Posted on 10/14/2009 5:20:48 AM PDT by Kaslin
Basically. You need to be able to articulate a conservative viewpoint without the fire and brimstone. Reagan had the right balance. He could deliver a great vision and even throw in some pretty harsh rhetoric, but in a light-hearted manner with a smile on his face.
I agree! As we Southern ladies like to say, "You can catch more flies with honey, than with vinegar."
Medved is the last perosn to listen to.
This clown peddle JOhn Mccain has the great option.
The dems were real charming in 2006-208. NOn stop pure hatred and smears win now a days !
Its about attacking now and smearing . The dems plan to attack to win in 2010 so we are supposed to follow the loser Mccain style that killed in with Bush in 2006 and 2010. NO again Mikey .
Feel free to call me a "sock puppet," but I'm not sure what good insults will do. I'm a twenty-something student trying to get into the military, who cares about the future of my country and am trying to undo the damage that the generation before me has inflicted. In the immortal words of Popeye, I ams what I ams.
Thank you all. I’m out for the day - I hope you can keep an eye on this thread and encourage our fellow freepers to start offering honey instead of vinegar!
The loss of John McCain's presidential bid is irrefutable proof your assertion isn't worth lighting the pixels it takes to display it.
Medved and Noonan are made for each other.
I agree. Reagan employed this technique - a strong message in a moderate tone - expertly. He was not a flame thrower. We trusted him to uphold conservative principles while allowing him to reach out to bring others into our fold. He stood firm on principles, but, as you say, he didn't do it in a "bombastic" way. He used his charm and wit to convince the masses that our way was better for all Americans. Leave the flame throwing to the radio talk show hosts (who don't have to get elected).
I knew President Reagan. President Reagan was a friend of mine. Michael Medved is no President Reagan.
That’s not what is being advocated. The principles are strong and firm. The tone is what is moderate — not the message. We pick a conservative we trust to uphold our values, but we cut them some slack when they attempt to appeal to some of the unconvinced to join us. It’s the old addage you catch more flies with sugar than vinegar thing. For the most part, that is true. Reagan was the master at this.
No, McCain is NOT a good example of this technique because he did not hold many of our values and we didn’t trust him to uphold conservative principles.
So tell me, what's the difference between "attacking the messenger" and challenging opinion manipulation beside your preference?
I didn't say there had been frothing-at-the-mouth.
That comment is more disingenuous than your original! Who are you, Bill Clinton?
There’s a reason we don’t call men like Washington, Jefferson, and Adams “moderators of the revolution”. They’re more often referred to as “Firebrands of the revolution” because they didn’t wheel and deal their way through the revolution. They stirred men to action by breathing fire.
Funny thing is that it didn’t stop with the defeat of the British. They turned their fire on each other and did a fine job of creating an infant nation.
“men” like Tinky Winky Graham, would be horsewhipped on the floor of the senate for telling his constituents “they can leave” if they don’t like his dealings with the opposition.
>> He’s Jewish, therefore he is more liberal than 99% of Republicans <<
So we should automatically dismiss any article written by a Jew? Not even read it? Not even analyze its content? A post like this really isn’t worthy of FR.
>> Now, everyone just reads the by-line of an article and responds to what the headline reads. <<
Agreed. It seems that some posters find it’s more fun to bash an author when you don’t actually read what he says. A very sad state of affairs.
So who would you suggest is both conservative enough AND conciliatory enough to beat the democrats with the democrat’s approval?
“That was the magic of President Reagan - you knew he was conservative, but he was like-able.”
That is true, and it worked 20-30 years ago in Reagan’s day. However, things have changed; the left is more passionate, vitriolic, and evil than ever before. A true conservative will be cruified by the media, et al., no matter how “like-able” he/she is. We do articulate positions clearly and even with charm, but if the word isn’t getting out to the voters — and it isn’t — it’s an exercise in futility. The more charming and clear a person is, the worse the persecution, e.g., Sarah Palin.
Also, there is little, if any, “frothing at the mouth” done by true conservatives; all true “frothing” is done by the left. To even say that validates and reiterates the crap espoused by the left.
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.