We need a candidate who can articulate all those positions in a manner voters will get. It is really not so hard (the issue is balance).
Cruz is a good man. I agree he was a bit hamfisted in this latest fight--but he did not embarrass himself like that dottering old fool John McCain (who soiled himself). As for Santorum, Cruz did not lose Texas by 17 points.
47 comments:
Santorum is electable, unlike McCain, Romney, Dole, Ford and of course Bush I.
I say Bush I, because only he only won in 1988 by falsely running as 'Son of Reagan'. Once he started to govern as himself, he lost - big time.
But what about Christie, another sure-fire moderate who'll rope in the those independents and cruise to victory?
I think the real challenge is finding someone who is both a Social Conservative and a Freedom-libertarian type. There are too few who can say This is what I believe is the line between right and wrong, and this is why I don't think the government should enforce that line.
In fact, the biggest problem small-government types face is the fact that expansive government provides so much opportunity for politicians to impose their own beliefs ( and line their own pockets ) that people who wish to impose ( and line ) have much greater incentive to seek public office in the first place.
I was cogitating on that yesterday, IiB: people who believe in the power and right of others to make their own decisions make poor evangelists, and therefor don't give the masses the personalty cult leadership they crave.
Santorum? Who cares?
The marriage between social conservatives and freedom libertarians lies with the Rand Pauls/ Judge Napolitanos of the world. People who have very strong religious beliefs, but are more inclined to let people live how they want.
I still think Rand Paul could do very well. He's smart, articulate, and not so libertarian as to scare away the social conservatives.
As a person who happily voted for Ted Cruz in the primary and general election; I do not nominate Ted Cruz. I thought Obama lacked the maturity to be President, and I think Ted has that problem as well.
I would like to see someone run from outside of the DC area. A governor would be great, but so many of them (Kasich, Perry) are shooting themselves in the political foot.
Sorry, but the problem for Republicans is not the candidate, but the voters. If they can't get beyond their own stupidity, there isn't much that can be done by a candidate that has any values. Is there any Republican that ever ran ever ever ever who would have botched things up as wide and bad as the guy who just got reelected. You can lead voters to the truth, but you can't make them care enough to challenge their own childish thinking.
For example, the only quality on which voters clearly preferred Obama over Romney was the question of "which candidate cares about people like me?"
You have to be retarded to vote for a President based on that.
"The New Electoral Math:
The exit pollsters asked which was the most important candidate quality – vision for the future (29%), shares my values (27%), cares about people like me (21%), and strong leader (18%).
Mitt Romney won three of the four qualities. Voters who selected vision opted for Romney 54%-45%. Those who picked values preferred Romney 55%-42%. Voters focused on strong leadership opted for Romney 61%-38%. Romney lost 18%-81% among voters who said “cares about people like me” to Barack Obama.
Thus, Romney controlled leadership, vision, and values, yet still lost, because he got blown out on the empathy dimension. This may well have been the first Presidential election where the winner on leadership lost the election anyhow. Prior to the election, if you had said that Romney would win among the 74% of voters choosing those three qualities and would still lose overall, you would not have been believed.
Also, asked which of four was the most important issue, an overwhelming 59% picked the economy. Romney won those voters 51%-47%. Thus, he won the most important issue, but still lost the election."
http://pos.org/2012/11/the-new-electoral-math-and-what-it-means-for-polling/
Scott Walker. Unlike any of the senators, he has actually run a state. He keeps his word, does what he promises to do. Never loses his temper, no skeletons in his closet.
So the question is who is the candidate that can convince people to vote Republican when they think Republicans are all greedy, selfish, evil nutjobs and are told so by 90% of the media and entertainment world 24/7.
Good luck with that.
What you need is a Republican who is blind, homeless, saves puppies, is more powerful than a locomotive, and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. Then maybe he can win by 1/2 a percent.
It would also help if he was a singer/songwriter and a winner on Dances With The Stars.
Christie might be possible with the fat vote pushing him over the fence. That's a majority of Americans isn't it?
If Rubio woke up and got really conservative, serious, and brave, he could win it, but he has a long way back from where he's been lately.
I am ashamed to say I gave some hard-earned money to McCain's Prez campaign in 2008 [that is the first time and will be the last time I will ever donate to a prez campaign]
I like Scott Walker too. I'd prefer a governor as well. He's Mitch Daniels without the skeletons. (I'm still angry that Daniels didn't run in 2012--I think he would have won).
No one is affable or charismatic enough on the right to get elected as president. The left will vilify the right, while the right will remain silent overall.
No one is affable or charismatic enough on the right to get elected as president. The left will vilify the right, while the right will remain silent overall.
No one is affable or charismatic enough on the right to get elected as president. The left will vilify the right, while the right will remain silent overall.
I think Haz has it. Governor, even tempered.
I like Tom Coburn a lot, but he'd probably get savaged for some past issues.
If the Republicans had the sense, a big if, to stand back and let Obama's signature achievement, Obamacare, crap all over the American People, they could win it all back, the congress in 2014 and the presidency in 2016, and probably with any candidate. But of course the RINO's will do everything in their considerable power to save their fellow statist Dems so that the rape of the hated unto death average Joe can continue.
The whole "Lets stand back and let the democrats destroy it all and then surely everyone will wake up..." idea... does not work. We are too far gone. Proof? See the thread above.
It's over folks. We can pick, peck and whine at all the various candidates and their imperfections... I don't think it matters anymore. We have crossed the Rubicon. We. Are. Fucked.
I agree with Michael Haz, Scott Walker could pull it off.
Walker's book describing the recall election is going to be published November 19th. Gallies have been circulating.
An excerpt is here. The guy has titanium balls.
I think Limbaugh should retire and let his guest hosts take over. Mark Steyn is far superior. Keep the show, call it the Rush Limbaugh show - just improve it by reducing Rush's presence.
Rush often starts whole conversations with "You know, you're all going to take this the wrong way, but..."
Well then don't say it, moron!
You're a TALK show host. Figure it out.
But that's just my gripe. In any case, I agree with Bagoh 100%. The American voter is to blame.
17 points win in Texas does not equal the rest of the country.
Sorry.
and tits.
Maybe a republican winning a different state other than than the South (except Florida) and small population states?
Now that said, I agree that Republicans need to pay attention to all the legs of the stool. National Security, Social Conservative and Business...
Social Conservatism is not the business of government. The government should not be in the business of social engineering. The purpose of government is to protect the liberty that is our natural, inherent right.
The Republican party will continue to lose, and will deserve to lose, until someone figures that out.
If you want "social conservatism", advocate it as a private citizen.
State-enforced social conservatism is just Nanny Government wearing a cross and a starched collar.
Palladian, Bravo! I might bring you back some anchovies from the Lingurian Sea in December. Your comment was anchovy worthy.
Palladian, would you say the same about social liberalism?
Interesting point, Michael Haz.
What's a proper SoCon position? On abortion? Gay Marriage?
Is it State sanctioned nannyism? Or is it more libertarian minded these days? I tend to think most SoCons wish to be left alone. On abortion,there is some law involved, but is it really about putting doctors in jail or more about making people more responsible for their choices?
First term Senator so I can't see Cruz doing it, although I don't think that will stop Booker from trying.
Palladian, would you say the same about social liberalism?
Of course!
But since it seems that the current (in my opinion, ridiculous) gauge for social liberalism/conservatism is "gay" marriage, remember that I consider government regulation and sanction of marriage to be nanny statism as well. That means that there could be same-sex or opposite-sex (or polygamous or polyandrous) marriages, religious or secular marriages, any kind of marriage that churches or people want to countenance or perform (with reasonable restrictions upon age of consent). This would give everyone, conservative and liberal churches, traditionalists and non-traditional people, the right and freedom to perform, or not perform, marriages as they choose.
Palladian, Bravo! I might bring you back some anchovies from the Lingurian Sea in December. Your comment was anchovy worthy.
That's an excellent metric!
I oppose abortion on libertarian principles. That is, all humans have the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To deprive the genetically distinct developing human of those rights is murder, the ultimate crime against natural liberty.
Use birth control if you're a heterosexual couple who wants to fuck without consequences. For God's sake, I don't know why that's so difficult in this day and age.
If there was no welfare state or IRS, gay marriage wouldn't be an issue.
If there was no welfare state or IRS, gay marriage wouldn't be an issue.
Ka-boom.
If there was no welfare state or IRS, gay marriage wouldn't be an issue.
But we both know that's not true. Social cons make it an issue because they like controlling people according to their religious and/or social beliefs, just like so-called "liberals" like controlling people according to their religious and/or social beliefs.
Most people who go into politics or government do so not to serve but to control.
Natura humana
The Framers understood this, but their wisdom is buried under a century's worth of compost.
Palladian, I think many social conservatives would be happy with right to life...if given the choice.
You could have your right to do what you wish...with consenting adults.
Win win.
Yep, all the Republicans need to do is drop the SoCon buiness like they have in Vermont, Mass, California, etc, where they're currently in control and smashing the "D's". Oh wait, that didn't happen, except for dropping the SoCon part.
And I didn't realize Bush I, Romney, Dole, McCain, and Ford were SoCons. IRC, all five of them actually were pro-choice, except for a mumbling flip-flop during the Republican Primaries.
I'd agree about the Republicans dropping the Gun nuts though. We could pick up a lot of Blue state voters by supporting Gun control and banning assault weapons. I mean where are the NRA-gun nuts going to go? Vote for a Democrat? Ha.
We need to move to the center.
Oh shut up.
rcocean, my reply is "nuts."
Social conservatives are more libertarian than many people give them credit for. Which is why I thought Santorum's attacks on libertarians were stupid and made me ultimately reject him.
Palladian said...
Social cons make it an issue because they like controlling people according to their religious and/or social beliefs, just like so-called "liberals" like controlling people according to their religious and/or social beliefs.
Most socons only want people to stop using politics to drive societal change. To me that seems quite compatible with libertarianism.
Palladian,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply to my question. I think you'd find a segment of social cons in agreement with you with regard to same sex marriage, and some not in agreement.
Social conservatism, however is more than the issue of gay marriage, and that is where there is more disagreement between soshcons and soshlibs.
The big ones:
Local, not federal control of local public schools.
Charter, private and parochial schools as an alternative to public schools.
Giving crime victims the same strength of rights as has been given criminals.
Prayer in schools for those who choose to pray.
No research using embryonic stem cells (other than those already in the research stream).
Employers' ability to exclude contraceptives, abortifacient drugs and abortions from medical insurance plans if such is contrary to the employer's religious convictions.
Immigration should be done under the legal processes already in existence. The borders should be closed to illegal immigration.
There are more differences, but these are the big ones.
Post a Comment