Replies

Kick `em in the teeth, stay at home, or bolt because you disagree with polticians, and I can promise you that they won't crawl on their knees begging you to come back. *I* certainly wouldn't be begging those who stayed home to come out and vote for me if they weren't there when it counted the last time.

So, politicians don't recast their campaigns in response to what worked or didn't the last time? Do you really believe that?
What do you suppose was the purpose of Clinton's DLC after the Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis losses of the '80s?
It was to remold the image of the Democraty party to regain the Reagan Democrats. And it worked well enough to help Clinton win a couple of terms in the White House.

Instead, I'd go elsewhere. Most politicians wouldn't kowtow to Lyn Nofzinger's threats to stay at home, it would be, "don't let the door hit your butt on the way out."

Yes, I've seen such coalition-building sentiments on FR.
A pox on politicians who think our votes are their birthright. Votes must be earned. If they aren't, politicians have only themselves to blame if they lose.

As far as the GOP is concenred, conservatives weren't backing them up in the earlier stages of the shutdown of 1995.

So, it was the conservatives who jumped ship and the RINOs who hung tough?

Rove and Bush, to an extent, felt they had to make up the votes elsewhere and build a new "base" for the GOP because they felt the current "base" was not on board to a sufficient extent.

I've got no problem with reaching out to folks who aren't traditionally Republicans, but I have confidence in the intellectual strength of conservative arguments on their face. Outreach can be done in such a way was to pick off wavering Democrats without depressing turnout in certain conservative camps.
Bush, Rove, and the RNC need to find a better balance.

You have to be sure that by staying home or bolting, it *will* take the GOP down. Oops, am I bringing up the need to be SURE you are sucvcessful again, as I have been derided for by others in the past? Yep, I am. Because if you CANNOT kill the GOP with a bolt to a third or by staying home (i.e. swing the Congress to the other major party or cost them a Presidential race), they will have NO reason to listen to whatever complaints you make.

I'm not trying to take the GOP down, I'll be voting the straight ticket again this Fall. And you're right, people who join third parties will be ignored.
But you're wrong in thinking that Republicans who stay home will be ignored in future elections. What to you suppose is the purpose of "get out the vote" efforts? In part, it's to reclaim lost votes.

Politics involves horse-trading, and the least reliable supporters will be the ones who get dropped for a bigger voting bloc when the opportunity presents itself.

Fine, but don't blame the old mare if you end up with a mule in the bargain.

Trust me, Sabertooth, some of us Freepers (and a fair number of Republican politicians as well) are already looking at ways to get around the "stay at home" and "third party" crowd. And don't think that once we're convinced there are enough votes to be had via other outreach programs that we WON'T drop the unappeasables and those who make noise about going to a third party like a bad habit.

Oh, I completely trust that you are, hchutch.
What I reject is the contention that this is an effective means of coalition-building. I also reject the false dilemma that the only way to appeal to voters in the center is by appeasement to the Left, losing votes on the right in the bargain.
Consistent failure to effectively make the conservative case in terms that appeal to the center is not evidence that conservatism has no mainstream appeal.

"So, politicians don't recast their campaigns in response to what worked or didn't the last time? Do you really believe that?"

No, you're putting words in my post.

"What do you suppose was the purpose of Clinton's DLC after the Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis losses of the '80s?

It was to remold the image of the Democraty party to regain the Reagan Democrats. And it worked well enough to help Clinton win a couple of terms in the White House."

Somewhat accurate, but not quite. You are forgetting Perot drew 17% of votes, and a large portion of that was not exactly left-wing frommy recollection.

"Yes, I've seen such coalition-building sentiments on FR."

And some have felt the same way about those they have had disagreement with over issues.

"A pox on politicians who think our votes are their birthright. Votes must be earned. If they aren't, politicians have only themselves to blame if they lose."

You forget, politicians and voters aren't the only players in the equation. Did you not read Poohbah's post earlier about a group that pushed support to a third party candidate and took down a Republican because the Republican was "impure"?

"So, it was the conservatives who jumped ship and the RINOs who hung tough?"

Where were the conservative groups running ads to counter the AFL-CIO's Mediscare ads? Where were the press conferences and street demonstrations? Where were they?

"I've got no problem with reaching out to folks who aren't traditionally Republicans, but I have confidence in the intellectual strength of conservative arguments on their face. Outreach can be done in such a way was to pick off wavering Democrats without depressing turnout in certain conservative camps.

Bush, Rove, and the RNC need to find a better balance. "

I happen to think they have found a decent balance for the present circumstances, but then again,

"I'm not trying to take the GOP down, I'll be voting the straight ticket again this Fall. And you're right, people who join third parties will be ignored."

You'll forgive me if I question that in light of your comments on some of the Immigration threads. If you're not willing to support a nominee after a primary, and put the disputes aside, some people will think you ARE "trying to take the GOP down."

"But you're wrong in thinking that Republicans who stay home will be ignored in future elections. What to you suppose is the purpose of "get out the vote" efforts? In part, it's to reclaim lost votes."

Even if that is the case (I happen to view "get out the vote" as getting your known supporters out and voting), that would be considered a bonus in my mind.

"Fine, but don't blame the old mare if you end up with a mule in the bargain."

If the mule can do the job (get a candidate elected, thereby giving us a CHANCE at enacting the agenda), then the bargain isn't a bad one.

"Oh, I completely trust that you are, hchutch.

What I reject is the contention that this is an effective means of coalition-building. I also reject the false dilemma that the only way to appeal to voters in the center is by appeasement to the Left, losing votes on the right in the bargain."

Appeasement? That's the problem I have with this. There are some issues (free trade, immigration, and others) that there seem to be legitimate disagreements on between conservatives, partially motivated on where people happen to be residing, partially based on the experiences they or people they know have had, and partially based on PRINCIPLE.

Those who disagree with you often are not mind-numbed robots (or Bushbots).

"Consistent failure to effectively make the conservative case in terms that appeal to the center is not evidence that conservatism has no mainstream appeal."

I've never made that contention. On the contrary, I consider that crafting a conservative case that wins over the center is VITAL, and that how to accopmplish that result is open for a civil discussion - and that Free Republic is a crucial forum for that discussion.

Unfortunately, some here prefer to attack those who disagree with them on certain issues. That does nothing towards crafting a conservative message that will win over the center. In fact, it DIVIDES the party.