Skip to comments.Our Values Do Not Need to Be Moderated, They Need to Be Clearly Articulated
Posted on 11/09/2012 4:03:17 PM PST by tsowellfan
Republicanism was founded on a premise that all men are created equal. It is time we return to those values
Washington, DC Mat Staver, Chairman of Liberty Counsel Action and Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, responds to the 2012 election:
The political philosophy of the Republican Party and Governor Mitt Romney during the presidential campaign was to downplay social issues and focus solely on jobs and the economy. Four year ago, McCain, like Romney, could not and would not articulate the full panoply of conservative values. Their strategy didnt work in 2008, and it didnt work in 2012...
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
While I will not moderate my values, I question whether clearly articulating them will help. I have talked to more than a few "takers" recently. They do not want things articulated, they want things given to them. While we articulate, they take, and continue to vote for the one who promises to give them the most. My gut feeling is, this will continue till the whole system comes crashing down, but hey, what do I know, I am just a working stiff.
Conservative need a national TV news network on Cable. The website CNS, for example, would be great.
The left is already having a fit for a more fair and balanced news network which is more center than anything (FOX) but we still have no cable news network to counter balance cnn, cBS and MSNBC
The ‘Progressive’ machine is very good at two things:
Branding (Madison Avenue experts)
teaching dependency on government largess. They can take the soul right out of an individual by giving them stuff for free.
Nicely put, and welcome to FR.
Look for more of the same in 2016.
Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, etc.
Republicanism is compromised, ruined and failed. Corrupted.
Conservatism is alive and well, just not in the GOP.
Principles are not principles if you put party ahead of them.
Moderation is compromise. Compromising principles are why we are where we are.
How can a candidate articulate values they do not have?
How can a candidate articulate values their entire careers demonstrate the opposite?
How can a candidate articulate values their party rejects?
Turn out the lights, the party's over.
Conservatism is not just articulated, it is a way of life.
Dunno, I think Mitt did as good a job as possible of stepping into the “severely conservative” shoes.
I do think he waited too long to come on strong, though. Even fiscally, if he was wobbling on social issues. For most people it WAS “the economy, stupid.” And Mitt had credible answers. But he evangelized them for too short of a time, while failing to point out what a mess a second, lame duck iteration of Barack would make.
conservatism was dealt a blow from which it is unlikely to ever fully recover. Moderate or don’t, it doesn’t matter. America built its house and now we’re all going to have to live in it until it burns to the ground.
Exactly. and we need our George Soros’ to buy news outlets and become owner activists. I have no unrealistic expectations. But we need to at least slow down our enemies efforts.
Yep. Good points. Never underestimate the power of effective propaganda. conservatism has not been articulated well (which is true). But it is worse than that. Conservatism has misrepresented, slandered and lied about. We have to get people to un-learn a lot of biases.
Newt Gingrich wants to have a Regis type TV show with him and his wife Callista. Maybe that can be part of the morning line-up.
Perhaps 12n-3pm Rush can do what Imus does on TV
Nothing against Hannity but he’s already on Fox where he should stay.
Our conservative principles not only need to be clearly articulated, but they need to be linked to historical successes, assigned some kind of numerical or monetary value, and most of all be distilled into a simple, effective phrase that will resonate with the average voter. We failed to motivate.
For example, Obama has used: "Yes, we can!" (and its Spanish equivalent), "Hope and Change", "Change We Can Believe In", and this year he used, "Bin Laden is Dead and Detroit is Alive" and "Forward!"
What did we have? "Reform, Prosperity and Peace", "A Cause Greater than Itself", and "Country First" (McCain) and "Believe in America",
Now, if you are trying to compare the two tactics, you'll see immediately that Obama's are far simpler, direct and future looking. Perhaps more importantly, they speak to a group of people. McCain and Romney's slogans are abstract, directionless and time-independent. Can you see why Obama attracted so many people?
We owe it to ourselves to do better.
The sad fact is that most politicians have no core beliefs, they are actors playing a role they think gives them the best chance to get elected.
Mitt did a piss-poor job of acting like a Conservative, when he tried to throw red meat at Conservatives (the “47%” quote), it came off as incredibly politically tone deaf.
A conservative was not their nominee, a counterfeit conservative career liberal was.
Conservatism is alive and well my friend.
Tough times are coming and I see nothing but teachable moments and opportunity on the horizon.
I am so not defeated.
I guess you missed every single senate race.
Problem was those shoes were 10 sizes too big and did not fit Mitts career liberal feet.
we had 242 seats going into the race and we have 233 coming away from it. We lost ground though we held the battlefield for now.
Reagan was the best at articulating the conservative message directly to the people and Michelle failed at that with her shrill attacks on Rick Perry.
Articulating the message is important as the article says, but my point is it is a combination of both being a great communicator and most importantly being a great conservative which Mitt being a career liberal was not.
It was therefore, I submit, not conservativism that was defeated, but instead liberalism that was defeated.
Mitt lost because he is a liberal. It was still a close race though, and if the conservatives who stayed home and the third party voters had voted for him there would've been more than enough vote to propel him to victory.....had he been a conservative.
Had the base been energized and the turnout high enough for a conservative to win that same turnout would have presumably also voted for the other conservatives on the ballot.
Since they stayed home the other races missed those votes as well.
My opinion only of course, but I did predict Mitt and the GOPs failure as early as last January.
I see the GOP only continuing with their move to the left by moving even further left.
What's that saying about insanity? Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result?
Brings me to my point....you simply cannot have so many running for the nomination, it is counter-productive, it should be no more than three. And also, kill the debates, they serve no purpose but to give late night comedians fodder for attacking Republicans. A candidate should get the nomination by building themselves up, not tearing down their opponents.
if that were the case, than how do you explain the fact that Mitt took Indiana back after it went for Obama in 2008 and the TEA party backed conservative that usurped Dick Lugar lost a seat that had been held by a Republican since 1976 even though Mitt Romney won? Indiana obviously liked Mitt Romney and turned out for him. Mourdock? Not so much. Why is that? Because Mourdock is a nut- the kind of nut that taints us all with his nutty flavor. the same thing happened in missouri btw. go ahead and offer your counter explanation.
Where he failed was that he articulated poorly, horribly, a topic that he didn't need to and should not have and was piled on by both liberals and GOP-e(also liberals)alike.
The GOP-e attacked and help defeat a conservative because they have moved left and shunned controversy that would reflect on their chosen candidate and in doing so compounded the matter making it even worse.
I can't help but wonder if his own party had not turned on him if things would've simply died down.
Perhaps not but the point is the GOP attacked another GOP member, a clear violation of Reagans 11th commandment, and in doing so lost themselves a seat that may or may not have been lost otherwise. They guaranteed it.
The fake conservatives attacked a real conservative because he said something dumb and unnecessary.
He was a reliable and decent legislator that made a single mistake and the GOP showed their true colors.
The GOP elite wants social conservatives to go away. Sorry, but we will not.
Nope. He was a nut and Hoosiers recognized it. sometimes, a position is simply undefendable and you have to walk away from it. Akin and Mourdock were those positions. no amount of defending their nuttiness would have improved the outcome. The worst thing about it is that they tainted the entire party with their nuttiness. Within days of their monumental errors, battles that had been favoring us in Missouri, Indiana, Montana, Virginia, Florida, North Dakota, and Ohio turned against us. it cost us Maine and probably Massachusetts too and very likely cost us the whitehouse. If you can’t see that, you’re screwed and we’re all screwed and I’m smart enough to realize that you can’t see that so I can see the writing on the wall now, we’re all screwed.
Screw that crap.
If you are NOT a social conservative you are a liberal and should be called out on it.
Those who had the balls to stand by their principles and not support a liberal are being blamed for the liberal being defeated.
So those who supported a liberal are attacking conservatives for being too conservative?
Screw that crap too.
Conservatism is not the problem here.
Liberalism within our ranks is the problem and I would encourage social conservatives to rise up and defend conservatism with vigor and righteousness.
I soooo do not see Romneys loss as a loss for conservatism because he is no conservative.
I see his defeat as a defeat of liberalism within the GOP.
And I strongly predict that the GOP will only move further left and in doing so will demonstrate that they are not the direction for conservatives to go.
This is where Mitt ought to have taken the narrative by the horns.
There is still a remnant of socially liberal atheistic libertarians here on FR. I really don't see why Jim puts up with them.
If I want a dose of someone advocating atheistic degeneracy, I can switch on the TV or go to the movies. I don't want it here.
Well, they already did with Mitt.
Will they move further left?
If there is no alternative they will and with the same disastrous results.
That is why the GOP itself needs to be replaced.
If the GOP can right itself somehow it's all good, but I am certain that they will continue on their path towards insignificance, failure and more liberalism.
Whig party part 2.
It would be nice to be wrong.
about as useful as a trapdoor in a canoe. good luck.
Also, the open primaries are a disaster for the GOP, especially in a year with a Rat incumbent. If the GOP makes no other reforms between now and 2016, they should at least consider making all state primaries closed to non-Republicans. At least that would make the Rats re-register as Republicans before they could vote for the least conservative R in the primary.
I'm not ready to support a new or existing third party. All that would serve to accomplish is to split the economic and social conservatives.
That’s why Texas should be the first primary, instead of one of the last ones, when basically it’s already over.
Closed primaries, only Republicans allowed to vote. The RNC should deny all delegates to any state with an open primary.
The Wimps running the House of Representatives can start by telling Harry Reid that singling out Groups to be punished Because they hate them or are Jealous of them is UnAmerican,and we as Americans wont tolerate that. But I dont expect the Pussy Boner To say that.
They Should be Demanding an explanation to the American People why Americans Died in Benghazi,Including why we are arming Jihadists, that have killed Americans, to depose Assad.
I wont hold my Breath