I like the plan...here is my favorite part:
The Republican strategy is not only to undermine Mrs Pelosi's control of the House but also to associate her in voters' minds with Senator Hillary Clinton, the frontrunner for the 2008 Democrat presidential nomination.
"Two years of Pelosi gives a good idea of what four years of Hillary will be like,"
Even though Hilary tries to seem more conservative close to election time...a strategy that I ALWAYS thought would be great for any liberal pretending to be "moderate" is to simply talk about their voting record. It should not be considered dirty politics or negative ads. It is the truth, and I know that most of the time the truth gets liberals very, very mad.
Hopefully this shows the Right is on the Right track. I'll believe it when I see it. Republicans have only been effective at talking a good game, not actually playing one.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Republicans plot to bring down Pelosi ... and Clinton with her
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Republicans need to emphasize what we're for, not what we're against.
Unfortunately, there isn't consensus on what to make the highest priority. I'd rather put terrorism and the economy first to the voters and run Giuliani or McCain, despite their ideological impurity. (Giuliani is pro-choice and pro-gay, McCain is for "progressive" taxes and government control of election campaigns.)
However, the people who are obsessed with evils like sexy novels, stemcell research, and Michael Schiavo are pimping Governor Sanford of South Carolina, Governor Purdue of Georgia, and Governor Barbour of Mississippi. I don't know if these politicians will run, but the same crowd will find someone similar-minded. The argument is that conservatism wins every time it is tried (well, except for George Allen, Rick Santorum, Jim Talent....) so we ought to put things like creationism and traditional marriage first. Hillary! can say what she wants about terrorism, since the number of people that will be killed by abortion is greater than those that would be killed in a nuclear attack on the Republic, so social issues should get the top priority.
I absolutely am not in favor of this strategy. With the Democrats moving from the left coast into Montana, Missouri, and Colorado, and moving from New England into Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, we are at risk of becoming a regional party.
However, if McCain or Giuliani win the nomination, we are going to get Ross Perot-ed in a big way again, and Hillary! will win with 40-45% of the vote.
This is like heads I lose, tails you win. So as long as we have no strategy going forward, no matter how solid our ideas are, we cannot win simply by Hillary! bashing. Attacking Hillary! is a necessary condition for winning, but it is not sufficient.
the right MUST define what they stand for and they NEED to sell that the economy is good since the media will not say it is good until a dem is in the whitehouse.
but getting some balls doesn't hurt either
Game--
We have defined what we stand for. Law and Order. Free Markets. Liberal Democracy. Constitutional Judges.
However, single-issue voters want to emphasize the wedge-issue crap that bit us in the ass last election.
For example, even though social conservatives will get what they want with non-activist judges, it seems even over-turning Roe v. Wade and sending the issue back to the states isn't good enough for them. This is frustrating since we are about 1 supreme court judge away from overturning a lot of socialist nonsense from the 1900s.
Unless our candidate bashes gays or rails against pop culture like a collosal idiot, a lot of "conservatives" aren't going to vote for us. Goldwater always warned us the Christian right can't be trusted, and I fear he was right.
Do you think McCain or Giuliani can survive a general election against the Democrats while fighting off evangelical fanatics at the same time? Do you even think they can get out of the primary? Reagan and Newt didn't have clean person backgrounds, and Reagan spent most of his life as a Democrat, but these are different times now. So I'm pessimistic; I'm worried we're going to get stuck with with Hillary-food like Mike Pence or Tom Tancredo at the top of the ticket.
Jason,
I think you're a bit off base here. If the election should come down to Giuli or (gag)McCain, I feel certain that the Religious Right would bite the bullet on the social issues for the sake of the overall picture. Naturally, the primaries will tell the tale. I doubt that too many Christians feel good about allowing a chucklehead who doesn't think right about Islamofascism run away with the election. From a Christian perspective (and probably a Jewish one as well), this is every bit as important as abortion or gay marriage. Your statements sound like the lib atheists who believe people of faith to be yokels. I hope that's not the case with you.
It's also important to not only define what the party stands for, but to draw clear distinctions between the ideologies of the parties. That is, to articulate why our ideas are sound and logical and in most cases, proven, and why the left's are the heaping pile of dung that their's is. What's important here is that if a Pelosi or a Clinton can show that the lefty ideas are imminent, it could draw out those who agree, but aren't necessarily politically active, to support them. These people are drawn by the emotion of what the lefty leaders say, but they aren't all ignoramuses, just not informed.
Now, you can't hold up those failed conservatives as evidence against the draw of conservatism. There was a lot that people were voting against that had little to do with conservative principles, but rather a perception of no principles on the part of some party members. It tainted every Rep in office, and in many areas, the Rep could have been giving out wads of cash, and the perception of GOP corruption, puffed up by constant media and lib blathering took it's toll. In short, there was a widespread feeling of "throw them all out". This, too, was a result of poor communication between the party and the people.
All in all, I believe for most of the Religious Right, the importance of defeating Islamic radicals and their terrorism is as much a priority for them as it is for you. But if there are any solid seekers of office with those priorities, but has also the right view of social issues, and probably most important, has a clean reputation, Giuli or McCain wouldn't stand a chance. I hope there is one and he raises his hand soon.
Post a Comment