??
He didn’t run as a moderate in the debate.
He ran as a LEADER.
This just reinforces someething I’ve been saying all along - “moderates” are really looking for leadership, rather than ideology. When you give them leadership, they will follow you. This is why Reagan won moderates despite not being one himself. He projected the image of strength and decisiveness. Moderates tend to post-facto assume that because they are attracted to leadership, that this makes the one they’re attracted to “moderate.”
He’s not there yet, but coming around. Just waking up I guess.
??
He didn’t run as a moderate in the debate.
...the real question to ask is why take anything this individual, he who considers his ‘bailiwick’ to be sports, says seriously in the first place...after all, he thinks it would be a peachy keen idea to ban college football, based on the fact that some schools make more money off it than others...
??
He didn’t run as a moderate in the debate.
...the real question to ask is why take anything this individual, he who considers his ‘bailiwick’ to be sports, says seriously in the first place...after all, he thinks it would be a peachy keen idea to ban college football, based on the fact that some schools make more money off it than others...
Interesting theory.
Exactly what is a “moderate”, and why is it considered a good thing to be?
The very word implies that both conservatives and liberals are “extremists”. The “moderate” is therefore somewhere in the squishy middle. That’s good, right?
Well, actually, it’s only good if one assumes that both conservatives and liberals are *wrong*, and that the right approach lies at some indeterminate point in the middle. (It also assumes that the choices lie on some one-dimensional linear continuum — which is actually false. But, let’s set that aside for now.)
Now, let’s suppose that the *right* policies lie more toward one end or the other of that (imaginary) continuum. For instance, let’s assume that the best policies are held by those at the right-hand side of that continuum — i.e. by conservatives. That is, after all what most people reading this site assume; and it is what many thousands of posts here have made a clear case for. What does that make the “moderate” then? It makes the “moderate” only somewhat less wrong (about nearly everything) than the liberal extremists.
Of course, real politic demands that a pragmatic politician (i.e. one that actually wants to WIN) can’t get too far out in front of the electorate. First win, then prove to the mushy middle (”moderates”) that conservative principles work. Step by step, the electorate will be moved toward the right, as conservative theories prove themselves in practice.
At least, that last part is how it works on the planet I just visited — where the unicorn still roams free. On this planet, we still have to contend with leftists spin doctors, air-headed Hollywierdos, and the MSM all bleating soothingly to keep the sheeple in line.