Skip to comments.Noemie Emery: Why canít conservative candidates win Republican presidential primaries?
Posted on 03/21/2013 1:51:56 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
An unsparing piece keying off the same Rick Perry soundbite at CPAC that inspired this post. Perry said that its unfair to blame conservatism for the GOPs losses in 2008 and 2012 because, after all, our nominees werent conservative. Emerys response: Then why did Republican primary voters vote for them instead of for a solid conservative like, say, Rick Perry?
Her answer? Between Reagans generation and the current crop of Rubio, Scott Walker, etc, there simply havent 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
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
That is not true. There there simply havent been many good conservative VOTERS.........
If neither throws their hat in the ring we go with the B candidates - Rand Paul or Scott Walker.
If either of them lose early we get behind C candidate Rubio.
If it's Jeb or Christie we vote 3rd party.
Any good candidates that have come along have been shot down with ‘friendly fire’ by asshats like Allahpundit, that’s why.
“Why cant conservative candidates win Republican presidential primaries?” We haven’t had any(conservatives) in the last 6 Election Cycles.
Circular. Firing. Squad.
The establishment plainly and openly conspires against conservatives. The establishment wanted Romney and stuck with him start to finish. They encouraged multiple conservative entries to split up the overwhelming conservative base. The hosted too many debates hosted often by anti conservative journalists.
In 96 Keyes was handcuffed shoved into a police car and driven to the edge of Atlanta ! Can you imagine if that was done to Obama.
We live in a hatefully anti conservatives establishment that condones the burning of palins church and all manner of incivility.
The articles argument is typical anti conservative propaganda.
Rand Paul: Im pro-life, but exceptions should be handled case by case
Rand Paul: Pathway To Citizenship Is Needed, E-Verify Is Not
Top labor union stands with Rand Paul on immigration (SEIU)
Entire Room Of Tea Party House Members Agrees With Rand Paul On Immigration
Because there are 5 of them they split the vote and by the time there is 1 left it is too late.
Because the Republican primaries always have four or five fairly conservative candidates and one or two RINOs who will win a fair number of votes. And a few more assorted candidates with no prayer of winning a significant number of votes.
The conservative candidates split the votes in early primaries and the RINO(s) win the most votes in several states, several of which will be winner-take-all. Going into Super Tuesday a RINO will be leading and have a good shot at taking a good lead after ST.
Since there are never runoffs in primary elections, A RINO who can get around 30% - 35% of the vote through mid-February will take the lead and likely win. And there'll be three or four conservatives with 10% to 20% of the vote each.
That scenario give us McCain and Romney and it can give us Jeb Bush or Crispie Creme. Blue states pick our nominees as things have been the past few elections.
Name the conservative candidate who could actually have won the election.
No one like that exists, to my knowledge. Gov. Sarah Palin is in the mold, but we all know what they did to her. I wouldn’t blame her if she never ran for office again.
The reason is that we have been horn swaggled...hoodwinked into believing the tiger changed his strips after Reagan. The RINO’s just took the name Conservative....and took to their inner liberal big gooberment freak.
Only Reagan was a conservative.
-His having been a Democrat can be explained.
-His having been the only US president to have headed a union, can be forgiven.
-His having signed an Abortion bill into law- He later regretted it , all is well.
-His having been the only US president to sign an amnesty bill- Its OK, he was easily tricked.
-His having started the destruction of the family with his no fault divorce- he admitted it was wrong.
When he rises form the dead we shall win.
I read where Paul Ryan likes the same belt buckles as Joe Biden, so he must be crushed!
The real reason is that pampered, out-of-touch, pathological constituents provide the most money, by far, for PACs and politicians. Look around. See the political/regulator class. What do they produce? Nothing of value to Americans who would manufacture needed products if allowed to do so.
They do, in fact, prevent needed production, illegally (by the law of our land) spy on citizens, gossip, falsely accuse, rob real producers, steal children (to sell to pathological, false parents) and generally threaten the populace, keeping national morale generally low. Thus, the economic slide toward default, which is the remedy.
Show us honest candidates in favor of cutting public education (rules out those with families in public ed.)—men against environmentalism, animal-worship and other pathologies, men against fat federal funding to state and local governments, men in favor of a large, productive manufacturing base.
Or the political regulator folks made their bed. Let ‘em lay in it for as long as it takes (default, checkmate). They can huff, puff, whine and threaten most other Americans all they like.
Because the GOP-e dumped $millions$ into TV smear ads against conservative candidates in all the big electoral states and ACORN/SEIU committed massive voter fraud in those same states. This is why Rove was so sure his Sear suit model won on Fox news, but Fox knew the massive voter fraud would win over.
Hey Sirius Lee,
Given the list of policy positions that Paul is either just flat wrong on or slipping on, from a conservative point of view, I’m not so sure he is a ‘B’ level candidate, more like a ‘C’ and if he keeps going in the direction he is going, he will end up in the ‘Vote Third Party’ category.
Off course not Just the rnc is opposed to conservatives. Our intellectual culture hates conservatives. But pandering does not lessen this.
See the little trick they play? It sounds as if the argument is there hasn’t been a Reagan since Reagan. But that’s not the bar. What they’re actually saying is there hasn’t been as good a conservative candidate as the actual Pub candidates since Reagan. All you’d have to be is as good as the Bushes, Dole, McCain, and Romney. Quite the lower bar.
The Establishment strategy if tge past generation is transparent. To them it’s always ‘64, not ‘80. It’s as if Reagan never happened, and we’re perpetually in danger of being Goldwatered. They flip the usual process upsidedown. Whereas traditionally you play to the base in the primaries and spread out for the general, Pub primaries these days are about finding the most milquetoast candidate possible, then throwing chum to the party faithful with their relatively conservative running mate (Ryan, Palin, Kemp, though notably not Cheney). It’s also based stupidly on whose “turn” it is.
Penultimately, the goal is to produce an MSM-proof candidate, which always fails. There is no such creature on earth as a Pub that gets good PR from the MSM, unless it’s in preference to other Pubs. The ultimate goal is to hang onto the Establishment’s preferred position as the Slightly Less Than Democrat Party.
All we have to do is look at the Governor of Alaska, the most popular governor in America with approval numbers consistently in the 80s and reaching 93%, and she was known as effective and as a reformer, she was already one of the most interesting and accomplished females in American history with her biography and life style, and she could introduce youth, energy, vigor, and the face of a self made women with an American Indian family (all of her family including grandchild are tribal members, except her), and her handsome, athletic husband, as a rebranding of the staid old GOP.
So what happened when she was picked as the veep candidate? The GOP went crazy and turned into a pack of rabid wolves with prominent republican writers and columnists not only trying to destroy her, but actually endorsing and voting for the Democrats.
We always see this with conservatives, although never as dramatic as they did with Palin, for one thing in her case they had to react quickly or else she would become a Reagan like president within an election or two.
Cruz will never get equal standing with Rubio, and on and on.
Romney did not become the nominee because he is a brilliant politician, or had a message, or even had any place in GOP politics, he got there because he and the GOPe teamed together were an awesome force in shaping the presidential primaries for 6 years. The establishment is always an awesome force and they remove threats or at least weaken them, years in advance.
Additionally I wonder
The ability to capitulate with someone identified as republican?
How might that help?
Principaled losses do help despite all the whining.
The culture must be led. It is currently pathological.
Why should anyone have to do that? Neither Romney, McCain, nor Dole won. That is tge standard. For this article to be right there couldn’t have been a conservative to do as well as that motley crew. About which I remain seriously dubious.
HotAir can go to hell. I recall they were pimping for Romney hard before the end of the primaries. Conservative candidates don’t get nominated because the GOPe does its best to undermine conservative candidates, as seen by the events of Bloody Thursday when Drudge, with the help of GOPe peons, unleashed false claims of Newt being an anti-Reaganite. We also saw this in their treatment of Palin.
It also doesn’t help that we have open primaries, thus allowing Rats to pollute the nomination process.
All of this deception, combined with an obsessive need to cover up the truth about Romney’s past, led to Mittens getting the nod.
You were S2, if I remember correctly. Maybe you’ll recall studies of Vaclav Havel, Lech Walenza and all, or not. Maybe we’ll do more of what is healthy, natural, moral and productive each year despite politics currently popular with the few who sturgeons of debt posing as big, bad bandwagons in political speech. Maybe that’s where the general situation is naturally going, this time without earthly design, Sir.
But then maybe having been a lowly enlisted type, digging lots of holes to sleep in and working temp jobs for decades, I’m only dreaming. Maybe I’m only dreaming, and none of this is really happening.
This is not the country that I grew up in. It’s been shut down to worthless activities by a lot of useless and spoiled people. How many of them would it take to change a transmission, build a house or index a gear, Sir?
IMO, we need old fashioned, real men in charge—not women who would print more funny money for public education and feminist domestic violence programs.
“Name the conservative candidate who could actually have won the election.”
All of them, except for the two Mormons, Ron Paul, and what’s-his-face.
Our candidate was the guy who invented ObamaCare. Go figure.
Yes, Reagan can be explained.
Being anti-Reagan post 1960s and during and after the Reagan Revolution, cannot be explained.
I would go with Scott Walker to begin with, over Cruz and Paul, for two reasons: (1) he has demonstrated strong executive ability in WI, especially in guiding "right to work" into being in the face of fierce opposition, and (2) the amount of hate that the Dems had for him would have resulted in any skeletons in his closet being exposed already.
The last time a Republican with only legislative experience and no exec experience (as either a governor, VP, cabinet secretary or general) won the presidency was Warren G. Harding.
The $ and promotion from the GOP/RNC goes to the moderates/elites/insider pukes.
The biggest problem is that most of these “conservative” candidates have major liberal issues
Look at the names bandied about now.... most of them have liberal ideas on major issues... like Amnesty, weak on national defense, continued big government spending, Globalism instead of Americanism, weak on terrorism, etc
Move the first primary to Texas.
What was so insane about it was that it’s not as if the Establishment had run with Solon and Cato in the past. They didn’t care if they were morons or criminals, so long as they toed the party line. I couldn’t help but have pictures of Bush the Younger flash in my head all through listening to a Krauthammer talk about Palin’s unpreparedness and hickitude. She was up against Biden, for liberty’s sake. His sole achievement has been sticking around for so long after his ambitions were stifled.
It isn’t as if Palin bucked progressive Pubism that much, either. I don’t remember her raising the specter of the “isolationism” implied to them by Rand Paul. Nor did she scare them by taking religion as seriously and openly as a Santorum—who by the way is every bit as Establishment as the next Pub, except that he emits an odor of religiosity obnoxious to liberal Pub noses different from Bush the Younger’s revival tent smell, which at least was useful for covering previous drunkenness, not for being Catholic, but for being too earnest, or something. She touched for indefinable reasons directly upon the conservative nerve. Though I’ve since grown tired of her (though not tired of looking at her), but she affected me at the time, too.
There’s something latent in the party waiting to burst forth. Call it the Reagan Factor. Not that Palin is a Reagan, but she appeals to the same part of us. This organ must be pried out by the Establishment. To them it is a cancer.
IMHO when economic collapase accelerates (and the welfare/funny money cannot continute forever), there will be a die off and those who do not want to participate in the die off will have to start working and taking responsibility for themselves and families.
Learn now, or learn the very, very hard way in a little while. Those are the two choices.
I agree with everything you said, except the implication that Newt is conservative in any meaningful sense. Moreso than Romney, maybe. Certainly he has done more for the movement, if the movement ever really existed. He did more than a lot of people to slightly slow the growth of the fedral gubmint a generation ago, let’s say.
Part of the war against Palin was to portray her as divisive.
When a governor proves to be perhaps the most popular governor in history, with numbers commonly in the 80s, the high 80s and even 93%, then they are a uniter, a person who is reaching all the people, of all persuasions and parties, there is just no way to describe someone who everyone approves of, as divisive.
Romney lost an election that couldn’t be lost in 2012 and what was his political history? A single governor’s term where he was run out of office with a 34% approval rating.
The primary in NH isn’t just among GOP voters—they’ll take all comers, which skews it decidedly more liberal.
And, I note that Reince Priebus did nothing to address that.
We need closed primaries.
She was divisive. Not among the base, which she united like McVain alone never could. But the reaction within the MSM and among libs generally showed her to be as maddening to them as a Reagan or a Goldwater. That she divided Establishment and conservative Pubs, as well, demonstrates where lies the Establishment on the spectrum.
Case in point: When was the last time you heard John McCain being refered to as "the Maverick John McCain"? We heard it almost daily since Nov. of 2004 and never again since Nov., 2008.........
Palin proved in her many years in politics and elective office that she is a uniter and that people of all persuasions and parties like her and trust her, the divisive image is a creation of mass media and the two party’s national leadership and image machines, it is a result of unnatural forces, a false image, not of her governance and of the offices she has held, including that of Governor.
Please explain this statement:
steal children (to sell to pathological, false parents)
Because there is no such thing as a conservative majority.
There is a majority of people who say they are conservative, but they don’t agree on everything.
So, conservatives get into battles between their competing “conservative” philosophies, and split the vote. Mostly because conservatives tend to be all-or-nothing, not wanting to compromise, which means not accepting anybody else’s conservative candidates.
When we stop confusing political compromise with abandonment of principles, we’ll probably end up with a much more conservative outcome. But so long as we can declare a man (like Rand Paul) the conservative savior one week, and a RINO-amnesty sellout the next, we’ll never be able to get together on a single candidate.
That is because the GOP establishment is all about its members holding on to their power and perks, not about winning. The GOP wins hands down on corporate campaign contributions. The Dems do well and now have Wall Street in their pocket as well as Hollywierd but the GOPers rake money in from every business PAC imaginable. That is the key. The GOP establishment just needs to keep its position as as insider stakeholders and they can make deals for their campaign contributors and make themselves rich. There is less and less community of interests between the party establishment and the largest block of Republican loyalist voters. People like Karl Rove (who was defended with near fanaticism on this site back in ‘06 and ‘07) detest most of the party base and just wish it would go away and let him and his ilk continue the important business; making deals and defending a wide range of corporate interests and pork.
I’ll explain it well enough. The doctrine of Parens Patriae should be abolished. It doesn’t belong in a free nation.
Tell you what. Here’s one example.
Familys Home Raided over Facebook Photo of Childs Rifle (NJ)
If Shawn hadn’t retained that attorney and had the attorney available on moment’s notice for a phone call, his kid probably would have been snatched. Others have had their children taken away for nothing more than temporarily not having running water in their homes.
Can you provide something on this part of the statement?
‘to sell to pathological, false parents’
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.