Posted on 12/15/2013 5:21:51 AM PST by Alas Babylon!
The Talk Shows
December 15th, 2013
Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:
FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis.; Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America; Carlee Soto, whose sister was killed in the Newtown, Conn., shooting; former astronaut Mark Kelly, whose wife, ex-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, was shot in a 2011 attack.
MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Ryan; Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash.; Gov. Scott Walker, R-Wis.; Michael Hayden, a former head of the CIA and National Security Agency.
FACE THE NATION (CBS): Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Dick Durbin, D-Ill.
THIS WEEK (ABC): Secretary of State John Kerry.
STATE OF THE UNION (CNN): Secretary of State John Kerry.
STATE OF THE UNION (CNN): Reps. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, and Adam Schiff, D-Calif.
LOl anyway they don’t exist.
Not worse, more dangerous.
Hey man, I agree with you. But we need John and Sarah Conner to rail against the machines.(and they need strategery)
Remember the USAF credo: Adapt, improvise, Overcome (or is that Marines? from “We Were Soldiers Then)
Perhaps thats why all zero does is fund raise.
Do we have to toss Rocklobster some chum when we crack 100, or is it only for two hunnert?
Larry Pratt:”I dont believe 90% of Americans agree on anything”
Assad is more moderate than most of them.
I completely agree that a large part of the electorate are as dumb as rocks. Yet, I still maintain there's more of us than of them. Best evidence I have are the 2010 elections.
With 2012, you're correct about the ground games. In lots of locations, Romney had no functioning organization while Obama did. Add to that a Republican candidate who most of the base didn't like and in hindsight, the result looked predictable.
As I consider this Republican party a willing collaborator with implementing the leftist/Obama agenda, I'm not so sure the Republican party isn't already destroyed. What do they stand for again? What do they stand against (other than Conservatism) again?
I have some fairly simple prerequisites or values I use in determining whether I'll vote for a candidate.
I'm opposed to a bigger Federal government including Obamacare and Dodd/Frank. I'm opposed to amnesty for illegal aliens and opposed to abortion. That's it, not even taking into account any social issues.
Here's the rub....I suspect my values likely parallel those of numerous others, probably a plurality of Republican voters. Perfection? Hardly. Yet, off the top of my head, I can only think of a couple of Presidential potentials who fulfill my simple three prerequisites. That to me speaks volumes.
You hit it on the head there are no perfect candidates and its not likely many will show up.Of course there is Ted Cruz....
I stand by this: Conservatives are a minority in a minority party.
We either win with allies or remain outside looking in.
I don’t believe winning is everything, either. I just believe we fool ourselves when we say we can win by appealing only to ourselves.
A. Do I want to win with a Republican in Name Only? No.
B. Do I want to see a democrat win? Hell no.
C. Do I want to see a Conservative win? Hell yes.
How likely are any of these?
How many people disposed or agreeable to vote for a Republican over a democrat do you think there are? Of those, how many of them are FReepers? What percentage of them are even active in ANY Politics?
Free Republic is an echo chamber. We excel at talking to EACH OTHER.
I talked to people who vote Republican. MOST of them have never heard of Free Republic (I do introduce them to it!)... I’d say the majority don’t even think about politics because they’re too busy working and living life.
I’ve said it again and again... We need our own Network. Not Fair and Balanced like Fox news but partisan and full of fire like... Free Republic.
We’re outclassed each and every day by the LEFT in getting the word out, and getting to people viscerally. Until or unless that changes we will remain a minority in a minority party.
Yes, I agree with RT’s comments. The paucity of candidates is a real problem, on both sides of aisle. Good people can’t stand the game of scrutiny by media and games of politics.
We have also diets the GOP primary pstes where they are “open” and subject to rigging by D’s and I’s voting for the weakest R candidate.
Sine Reagan we have had basically jokes as leader of the party. Yes, GHWBush had a great resume and training and did a credible job and he was Reagan’s VP. But Dole, McCain and Romney were chosen because it was “their turn”. W’s selection was also a joke BUT he turned out to try to do a good joke, loved his country etc, but was so inexperienced he had to turn it over to a Rasputin like Rove. Of course Obama is totally unqualified, so he turned it over to Soros and ValJar.
I have seen no effort to reform the primary system. In fact the GOP is going hell-bent to deny Tea Party any impact and input. That’s all they worry about.
The 2 parties also have stacked the system against formation and ballot placement of other parties.
Ted Cruz is OK with me at this point, but so was Marco Rubio until he got starry eyed over Amnesty. I’m sure they’ ll find something on Ted, not to mention the fact he was born in Canada (so he is a 14th amendment citizen but not a “natural born citizen” - Geesh) yada yada yada.
It is bleak, but I am more optimistic than our friend Alas. I think we can find a way, but do not count on the Republican Party to week or find it. They seem happy enough where they are.
Sorry I’m late...did I miss anything?
Talks radio does its share (Rush, Beck, Hannity, Levin, Ingraham, etc etc)
Beck is trying an on-line TV The Blaze that has placement on some cable providers. I’d like to see more of Malkin on TV. Maybe that is the future.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
The self-important LIV "conservatives" who stayed home on election day need to have this point driven home.
And three, When the parties agree, the people get screwed.
Sadly i agree Kabar the Idiots that run Insurance got exactly what they deserved. A little late to the ‘PARTY’ ..boy and girls… you got hosed!
I respectfully disagree.
I actually remember Ronald Reagan's successful campaign quite well, without any rose colored glasses. Truth is Reagan didn't run a perfect campaign and made some stupid statements along the way (remember the killer trees?). Yet, he still won in a landslide even against an antagonistic media which did their best to label him a warmonger and a Republican party establishment that actually disliked Conservatives, even back then.
Granted, the media in the late 70's wasn't as committed to their cause as they are today. But they were still bad enough.
At the time I was working on a Democrat campaign as a consultant. I was far less ideologically driven back then, more driven by the money (the Democrats in my area paid a lot more then the Republicans). Still, I remember how surprised I was by the number of folks working on this Democrats' campaign who told me in confidence they had voted for Reagan. The underlying reason seemed to be Reagan was someone of conviction. He conveyed certain values which he wasn't ashamed of or intimidated away from by the media. In other words, even though a number of these Democrat campaign workers disagreed with him on policy, they still voted for him (for the record, so did I). A side note, I remember a now mainly forgotten Carter concession speech occurring at 6 pm west coast time. Carter was a typical Liberal who blamed his own party for his loss and decided to get even by sabotaging elections in numerous locations where the polls were still open.
I've thought a lot about that period of time and have come to believe that the reason Reagan won in such a fashion was that he was seen as a leader, not someone who chased focus group findings or public opinion. He was an unapologetic male candidate. He wasn't one to campaign for the women's vote or the Hispanic vote. Instead, he campaigned to all voters as Americans.
Fast forward to his death in 2004. The outpouring of sympathy from supporters was astounding. This nation was in mourning over a President who was a Conservative. Didn't appear Conservatives were a minority then.
I agree with you about our media today and I wish we had an actual Conservative network. Maybe in time we will. While I concede that Free Republic could be viewed as an echo chamber, I still maintain that the values we hold are the same values held by a majority. It will take the right candidate to tap that support, believing that an unafraid Conservative with half the communication skills that Reagan possessed would be successful in 2016.
In contrast to Reagan, most of the potential candidates for 2016 are laughable. They seemingly are of the same mold as the losing Republican candidates before, faux-Conservatives campaigning for media approval (good luck with that), not campaigning for the approval of the electorate. Such a candidate isn't a leader and given the number of dumb as rock voters, even they know a fraud.
No secret that I'm quite high on Ted Cruz. Thus far, he seems to be the unafraid potential Conservative candidate. Perhaps there will be others.
That was before boys were girls, Girls were men and the sheep were running scared. Ronnie did not deal with this massive scale of voter fraud…in his day , it was only 25 % b.s.
My FRiend, we are in a far different country than the one that existed in the 1980’s...
The nation has turned dramatically to big government and nanny statism. I won’t even call it Socialism or Communism, because I think those terms are just political rather than cultural. We have changed culturally.
Consider how far the Atheists and Gays have come in forcing themselves and their lifestyles on us. Keep in mind that all of this is foretold in the Bible at the End Times.
AND most importantly, there is NO Reagan waiting in the wings.
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.