« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Now Is (Almost) the Time

If ever there were a time for a Conservative Republican leader to step forward, it’s either now or coming soon.

There are plenty of candidates for the title of Republican leader/spokesman, and some of them have conservative leanings, but few of them espouse the principles of Conservatism every time they speak in public.  I’m not suggesting that someone should come forward with a list of Conservative precepts, announcing “This is what makes a Conservative.  These principles define what Republicans should believe.  If you don’t agree, get out of the party.”

I do suggest that the candidate for President who comes forward with an honest assessment of the mistakes of the Obama and offers a point-by-point alternative has an excellent chance of becoming the so far missing-in-action leader of Conservatism and while at it, the leader of the Republican Party.  In fact, the Obama need not even be mentioned unless necessary to show the contrast between conservative American democracy and Obamic statism.  The person who follows this strategy will quickly become the media’s go-to person for answers about the Republican approach to issues of the day.

He or she needs to start with public appearances speaking on various issues of the day–health care, tax rates, government ownership of formerly private businesses, energy policy including cap-and-tax, our relationship with Israel, illegal immigration, self-government in Honduras, the waste of duplicating Guantanamo Prison in Illinois, trying terrorists as criminals in New York, broken campaign promises, foreign policy–with each appearance covering only one or a select few of the issues.  The emphasis should not be on ideology, but on the practical solution of the problems combined when appropriate with why the Obama is wrong in his approach.  As these appearances continue over time, the issues will become a factor in our favor.

The person who does this first automatically becomes the leader, because nobody else has put it all together.  Those left behind will be required to say “Me, too” and to articulate it better if they hope to compete.  That’s all good, too.  I have my own ideas about who could best take the lead (and there is one person out there who has started this process without announcing it, but IMHO it’s not the best person to do it), but there are only three absolute requirements for this strategy to work for anybody.

First, the person has to be a true Conservative.  He/she has to understand and believe in conservative principles as the basis for all policy decisions.  That doesn’t mean that he may never have compromised in the past to avoid the worst or to get 80% of the good; such compromises are inevitable for anybody who has been in office for any significant period of time.  It doesn’t even mean he always must have been a lifetime Conservative.  It does mean he must be able to articulate why those compromises were made, and what his preferences would have been given different circumstances.  It does mean that he must currently and believably support conservative principles.

Second, he/she must be able to speak articulately, compellingly, and convincingly about his solutions to every issue of importance today, and (when necessary) how his core principles support those solutions.  It does us no good whatsoever if the message is garbled or ignored because the delivery is too distracting or too weak to be accepted.

Third, he/she must be a credible candidate. He must have a combination of experience, knowledge and demonstrated competence that the people will trust to say what he means and mean and do what he says.  Name recognition would also help him get press coverage that wouldn’t be available to a relative unknown.  No matter how good the picture may look or the words may sound, a novice will not be credible or accepted by the American public.  It’s true that the Obama got away with good looks and media-praised speeches alone, but the electorate will not fall for that (or likely even have that) in a Republican candidate.

I added the disclaimer about timing above because it may be wise to delay this campaign until after the health-care debate plays itself out.  That debate continues to hurt the Obama, and that’s not a bad thing to let have the spotlight.

COMMENTS

  • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

    The Constitution is a great foundation. The Republican leader needs to claim the Constitution as the basis of his or her platform, respecting the Constitution and individual freedom while rejecting collectivism and state coercion as the means, and restoring Constitutional limits as the goal.

    • acat

      …for a couple reasons – the main one being using a literal interpretation of the constitution makes it difficult for the big-government types to grab the agenda.

      Good call, Beaglescout!

      Mew

    • Flagstaff

      It’s another issue in the arsenal to be unleashed when the time is right by the person accomplished enough to do so.

      I tried to take pains to be clear that the “leader” shouldn’t go around just blathering about Conservatism or conservative principles, but should always have them implicitly in the forefront of any discussion.

  • azaeroprof

    in the television age. The country is still divided, so the election will be decided by the idiots in the middle who get their political news from Jon Stewart and SNL and who make their decisions based on campaign ads and who they think is “cool”.

    I know the argument that Obama is so much drama that the public will be ready for “boring”. That could work back in the days when candidates sat on their front porch and the newspapers reported what they had to say. If Obama is so unpopular going into 2012 that he could be beaten by a “boring” candidate, he simply won’t run. And then we’re back to who performs best on TV.

    • azaeroprof

      This was supposed to be a reply to MacAoidh’s comment above!

    • Flagstaff

      “Boring” won’t win, as the great moderate McCain proved. That’s why I specified the need to be compelling.

      That means strongly arousing attention or admiration; not able to be resisted or doubted. Of the people I’ve seen who have this quality, most are still at the state level, or not involved in any office or campaign at all.

      The names I have in mind are Michael Williams, Nikki Haley, Marco Rubio, Liz Cheney, Dick Cheney, Bob McDonnell, and David Petraus (perhaps). At the next level down (but close) are Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney.

      I’m sure I missed a few I could have included if I were more informed, but I intentionally did not include Sarah Palin (whom I greatly admire for her accomplishments), Tim Pawlenty, Bobby Jindahl, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, and all of the other Republican hopefuls of 2008, although Rudy Giuliani is a tough call for me. (Palin and Pawlenty are already somewhat following the strategy I laid out–I just don’t think they’ll be successful.)

      Obviously, nobody’s perfect. Name anybody and it’s going to be possible to find problems with him, but the point of the diary was to set out a strategy for anybody (who can meet the requirements) to follow, not to pick a candidate. I also recognize that somebody who does not meet the requirements or follow the strategy could end up defeating Barack Obama–I just think my strategy would give us the best candidate and best President.

      • Scope

        let alone seperated by one word. Also, it pains me greatly that you consider him second tier. After reading your diary, Fred’s name came right into my mind.

        You talked about “true” conservatives needing to have it in their heart and soul, so that they could instinctively answer any question asked, and could craft policies that were conservative at their very roots. I couldn’t agree more.

        Reading your comments further down has me confused. You have thrown some names out of people that may have conservative leanings, or
        support some of the conservative beliefs, however, I thought by your diary you were talking about what you called “true” conservatives.

        Mitt Romney has conservative leanings, but, has governed in a manner that did not support “true” conservatism, for example, Mitt Care. That alone, combined with Obamacare (if it passes or doesn’t) will be an automatic non-starter for him.

        Newt Gingrich may at one time been a conservative, but, those days are long gone. He sat on the couch with Pelosi, and most recently he endorsed one of the most liberal so-called Republicans, Scuzzy, for the House. I believe many will agree he has lost any credibility he may have once had. I realize you have addressed this above, but, just want to reitterate it.

        Yes, Guiliani should be a tough call, as once again, he is not a “true” conservative including all it’s beliefs.

        Gen Petraeus has said in the past, and again very recently, he is not interested in running for any elective office. I take him at his word, he is a man a great honor and integrity. That’s too bad, I would support him in a heartbeat. By the way, I understand he is a Republican, even though he has not voted since becoming a military officer. He is expected to be neutered.

        I may like your pick of Bob McDonald though I would give him a few years as Governor to see what he accomplishes. And, I would actually like Ken Cuccinelli even more.

        I like the rest of your list. Were you being politically correct in your choices? LOL

        • Flagstaff

          ?Boring? won?t win, as the great moderate McCain proved. That?s why I specified the need to be compelling.

          That means strongly arousing attention or admiration; not able to be resisted or doubted. Of the people I?ve seen who have this quality, most are still at the state level, or not involved in any office or campaign at all.

          The entire comment was directed at giving examples of people who are ‘compelling’ speakers, as defined. It wasn’t addressing the other aspects of ‘persona’ I’d written about in the OP.

          And my closing paragraph could close this comment, too. “…the point of the diary was to set out a strategy for anybody (who can meet the requirements) to follow, not to pick a candidate.” Your unease with a close ranking of Romney and Thompson is exactly why I didn’t go there overall. (Personally, I think they go well together overall, but I don’t know that I’m typical.)

          The reason I ranked them both below the first group was that both have had problems convincing (or being ‘compelling’) even almost all conservatives of their own credibility, for various reasons. I don’t believe I’ve even mentioned Newt herein, but if I were to grade him on ‘compellingness,’ I’d put him at this level, too, and I wouldn’t argue that Huckabee and Giuliani don’t belong at this level, as well. Sarah Palin could become more compelling, but she hasn’t progressed beyond the rallying the troops stage as yet. That’s just MHO.

          I repeat, all who can carry out my strategy are capable of defeating the Obama, because by doing so, they will prove their bona fides.

          To get out of the political arena, a good example of a compelling delivery is the opening monologue being delivered at this moment on TV by Glenn Beck regarding the unconstitutionality of the coming health care disaster. He’s speaking logically and under control, but with emotion and examples to justify his obvious passion. Rush does nearly as well speaking off the cuff, but Beck proves the value of practice and preparation.

          Finally, my opinion is that a compelling speaker will deliver a convincing argument, but to do so consistently in a political setting, he must be both credible and articulate, and also steeped in and committed to his beliefs.

        • Flagstaff

          And as Janis points out above, I omitted Don Rumsfeld. He fits into the compelling category, too.

    • Flagstaff

      I just saw a clip of Mitch McConnell speaking about the health care disaster. He made several great points about what is wrong with it. He also gave a great example of not-compelling.

      NTTAWWT, unless you’re in a position of party leadership trying to overcome the force of the Obama.

      No wonder Republicans get scant airtime except to be ridiculed.

      • reddog53

        Harry is the most undynamic, unappealing front man for the Democrats, yet there he is….flanked by Dodd and Schumer mostly, another pair of uncharismatic wonders.

        The thread talks about conservative ideas rather than a ‘personality’…I know that in the media age, this is important; but the other side seems do do well enough with a bunch of grumpy old men.

        • Flagstaff

          are leftists, and the LSM love to give them air time. By definition, what they say is important; by definition, what McConnell says is unimportant.

  • acat

    but .. the delay may actually be for the better.

    Remember, the Leftards have all read Alinsky by now – they and their allies in the media will do their best to freeze and personify using whomever steps up.

    This is an unusual time – I think a very narrow window exists where it’s possible for the ideas and ideals of conservatism to be spread without a Goldwater or Reagan or Gingrich as a figurehead. Recall Joe-the-Plumbers’ experience, and he was on the outskirts…

    Conservatism isn’t a person – to say so is the same cult-of-personality crap that is best illustrated by Kennedy or Clinton. (or Ron Paul) There’s a role for hero-worship, a role for elder statesmen, a role for leaders, but the ideas and ideals are separate, and go on long after the leaders are worm food.

    So, for now, delay is good. Delay keeps the lefties and the media thrashing around, further tearing away the mask of “honest opposition” or “truthful media” they like to hide behind.

    Think of it as counter-Alinsky – the longer there is no clear target for the left to focus on, the more difficult it becomes to keep them from lashing out in every direction.

    Mew

  • Flagstaff

    My point was definitely that it’s the ideas and how they affect the issues that matter, not necessarily the person. But the person who starts articulating those ideas gets an immediate advantage.

    Also, without their conservative principles, Goldwater nor Gingrich nor even Reagan would have been who we remember as conservative leaders. Even today, Newt is often so far from Conservative Republicanism that it’s hard to tell him from the noise in the center. The person who picks up on this can become the next Gingrich or Goldwater, if not the next Reagan. Reagan didn’t make Conservatism; conservative principles made Regan. Thus my diary.

    Timing–I think we agree there, too. As I wrote, “…it may be wise to delay this campaign….” At the right time, the “freezing” part won’t work if the person fulfills the True Conservative, Articulate, and Credible requirements. Such a person will be able to cut through the LSM clutter to the heart of the issues, and will be believed by the people. The LSM won’t be able to stay away from him, because he’ll just be such good copy. And the press likes a good fight, too, which this person will be able to deliver.

  • http://www.thehayride.com MacAoidh

    …the Left identified Palin as a future star in the GOP and the treatment she got was as savage as anything the nation has ever seen.

    I think the candidate needs to be unveiled at the last possible moment. I would almost like to see a brokered convention in 2012 to produce a complete surprise and have the media caught flat-footed in their ability to do opposition research on the Republican nominee while the race is well under way.

  • smagar

    If your opponent is disorganized and losing strength, it really can be a blessing for him, if an identifiable external opponent emerges. Everyone can focus their anger on him (e.g., Emmanuel Goldstein); that focusing and coalescing of purpose can then revive your movement.

    I agree—there is value in denying the left a target to rally against.

    And, IMO, our troops are motivated already. I doubt they need much more inspiration.

  • acat

    The next leader will have to be someone who can work around the MSM, someone the bulk of the media can neither ignore into silence, nor misquote into irrelevance.

    History is happening right now.

    Mew

  • nessa

    The ideals that Ronaldus Magnus lived, or Goldwater, or Buckley, are still out there, still in the common sense using minds and liberty loving hearts of Americans. The entire left stands in HD contrast to those ideals, everytime one of them opens their piehole they sharpen the picture. Everytime Obama, or one of his leftist cronies, spouts off about…

    “only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe… Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy”

    It only draws attention to the alternative…

    “The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

    When the MSM drops one of these pearls before the swine…

    ?President Obama told ABC News? Charles Gibson in an interview that if Congress does not pass health care legislation that will bring down costs, the federal government ?will go bankrupt.?

    more and more people are reminded…

    “The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would steal them away.”

    The leftists are our best recruiters, Obama can continue to anti-lead us for a while till the Leader you describe steps up to the plate.

  • E Pluribus Unum

    I have sketched up a piece called “the president I will have in 2013″, which touches many of the same things……

    [crestfallen]

  • Flagstaff

    Well, you can probably touch it up to make me look like the doofus I am. I know I left out a lot, but my attention span is mighty short these days.

    Or you can write a piece about Whitey Herzog being elected to the Hall of Fame. That old Kansas City A’s team of the fifties had Herzog and Dick Williams on it at the same time. Dick Howser played shortstop there just a bit later, a little before Tony LaRussa. A bunch of good managers came out of some pretty bad teams.

  • eburke
  • Flagstaff

    And our Leader should always be ready to point out the inconsistencies between what the Obama says and what he does, and to point out the over-the-top statements, too.

    Good points, Nessa.

  • acat

    Whoever steps up better be ready to get piled on by the Left Press in a way that makes the hatchet job and smears directed at Palin look like a day at the beach.

    I don’t envy anyone making this decision.

    It isn’t going to be enough to quote Reagan or Goldwater or Buckley or Gingrich (before the D.C. brain-eater got him) it’s going to take new statements, and it’s going to be very, very painful for the target.

    Mew

  • Flagstaff
  • Flagstaff

    that the reason the “person has to be a true Conservative” is so he will be able to answer both the ‘gotcha’ questions and the substantive questions and do it in a way the the listener will have confidence it is honest, sincere, and practical. A true conservative will have no problem saying things that liberals find uncomfortable to hear, and that the LSM doesn’t understand. But the people will understand.

  • smagar

    She’s not running for anything…right? So, she’s free to speak out as she pleases.

    She can easily grab media attention. Her public comments (“death panels”) have legs.

    If Palin were to fill this role, maybe “Leader” isn’t the right word, but “Spokesperson” is?

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    …which says a lot about the rest of the current crop of Republican leaders.

  • http://www.thehayride.com MacAoidh

    …and beat Obama’s ass to a bloody pulp. No problem.

    I’m not sure John Thune couldn’t be a guy.

    And Mitch Daniels is a guy. Mitch Daniels is boring as hell, and boring as hell is a winner in 2012. Just run the Warren G. Harding campaign and presidency, sans the Teapot Dome scandal, and you’re fine. Daniels has the look of a Harding, who was a much better president than the left-wing historians make him out to be.

  • Flagstaff

    but one of those who do. (See my response to azaeroprof below.)

    As I also say, the idea isn’t to take the possibilities and assess how they fit my criteria, it’s to consider a process or strategy that would result in a candidate showing us as he campaigns that he is the obvious person to defeat the Obama. Of course, that’s always sort of the idea during a campaign, but it didn’t happen last time, did it?

    And, yes, it does.

  • janis

    The man is anything but boring, is a conservative’s conservative, has more experience than anyone this side of Dick Cheney, makes the MSM cry and makes the libs froth even more at the mouth than usual.

    What’s not to love? Cheney/Rumsfeld 2012. Any Cheney. Or all of them including the family dogs.

  • azaeroprof

    The selection of Palin caught them flat-footed just before the convention, and it obviously didn’t detract from the left’s ability to orchestrate a massive smear campaign.

    I think it’s better to get someone out sooner than later (though I agree with waiting until health care is over). Do the rope-a-dope for a while and then be ready for a more fair fight in 2012. One could argue that Palin is a good prospect from this perspective in that she has already taken a massive barrage and is still standing. It’s the same principle that made Hillary so formidable in ’08.

  • Flagstaff

    I’ve never heard any of them (except DeMint) speak at length about any subject.

    But I do like all of them as Republicans and normal people.

  • acat

    Reagan had a tremendous advantage – he knew how to talk so Jane and Joe (and Juanita and Mahmood) citizen understood him.

    I do hope we’ll find someone who can get through a speech without putting his (or her) foot all the way in his (or her) mouth.

    I believe George W. Bush is a good man and was a good President, but I’m not blind to his faults. He was not able to communicate his understanding of conservatism, and he often relied too much on the people he was already comfortable with, but .. a good man in a near-impossible job.

    Mew

  • eburke

    to this the ability and *willingness* to challenge the very premise of the BS (that’s the excrement, not the frontpager) that accompanies any MSM question. Conservatives (or those who claim to be conservatives) repeatedly lose the debates/interviews because they try to answer within the faulty framework posed by the libtard MSM infobabe/guy.

    What Newt excelled at, before he was sucked into the DC vortex, was challenging the very premise of the question before answering it. It’s why Liz Cheney rocks; how often don’t you see her utterly rejecting (which means correcting) the premise on which some vacuous, leftist talking head is questioning her.

  • Flagstaff

    We need more than a General to lead us, we need lots of Colonels and Majors too, and civilians, in support.

    Once Sarah learns how to sharpen those comments, such as “death panels,” she can be even more effective. Had she recognized what was happening with her death panel remark, she could have made it even more potent.

  • Flagstaff