You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Culture Wars
How the Pubs Can WIn Again
2013-11-17
For the GOP to win big again, it must take ­William F. Buckley's ­ruthlessly pragmatic ­approach to primary ­elections. In Buckley's view "conservatism, except when it is expressed in pure idealism, takes into ­account reality." That means we have to stop electing amateurs who serve as little more than ideological indulgences, who ­exploit resentments that play well enough among the base, but whose positions make them ­nonviable in general elections.
I know, actually electing some Tea Party folks threw a scare into the media-socialists, but control is more important than fun.
Had the party followed Buckley's advice in 2010 and supported the most electable conservatives ­instead of the most ideologically extreme, Republicans would now control the United States Senate and Democratic leader Harry Reid would be in retirement in ­Nevada.
Putting Harry out to pasture is a thought worth investigating, right?
President Reagan lived by the ­belief that "just because I'm your friend 80 percent of the time doesn't make me your enemy 20 percent of the time."
This is a lesson I learned the hard way: I spoke out against the possibility of Colin Powell's presidential candidacy in 1996 ­because his political moderation was so off-putting to me. The thought that he could be the standard-bearer of my Republican Party was offensive. But watching the retired general on Meet the Press in recent years has made me understand why ­Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush drafted him to a be a critical ­player in their administrations. In retrospect I realize how much better the GOP would have fared against Bill Clinton in 1996 if I had not let my hopes for a conservative stalwart get in the way of our best hope to beat Clinton.
If Powell is/was a Rhino, would he have been better than Slick Willie a second time? Maybe.
"If it's just going to represent the far right wing of the political spectrum, I think the party is in difficulty," said Powell this year. "I'm a moderate, but I'm still a Republican." This war hero, should still be one of the leading voices in the party because of, not in spite of, his centrist ­political philosophy. ­Republicans can kick moderates like General Powell out of the party's mainstream every four years, or they can leave their ideological comfort zone, work aggressively to expand their political coalitions, and start stealing swing voters away from Democrats like Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately, the Republican Party of the ­moment bears little resemblance to the party of ­Ronald Reagan, who would have responded to Powell's critiques of the Republican Party with an all-hands-on-deck effort to win the war hero back. That's because President Reagan lived by the ­belief that "just because I'm your friend 80 percent of the time doesn't make me your enemy 20 percent of the time."

If the Republican party is big enough to reach out to disaffected moderates like Colin ­Powell, then it will be big enough to win the White House in 2016, even if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. The ­question is whether the GOP will go the way of Buckley or Glenn Beck.
Nothing wrong with Glenn Beck, but can he lead the Pubs to victory?
Republicans can win again and we will. And we can do it by following the right paths of ­Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower. We can do it by fighting for the core ­principles of conservatism and emphasizing values that most Americans agree with.
Mrs. Bobby is all over the Tea Party's view on smaller government, but can't get past what she sees as their social extremist bellowing. If we could just focus on smaller government, we'd go farther!
There will also be times when we will follow the lead of Reagan and ­Eisenhower by putting principled pragmatism before ideological battles that undermine our ability to win ­elections, elect ­majorities, and take back control of the White House. But time is wasting. Hillary ­Clinton's ­supporters are already preparing for political battle. Next time, we'd better be prepared to win. There is no substitute for ­victory, and I for one am damn tired of my party losing presidential elections.
The Tea Party can influence, but it'll be a long, long time before a "Tea Party" candidate sits in the White House.
Link to Longer Interview

Interview excerpt:
Are there any Republicans today who can carry on Reagan's legacy?
"I think so. If you look at governors who are ideologically conservative but moderate temperamentally--and running state governments and balancing budgets and reforming education and making pension plans sustainable--I think there are many examples across the nation of Republicans who are governing in a Reagan style, whether it's Scott Walker in Wisconsin or John Kasich in Ohio or Chris Christie in New Jersey or Bobby Jindal in Louisiana.
Posted by:Bobby

#18  Why can't you run Frank J.?
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2013-11-17 16:20  

#17  Scarborough's implication that Powell was kept from the Trunk nomination due to opposition from those eeeeville KKKonservatives shows why he fits in so well with the rest of the shitstains at MSDNC - a willingness to lie with a straight face. Powell decided against a candidacy due to the unanimous opposition of his family, apparently including a direct threat from his wife to file for divorce if he decided to run.
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo)   2013-11-17 16:19  

#16  I dont know where this clown got his idea of Reagan, but I voted for him and served during his administration, and knew of him prior to his 1980 run. And the Reagan I know was stalwartly conservative, not this "anything goes, compromise your principles away" that the idiot who wrote this seems to think he was.
Posted by: OldSpook   2013-11-17 14:54  

#15  Well, I never watched his morning show...
Posted by: Bobby   2013-11-17 14:12  

#14  I say take the advice of an MSNBC morning show host, and do the opposite.
Posted by: Raj   2013-11-17 13:21  

#13  I thought it was worthwhile. However, there is room for diversity a variety of opinion here, yes?

To twist Voltaire's quote, I agree with your right to say it, but I'll defend to the death my right to not agree with what you have to say.
Posted by: Pappy   2013-11-17 13:01  

#12  I don't mind you posting it, Bobby, at all. My take is that we can read and disregard any "help" our opponents give us
Posted by: Frank G   2013-11-17 12:16  

#11  Control means nothing if elected Republicans are all the tame sort. Recall in 2005 Republicans held both houses of Congress, the presidency and a working majority on the SCT. What did we do? We banned light bulbs.

Fact is that being not quite as awful as the other guy isn't enough.
Posted by: Squinty Spawn of the Weak7917   2013-11-17 12:15  

#10  Well, Frank, I thought it was worthwhile. However, there is room for diversity a variety of opinion here, yes?
Posted by: Bobby   2013-11-17 11:56  

#9  Any thing the Pubs could do to improve themselves and the country would be welcome, after all we are on the Road to Perdition with the present set-up.

Posted by: Whaimp Hupart4265   2013-11-17 11:55  

#8  yeah - we really need advice from Joe Scarborough, MSNBC host. Next? Economic advice from Maxine Waters
Posted by: Frank G   2013-11-17 11:36  

#7  Have a honest elections?
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2013-11-17 11:28  

#6  What's with the �
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2013-11-17 11:13  

#5  I recall the media supported McCain in the republican primary but quickly turned him into just another conservative republican ready to throw gran ma into the street in the general election.

Every political consultant tells the republican/democrat to be just 1 smudge to the right/left of the opponent to capture the election. That worked well for guys like Obama if you are willing to lie to the American about your true agenda.
Posted by: Airandee   2013-11-17 11:02  

#4  BuckleyÂ’s basic premise was there ought not to be a conservative litmus test in the Republican Party. ThatÂ’s quite different then supporting candidates that subscribe to Progressivism. The party doesnÂ’t need more “Compassionate Conservatives”. Moreover, neither does the country.
Posted by: DepotGuy   2013-11-17 11:02  

#3  Powell is little more than Obama-lite.
Posted by: Besoeker   2013-11-17 08:24  

#2  Powell has supported people who I consider to be an extremist socialist for President. Someone who did their best to unemploy my entire state. For a long while he was a tabula rasa for other people to project their beliefs upon, but he either has no core or a bad one.

The Republicans, in a fit of 'pragmatism,' put 1/3 the amount of money into the Virginia Gubernatorial Race that they did in 2009. They lost the attorney general's race in the recount in the margin of fraud.

Sacrificing core beliefs in exchange for victory will get you neither victory nor core beliefs.
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2013-11-17 08:02  

#1  Once again from the RINO, "we just need to be like the other party in order to win" - see McCain, Romney non-success with that track record. Special Note - The Permanent Party Propaganda Machine (aka MSM) will never give the support even to a RINO that it gives to Obama et al. As with the old story about the frog and scorpion, it's in their nature.

Had the party followed Buckley’s advice in 2010 and supported the most electable conservatives ­instead of the most ideologically extreme,

The friggin RNC wouldn't support period at all and has continued to avoid if not outright abandon anything other than basically RINOs. So don't talk about supporting anyone when you don't support those who made an effort only to see them stabbed in the back by people holding the purse in the Beltway.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2013-11-17 07:55  

00:00