point, no?

Foxhound on March 21, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Huh? It was the moderates who blame the electorate and seek for other scapegoats.

ddrintn on March 21, 2013 at 2:54 PM

One other thing that no one talks about. A good 30%-40% of the republican votes come from evangelical Christians (who are 99% conservative and who view Mormonism as a false religion). When the Republicans ran a Mormon as the republican candidate, they stayed home. Sorry, it’s nice to think that Mormons are mainstream, but 3 to 4 million conservative voters would differ with you…..The fact that the bluebloods could make such a miscalculation in selecting their candidate either shows how deaf they are to their constituents, or, (and more likely) how much the despise them…..Don’t rag on me about how wonderful Mormons are, couldn’t give a good crap either way, it’s just a fact.

colonelkurtz on March 21, 2013 at 2:55 PM

Ironic how the comments on this thread underscore her point, no?

Foxhound on March 21, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Huh? It was the moderates who blame the electorate and seek for other scapegoats.

I mean, this:

On the way, the Right developed a sense of entitlement (the Republican Party owed them a nominee of their liking); an embrace of victimhood; a habit of translating their tactical failure to win over more voters into a moral failure on the part of those voters for not sensing their value; and a belief that they can manage to win more elections by purging all factions (and people) not wholly in sync with their views.

…is the moderate wing to a tee, brother. Or sister.

ddrintn on March 21, 2013 at 2:55 PM

We got Romney in 2012 because that was what it took to get him to drop his bid in favor of McCain in 2008. One of the few things that went right in the 2012 primary was that the other candidates were well-knocked-out enough that the GOP didn’t have to promise them 2016 to get out of Romney’s way.

0bama’s campaign and staff knew from 2009 onwards their primary target was Mitt Romney. It’s no accident 0bamacare was modeled so closely on Romneycare. Astroturfing up Occupy Wall Street was worth the investment. This was all aimed at Romney, because it was no secret Romney was the likeliest nominee for 2012. Going with the expected is a BAD IDEA, and the Establishment was Cher-level dumb to do it. (hey, look, I bag on the Establishment just as much!)

Sekhmet on March 21, 2013 at 2:58 PM

No,Francis. Quite the opposite.

kingsjester on March 21, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Didn’t you predict a brokered convention last year? Perhaps you’re not quite living in reality bub.

Foxhound on March 21, 2013 at 2:59 PM

Indeed. The purity brigade kneecapped Perry over the HPV vaccine (even though he was clearly better than the alternatives), and end up lining up behind…Rick Santorum.

changer1701 on March 21, 2013 at 1:34 PM

LOL– Who exactly is this “purity brigade?” I mean because I have been accused tons of being a trucon and at the time of the HPV thing going down, I was still undecided and didn’t kneecap anyone? I certainly didn’t get on the Santorum bandwagon particularly because I didn’t like a lot of his fiscal position especially his support of ‘compassionate conservatism’ in the Bush years. But I also don’t think he was the church lady boogie man that everyone makes him out to be either. So again where is this brigade you speak of?

melle1228 on March 21, 2013 at 1:38 PM

Really…You missed all the fun…

It started with Perry is too religious – general gripe from liberal Texans about the call to prayer he hosted before he announced.

Perry might be a secret Gay or really just likes Hookers in general – Ron Paul and his Paultards.

Sounds too much like George W Bush – everybody

Bernake/Ponzi Perryisms – Liberal Media & Pearl clutchers in the GOP = Rove.

Tardisil – Bachmann & her supporters
Perry luvs him some muslims – Pamela Gheller,Malkin & Palinistas
Chrony capitalist – Palin & her Palinistas before her failed bus tour

N*ggerhead sign on a hunting lodge Perry’s Dad rented 30 years ago – WAPO,NYT and Herman Cain – Cainiacs

Heartless – Everybody

Perry’s soft on border because he won’t build border walls across canyons or in rivers – Romney, Santorum & Bachmann and their supporters

on and on and on…

The only candidate who didn’t attack Perry was Gingrich…and Perry supported Gingrich when he dropped out of the race.

Perry scared the wits out of lots of folks because of his conservative record in Texas…imho

No candidate is perfect as seen recently with Rand Paul,Rubio etc.

If Gov. Perry runs in the next presidential primary race he’ll be prepared.

And it will be a hoot.

workingclass artist on March 21, 2013 at 3:05 PM

Ironic how the comments on this thread underscore her point, no?

Foxhound on March 21, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Actually her whole column is entitlement mentality crap. She thinks the GOP owes conservatives nothing. The problem with her thinking is she forgets how political campaigns work. Politicians are elected by their voters. Politicians work for their voters and they must sell themselves to their voters.

Therefore I, as a conservative owe the GOP nothing not the otherway around. If the GOP can’t sell their candidates to ME like Romney and lose–It is not MY fault but their fault. Capice?

melle1228 on March 21, 2013 at 3:07 PM

workingclass artist on March 21, 2013 at 3:05 PM

LOL– I must have blocked all that out. :)

melle1228 on March 21, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Can we at least hire someone that has: Experience at governing, a record that is conservative. Stop going by the latest fads, the idea of who can give Obama a bloody nose and who has the best sound bites.

bzip on March 21, 2013 at 1:15 PM

Sadly a fraction of the conservative base, mostly bloggers and radio show listeners, are much more about the image, buzzwords, zingers, and how to emotionally play games with the left than they are about record, experience, and substance (Of course they will deny that)… In this regard they are no different than the liberals…

mnjg on March 21, 2013 at 3:08 PM

I would add the media as a factor in why its tough for conservatives. The national media pumped up McCain and Romney and attacked any conservative that gained momentum or at least ignored the conservative to keep them from gaining momentum[Fred].

Look at what they are doing now with Chris Christie. Pumping him up.

KMav on March 21, 2013 at 3:09 PM

colonelkurtz on March 21, 2013 at 2:55 PM

It was James Dobson of Focus on the Family, I believe, who took the unprecedented step (for him and his organization anyway) of endorsing a presidential candidate in the last election. It was then I realized how much trouble Romney was in with Evangelicals.

We constantly hear that Romney lost because conservatives didn’t turn out in sufficient numbers. But that’s not precisely true. It was the religious conservatives who simply in the end couldn’t pull the lever for the Mormon. I think it’s important that we not only remember that, but that we address it whenever the subject comes up. It would also be nice if the religions cons would own up to it.

SukieTawdry on March 21, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Therefore I, as a conservative owe the GOP nothing not the otherway around. If the GOP can’t sell their candidates to ME like Romney and lose–It is not MY fault but their fault. Capice?

melle1228 on March 21, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Are you pouting now? Gonna take your toys and go?

See ya.

Foxhound on March 21, 2013 at 3:15 PM

Are you pouting now? Gonna take your toys and go?

See ya.

Foxhound on March 21, 2013 at 3:15 PM

Like I have said before, I don’t have to pout. I live in a red, red state that has a super majority of Repubs. I am quite happy in my state. And you can only say see you to some many of us and then your party becomes completely irrelevant. Don’t cry to me when certain parts of the south start to turn blue in national elections mmmkay..

melle1228 on March 21, 2013 at 3:18 PM

But that’s not precisely true. It was the religious conservatives who simply in the end couldn’t pull the lever for the Mormon liberal

FTFY

18-1 on March 21, 2013 at 3:19 PM

Lincoln is now leading the conspiracy against Sarah Palin and Rick Perry.

IlikedAUH2O

Sarah Palin freed the slaves. Just ask ddrintn. The entirety of American history revolves around Palin.

Rick Santorum lost his bid for reelection in a swing state by seventeen points, and thinks contraception is a bad idea.

Mister Mets

Pennsylvania isn’t a swing state.

I dunno. Her chances are better than Romney’s. Always have been.

ddrintn

You have to run to have a chance. Therefore, she has no chance.

Palin had several reasons for not running.

bw22

Palin had one reason for not running: She knew she had no shot at winning, making her smarter than many of the other candidates, and all of her cult followers.

xblade on March 21, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Don’t cry to me when certain parts of the south start to turn blue in national elections mmmkay..

melle1228 on March 21, 2013 at 3:18 PM

So you’re gonna vote D now?

Foxhound on March 21, 2013 at 3:22 PM

It was the religious conservatives who simply in the end couldn’t pull the lever for the Mormon. I think it’s important that we not only remember that, but that we address it whenever the subject comes up. It would also be nice if the religions cons would own up to it.

SukieTawdry on March 21, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Do you have any kind of cite or at least who’s been pushing that meme? I think it’s totally untrue and would like to know who’s pushing it.

kim roy on March 21, 2013 at 3:22 PM

I see trouble for conservatives until the primary system is fixed. No more ‘open’ primaries. End the Iowa fiasco. Get control of the debate process. There should never be liberal moderators.

trigon on March 21, 2013 at 1:00 PM

THIS. 1000 times. THIS.

And we need voter ID laws. And better control over the voter fraud problem at the ballot box in the general election, too.

idalily on March 21, 2013 at 3:22 PM

From this article, linked by Allah above:

Obama won in 2008 because the public was exhausted with Bush and he represented something wholly fresh and new. He synthesized a particular political and cultural moment uniquely in my memory of presidential campaigns. (I don’t remember Reagan ’80.) A more conservative, or merely more capable, candidate than McCain might have won a few more electoral votes but there’s no reason realistically to think he would have been granted a four-year extension of Republican rule given Dubya’s rock-bottom approval ratings.

The race was competitive until financial crisis struck.

novaculus on March 21, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Therefore I, as a conservative owe the GOP nothing not the otherway around. If the GOP can’t sell their candidates to ME like Romney and lose–It is not MY fault but their fault. Capice?

melle1228 on March 21, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Are you pouting now? Gonna take your toys and go?

See ya.

Foxhound on March 21, 2013 at 3:15 PM

??? How did you get that from what she said???

Remember when Obama went hard to his base in the last few weeks? Remember when Romney didn’t?

How’d that work out?

kim roy on March 21, 2013 at 3:25 PM

But that’s not precisely true. It was the religious conservatives who simply in the end couldn’t pull the lever for the Mormon liberal

FTFY

18-1 on March 21, 2013 at 3:19 PM

It would also be nice if the religious cons would own up to it.

SukieTawdry on March 21, 2013 at 3:25 PM

So you’re gonna vote D now?

Foxhound on March 21, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Let’s see what my choice is

Party A.. supports amnesty, cuts the military, supports gay marriage, pro-choice , give free stuff, spends money like water…

Party B.. supports amnesty, cuts the military, supports gay marriage, pro-choice, doesn’t give free stuff, spends money like water..

Do I vote for free stuff or not?

I don’t know but I know if I was a LIV voter or just a run of the mill voter– I would go with the free stuff.

melle1228 on March 21, 2013 at 3:27 PM

But that’s not precisely true. It was the religious conservatives who simply in the end couldn’t pull the lever for the Mormon liberal

FTFY

18-1 on March 21, 2013 at 3:19 PM

It would also be nice if the religious cons would own up to it.

SukieTawdry on March 21, 2013 at 3:25 PM

It wasn’t only socons that didn’t vote. A lot of hard rights, libertarians, moderates, etc… In fact, a number of people said they weren’t voting dem-lite that were all over the spectrum right here.

I’d still like to know where you get the idea that socons wouldn’t vote for a Mormon.

kim roy on March 21, 2013 at 3:27 PM

It would also be nice if the religious cons would own up to it.

SukieTawdry on March 21, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Whatevah.. That is your own bias. Romney’s biggest support in Tennessee(obviously a state that wasn’t going for Obama) was EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS…

Romney enjoys his broadest support among the self-described white evangelical Christians who make up nearly two-thirds (61 percent) of the state’s likely voters. Among Tennesseans in this group, Romney leads Obama 74 percent to 21 percent, with 5 percent undecided. This segment of Tennessee’s electorate has supported the Republican candidate for president in both elections since 2004, the first presidential election during which the MTSU Poll sampled attitudes statewide.

melle1228 on March 21, 2013 at 3:30 PM

But that’s not precisely true. It was the religious conservatives who simply in the end couldn’t pull the lever for the Mormon liberal

FTFY

18-1 on March 21, 2013 at 3:19 PM

.
Religion was one of many denominators, not the ONLY one.

So those who couldn’t pull the R lever preferred the Marxist-raised, Mooslum leaning Community Organizer over the Mormon.

That’s their right.

FlaMurph on March 21, 2013 at 3:32 PM

I only read the headline… Two words: “Open Primaries” End them.

Dasher on March 21, 2013 at 3:41 PM

It would also be nice if the religious cons would own up to it.

SukieTawdry on March 21, 2013 at 3:25 PM

This Southern Baptist voted for the severly Conservative one.

Tell Jenny Diver I said “Hi”.

Oh, the shark bites, with his teeth, dear…

kingsjester on March 21, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Let’s see what my choice is

Party A.. supports amnesty, cuts the military, supports gay marriage, pro-choice , give free stuff, spends money like water…

Party B.. supports amnesty, cuts the military, supports gay marriage, pro-choice, doesn’t give free stuff, spends money like water..

Do I vote for free stuff or not?

I don’t know but I know if I was a LIV voter or just a run of the mill voter– I would go with the free stuff.

melle1228 on March 21, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Ok, you’re right. We’re pretty screwed.

How would you stack those issues in terms of priority?

Foxhound on March 21, 2013 at 3:46 PM

It would also be nice if the religious cons would own up to it.

SukieTawdry on March 21, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Why should I own up to something that I didn’t do? Yes, I am one of those religious SoCons, and I voted for Romney. He wasn’t my first, or second or even third choice, but I voted for him because the only alternative was Obama. And there was absolutely no way I was voting for a Marxist dedicated to destroying the United States Constitution and the Republic supported by that Constitution.

SWalker on March 21, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Ok, you’re right. We’re pretty screwed.

How would you stack those issues in terms of priority?

Foxhound on March 21, 2013 at 3:46 PM

The first thing I would stop doing is blaming and shaming the people who have to vote for you.. That would be a good start.

melle1228 on March 21, 2013 at 3:48 PM

Ok, you’re right. We’re pretty screwed.

How would you stack those issues in terms of priority?

Foxhound on March 21, 2013 at 3:46 PM

It occurred to me I didn’t really answer your question.. I would make sure I gave the voters a clear choice in parties by differing on the issues and one of the first priorities would be to get back to the fiscal sanity and values that the Republicans are supposed to be known for.

melle1228 on March 21, 2013 at 3:51 PM

The first thing I would stop doing is blaming and shaming the people who have to vote for you.. That would be a good start.

melle1228 on March 21, 2013 at 3:48 PM

Seriously, how would you rank them?

Foxhound on March 21, 2013 at 3:52 PM

2012, believe it or not, was nothing personal, but conservatives are never going to believe it. The mistake the GOP made in 2008 was in promising a nomination 4 years in advance. The biggest disadvantage it gave us was the lack of the ability to take advantage of new developments, like the Tea Party. The Teas really got shut out because they weren’t around to be in on the deal back in ’08, and would have been too smart to make said deal. It really wasn’t The Great Washington Cocktail Conspiracy To Kill The Tea Party (TM), it was the Usual Suspects lacking the imagination to find a way to finesse the deal with Romney and bring the Teas on board.

Sekhmet on March 21, 2013 at 3:52 PM

We got Romney in 2012 because that was what it took to get him to drop his bid in favor of McCain in 2008. One of the few things that went right in the 2012 primary was that the other candidates were well-knocked-out enough that the GOP didn’t have to promise them 2016 to get out of Romney’s way.

Excellent point Sekhmet.

Emery misses the big picture: WHY were there no good conservative candidates challenging Romney? When the strategy is always It’s The Next Guy’s Turn, smart potential candidates will decide they have better things to do than to challenge a foregone conclusion, and will wait it out. Especially in 2012 when the Next Guy In Line not only had establishment support but tons of his own money to burn.

So in 2012 we got a slate consisting of Romney and everyone foolhardy enough to challenge him (for whatever reasons of their own).

2016 is more open; it’s not yet obvious whose turn it is, partially because as Sekhmet pointed out, after the 2012 primary there wasn’t a moderate still standing who needed to be promised anything in order to yield to Romney. Unless of course Jeb Bush has already gotten the promise which is entirely possible.

Missy on March 21, 2013 at 3:58 PM

The first thing I would stop doing is blaming and shaming the people who have to vote for you.. That would be a good start.

melle1228 on March 21, 2013 at 3:48 PM

Exactly, quite treating me like a prole who is being given the privilege of voting for you, it is the politicians who have the privilege of receiving my vote.

SWalker on March 21, 2013 at 4:00 PM

Seriously, how would you rank them?

Foxhound on March 21, 2013 at 3:52 PM

Well since we are drowing in debt, obviously I believe that amnesty should be nixed and fiscal priority is a must.

I don’t think our platform needs to change. I think that the Repub platfrom is fine. The problem is that Repubs haven’t been legislating by that platfrom in years. From a candidate side, we haven’t had a candidate that can articulate the values properly or sell them to the public partly because we haven’t had a candidate that believes in them themselves.

melle1228 on March 21, 2013 at 4:01 PM

workingclass artist on March 21, 2013 at 3:05 PM

LOL– I must have blocked all that out. :)

melle1228 on March 21, 2013 at 3:08 PM

I think a lot of people did.

This last primary was particularly viscous & the roller coaster of istas jumping from one candidate to another bordered on bizzarro world of personality cults.

I’m a native Texan.

I supported Gov. Perry for three reasons.

1. He has an excellent conservative governing record and interesting policy ideas.

2. He’s a hoot to watch on the campaign trail.

3. Nobody in Texas thinks about Rick Perry unless the legislature is in session…And I liked the whole Make Washington DC inconsequential in the everyday lives of Americans. That is a very conservative Texan frame of thought…something GWB never got.

I voted for Romney and liked his choice of Ryan as a running mate…But Romney isn’t a head to head fighter and after his first debate he lost the will to fight.

One term as governor doesn’t translate as honing excellent fighting/negotiating skills especially with a legislative…especially when your own party goes nuts.

I’d prefer a governor with a good record and experience with a legislative body so I know how he deals with the legislative body…How he or she picks and chooses their battles so to speak & how they respond to voters when they mess up.

Every Politician messes up.

workingclass artist on March 21, 2013 at 4:02 PM

I don’t think our platform needs to change. I think that the Repub platfrom is fine.

Agree. The platform isn’t the problem. The problem is that we haven’t had a candidate who believes in it and can articulate those beliefs to voters.

Missy on March 21, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Can we at least hire someone that has: Experience at governing, a record that is conservative. Stop going by the latest fads, the idea of who can give Obama a bloody nose and who has the best sound bites.

bzip on March 21, 2013 at 1:15 PM

Sadly a fraction of the conservative base, mostly bloggers and radio show listeners, are much more about the image, buzzwords, zingers, and how to emotionally play games with the left than they are about record, experience, and substance (Of course they will deny that)… In this regard they are no different than the liberals…

mnjg on March 21, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Ratings…Yep!

workingclass artist on March 21, 2013 at 4:06 PM

Jeb Bush has already gotten the promise which is entirely possible.

Missy on March 21, 2013 at 3:58 PM

Just stay out of the Bush’s, or you will get bitten by a Oil Tick and catch sLyme disease.

SWalker on March 21, 2013 at 4:12 PM

Sanford/Schwarzenegger — 2016

Schadenfreude on March 21, 2013 at 2:42 PM

HA!

workingclass artist on March 21, 2013 at 4:13 PM

Jeb Bush has already gotten the promise which is entirely possible.

Missy on March 21, 2013 at 3:58 PM

Just stay out of the Bush’s, or you will get bitten by a Oil Tick and catch sLyme disease.

SWalker on March 21, 2013 at 4:12 PM

There are people who really like the idea of political dynasties…

Kennedys…Clintons…Bushes…

It’s sickening.

workingclass artist on March 21, 2013 at 4:15 PM

Perhaps it’s for the same reason that they never win Peace Prizes.

unclesmrgol on March 21, 2013 at 4:45 PM

Governor Palin quit Fox News, also.

Or was she pushed out by the Dark Interests?

IlikedAUH2O on March 21, 2013 at 4:47 PM

Fox kept Rove.

IlikedAUH2O on March 21, 2013 at 4:48 PM

One of the things I liked most about Reagan was that he never opened his mouth without slamming the left, and giving a defense of the right. He was completely unafraid of attacking the left, which is completely opposite of today’s republicans.

Reagan had worse press than anyone on the right currently does, but it didn’t hurt him because he was an attack dog. He attacked in a way that didn’t alienate voters in the middle, sort of like Obama does today, only not as rancorous as Obama.

jaime on March 21, 2013 at 4:51 PM

workingclass artist on March 21, 2013 at 4:02 PM

If only he figured out how not to insult the conservative base, how to stay out of medical decisions of his citizens he might have a shot at getting my attention again, like he did when he said Social Security is a ponzi scheme.

astonerii on March 21, 2013 at 4:52 PM

jaime on March 21, 2013 at 4:51 PM

He had an 11th Commandment. There aren’t many real Reaganites around here.

IlikedAUH2O on March 21, 2013 at 4:59 PM

Sarah Palin freed the slaves. Just ask ddrintn. The entirety of American history revolves around Palin.

Nope. I criticized her in this very same thread. Just because I don’t think she’s some subhuman brain stem like you do doesn’t mean I idolize her. And yeah, she’s still the most compelling figure on the scene now for conservatives. Deal.

I dunno. Her chances are better than Romney’s. Always have been.

ddrintn

You have to run to have a chance. Therefore, she has no chance.

Oh, she had more of a shot than Romney does, having the support of the base, and she’s nowhere near the total political corpse that Romney is.

Palin had several reasons for not running.

bw22

Palin had one reason for not running: She knew she had no shot at winning, making her smarter than many of the other candidates, and all of her cult followers.

xblade on March 21, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Yet you thought that Romney would win. What’s that make you? LOL

ddrintn on March 21, 2013 at 5:05 PM

He had an 11th Commandment. There aren’t many real Reaganites around here.

IlikedAUH2O on March 21, 2013 at 4:59 PM

I love it when habitual Palin-bashers pull out that “11th Commandment”. It’s so cute. LOL

ddrintn on March 21, 2013 at 5:06 PM

Governor Palin quit Fox News, also.

Or was she pushed out by the Dark Interests?

IlikedAUH2O on March 21, 2013 at 4:47 PM

They offered her a renewal contract and she declined. Palin and Fox News parted amicably.

Jeebus.

Aitch748 on March 21, 2013 at 5:07 PM

He had an 11th Commandment. There aren’t many real Reaganites around here.

IlikedAUH2O on March 21, 2013 at 4:59 PM

If not speaking ill of someone who talks about legitimate rape means I’m not a real Reaganite then I guess that’s going to have to be my cross to bear.

alchemist19 on March 21, 2013 at 5:07 PM

It really wasn’t The Great Washington Cocktail Conspiracy To Kill The Tea Party (TM), it was the Usual Suspects lacking the imagination to find a way to finesse the deal with Romney and bring the Teas on board.

Sekhmet on March 21, 2013 at 3:52 PM

Trent Lott just before the 2010 elections:

“We don’t need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples. As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them.”

ddrintn on March 21, 2013 at 5:10 PM

They offered her a renewal contract and she declined. Palin and Fox News parted amicably.

Jeebus.

Aitch748 on March 21, 2013 at 5:07 PM

And if she HAD renewed: “She’s still just a nobody commentator…” LOL Some of the people are pathological, I swear.

ddrintn on March 21, 2013 at 5:12 PM

I haven’t seen a conservative run in the primaries since 1984

unseen on March 21, 2013 at 1:59 PM

Very true.

What is the track record after Reagan? Bush 41 won riding Reagan’s coat tails, then lost after betraying Conservatives.

Dole got killed.

GWB is a social conservative, supposedly political poison, and he won two terms.

McCain got crushed by a nobody.

Romney got crushed by a President with the worst economic “recovery” since the great depression.

Reagan was a charismatic movement Conservative while Bush was a likable guy whose campaign was willing to tear his opponent to shreds, something both McCain and Romney sucked at.

*in fairness to Dole, Clinton did suddenly start to work with Gingrich and his Contract with America to undercut Dole’s campaign.

Daemonocracy on March 21, 2013 at 5:39 PM

All these native Texans and not one response from any of them on

http://www.corridorwatch.org

The single largest big goverment land grab and inside job of selling off Public Property in history.

A 900 yard wide swath of “imminant domain” taking and Billions of dollars of contracts to a Spanish Toll Road Company from the Gulf to the Oklahoma Border, and beyond.

Trucks and Trains from a direct link to Mexico with no inspection before Kansas City.

Bonds for the deal handed off to Wall St. via Rudy Giuliani.

Big Goverment at the very largest and all of it kicked in the ass by we real native Texans.

Rick Perry is a RNC cult made man.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on March 21, 2013 at 5:56 PM

First, conspiracies aside, surely no one doubts that the GOP’s consultant and donor class trends a bit more centrist than the base. I saw an article about that somewhere just the other day vis-a-vis gay marriage: Many socially conservative grassroots Republicans remain firmly opposed, but there’s widespread (if often quiet) support for legalized SSM among Republicans on the Hill and in other corridors of power. Go figure that that more centrist professional class would gravitate towards centrist candidates like Romney in the primary and bring their money and electoral expertise with them. Karl Rove, the mastermind of “compassionate conservatism,” is building a group right now that’s designed to head off ostensibly unelectable conservative insurgents in House and Senate primaries. Emery’s right about the quality of candidates on the right in presidential races lately, but let’s be fair: They’re swimming upstream against a centrist tide among party power-brokers.

This is basically on the mark, although I would replace “centrist” (which would suggest a middle ground between the two opposing sides) with “flamingly, socially liberal” when it comes to characterizing the social views of the establishment and consultant class.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2013 at 6:03 PM

2016 should be different because, by almost universal acclaim, the quality of conservatives in the field will be solid: Rubio, Paul, Jindal, maybe Ryan. They’re all electable in theory, or at least more electable than righties in the classes of 2008 and 2012.

Rubio is a definite sell-out on amnesty, and has hinted at selling out on gay marriage. Paul is a definite sell-out on marriage, has a terrible drug policy, and has been less-than-stellar when it comes to abortion at least in terms of clarity, if not policy. Ryan has always been overhyped and has shown no ability to connect with voters on the campaign trail and comes off as an accountant. I look forward to supporting Santorum again in 2016, and I think he could wipe the floor with any of those three.

The only one of those four mentioned thus far that I don’t yet have significant doubts about is Jindal. I think he’s a promising prospect, and I’m interested in what he has to say, but I want to see how he does on the trail and in debates before I jump on the bandwagon.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2013 at 6:10 PM

(Actually, Iowa Republicans are famous for leaning further to the right on social issues than the GOP electorate nationally. That’s how Huckabee and Santorum managed to win in 2008 and 2012, respectively. And the early boost didn’t help them to the nominations.)

A fair point regarding Huckabee, but not as it pertains to Santorum. Recall that Santorum was not declared the winner initially. It was supposedly Romney until they did the recount, so he never got the full bounce, and even then Santorum pulled a Lazarus with his hat trick upset against Mitt of Colorado, Missouri, and Minnesota in one night.

One thing that Santorum and Huckabee can each claim though, as could Perry, Bachmann, and other candidates, is that a high number of conservative candidates and a relatively few number of RINOs dilutes the conservative vote until it allows the RINOs to seize the nomination.

Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2013 at 6:14 PM

GOP is in a real pickle in the “short term” future”..Too much “in fighting” among folks..Hopefully things will smooth out over the next couple of years..:)

Very interesting article by Emery that makes some good points..:)

Dire Straits on March 21, 2013 at 6:16 PM

workingclass artist on March 21, 2013 at 4:02 PM

If only he figured out how not to insult the conservative base, how to stay out of medical decisions of his citizens he might have a shot at getting my attention again, like he did when he said Social Security is a ponzi scheme.

astonerii on March 21, 2013 at 4:52 PM

He stepped on his D*#&…and he admitted it after the debate.

As to Tardisil…he backed down after he heard the electorate and it never went into effect.

Sometimes Politicians listen to idiots on policy ideas…they are people and make mistakes…What matters is does the politician have the character to admit a mistake and listen to their constituents when those people balk?

It’s clear that at least in Washington many politicians become so jaded that they don’t listen to the nation but rely on a corrupt media,corrupt academia and increasingly corrupted polling firms.
Many of these folks have lost their nerve and compromised their principles.

Unlike many liberals…I don’t expect a politician to be a saint or a daddy.

I do expect them to be decent citizens first and to do their best to follow through on the platform they were elected on…If policies or strategy are adjusted they need to explain that in a straightforward manner to the voters because they respect the voter. I like Ryan because he’s pretty straight forward.

I’ve seen Perry campaign in town halls and he’s good at doing that & he’s not afraid of the voters or their questions. He’s not too long winded in his answers either…more common sense explanation.

By and large Texas has done well under his leadership…

workingclass artist on March 21, 2013 at 6:29 PM

All these native Texans and not one response from any of them on

http://www.corridorwatch.org

The single largest big goverment land grab and inside job of selling off Public Property in history.

A 900 yard wide swath of “imminant domain” taking and Billions of dollars of contracts to a Spanish Toll Road Company from the Gulf to the Oklahoma Border, and beyond.

Trucks and Trains from a direct link to Mexico with no inspection before Kansas City.

Bonds for the deal handed off to Wall St. via Rudy Giuliani.

Big Goverment at the very largest and all of it kicked in the ass by we real native Texans.

Rick Perry is a RNC cult made man.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on March 21, 2013 at 5:56 PM

Did the Trans Texas Corridor happen…NO it did not!

*next*

workingclass artist on March 21, 2013 at 6:34 PM

By and large Texas has done well under his leadership…

workingclass artist on March 21, 2013 at 6:29 PM

.
That may be…

But you can’t run a man in the First Woman Presidential Election.

The black Prezzie behind us, the next barrier to fall……

2016- The year of the Woman.

FlaMurph on March 21, 2013 at 6:43 PM

By and large Texas has done well under his leadership…

workingclass artist on March 21, 2013 at 6:29 PM

.
That may be…

But you can’t run a man in the First Woman Presidential Election.

The black Prezzie behind us, the next barrier to fall……

2016- The year of the Woman.

FlaMurph on March 21, 2013 at 6:43 PM

So either Hillary “What difference does it make” Clinton or Elizabeth Lyawatha Warren?

I’ll take those odds.

workingclass artist on March 21, 2013 at 6:58 PM

ddrintn on March 21, 2013 at 1:37 PM

People din’t think Reagan was conservative at the time.

IlikedAUH2O on March 21, 2013 at 1:42 PM

Reagan was always known as the conservative. The media did their dead level best to paint him as a knuckle-drugging but senile Neanderthal. And since he ran in both 1976 and 1980, it would be especially hard to claim that no one thought he was conservative in 1980.

You don’t launch a campaign against an incumbent president of your own party and run against him from the right without everyone knowing who you are.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 21, 2013 at 7:01 PM

one of the total victories of the Bush GOPe was to equate being probusiness as the same as being pro-free market. It opened up K street and crony capitalism on steriods. the no bid contracts was a nice touch also. It’s time that conservatives understand that free market means less government not too big to fail companies.

unseen on March 21, 2013 at 2:15 PM

It wasn’t the Bush administration that started it. The liberals of the 60s and 70s were so opposed to all business that it became all too easy for the Republicans to ally themselves with businesses, and assume that pro-business was a synonym for anti-communist.

Well, that at least made sense. What they missed was that pro-business was not necessarily anti-socialist. It’s easy for businesses to get completely on board with moderate socialism as long as they get a spot at the public trough.

The distinction you make is vital. The conservative position is to be pro-market, not necessarily always pro-business. There are lots of businesses in lots of countries who depend on the government to hand them a nice market, and keep out the competition.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 21, 2013 at 7:08 PM

That may be…

But you can’t run a man in the First Woman Presidential Election.

The black Prezzie behind us, the next barrier to fall……

2016- The year of the Woman.

FlaMurph on March 21, 2013 at 6:43 PM

After the REB I can’t see a fat, ugly and old white woman winning the democratic primary. There’s a whole new class of young black or hispanic democratics that will challenge her. Will those armies of blacks show up again in Ohio, PA, Michigan, etc, and vote for her over someone selling themself as Obama II? I doubt it.

slickwillie2001 on March 21, 2013 at 7:23 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4