Replies

"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.

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

I forgot nothing, I didn't attribute Clinton's victory entirely to his efforts to cast himself as a moderate, I said, "it worked well enough to help Clinton win a couple of terms in the White House."
I didn't mention that Perot drew 19% of the votes, largely from the right, nor did I mention that those votes from the right came from voters who were disenchanted with the "centrist" appeasement of George HW Bush, because these facts were beside the point of politicians moving to reclaim lost votes.

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"?

Yeah, I saw that.
However, given the faultiness of his recollection of the facts of Impeachment and the '98 election here, as shown there, I really don't know what to make of his anecdotal account of an anonymous election scenario.

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?

Where were the GOP pols? Failing to make the case in Sunday show after Sunday show that it was Clinton who shut down the government.
Where was the RNC? Their issue advertising helped defeat HillaryCare in '94, but they went silent during Clinton's government shutdown in '95.

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.

Upon what conservative principle would an extension of Clinton and the Democrats' Section 245(i) Amnesty program for Illegal Aliens be based? Or President Bush's AlGore lite prescription drug entitlement?

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.

Forcing the party to adopt divisive policies is divisive.
If tomorrow, President Bush wanted national handgun confiscation or a federally funded abortion entitlement, and the GOP was predictably divided over it, with whom would the responsibility for that division lay?
Let me guess, the "unappeasables?"

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.

You missed the metaphor: mules are sterile, mares are not.