Unfortunately, in today´s conservative movement, the "thought" leaders in the Conservative Entertainment Complex (hereafter CMC) own the language that we use to describe ourselves. It is for this reason that I consider myself to be a "moderate." Not because I am to the left of say, Right Wingnut or Ohio Joe, but for practical reasons, I need to properly relay where I hang my hat in the Republican Party. "Conservatism" today has been collectively defined in part by media figures seeking to gain an audience and, resultingly, a pot of wealth and in part their listeners, who have been driven by fear and mistrust of the Other Side (an entity that is so broad that it now includes the Republican Party). The masses have fears and the media figures craft a product that not only appeals to those fears but bolsters them. So the result along the way is that we have a "conservatism" that would certainly seem strange to even Ronald Reagan, much less our conservative leaders of times long ago. Today, being "conservative" means fighting, regardless of the facts or reality. To the point, being "conservative" means rejecting those facts if they don´t jive with our concept of being "conservative." This is how we end up with a movement that really believes that it is possibly for the Republican Party to win a public battle over Obamcare by withholding federal funding of the government unless the Senate and the President Obama agree to defunding health care reform. It´s not about what works, it´s about the fight. Cruz gets it. He intends to ride the wave even if his followers are not in on the joke.
I hesitate to bring up Chris Christie because I have no intention of being his fan boy for the next four years, but I simply can´t make my point fully without mentioning him. Allow me to summarize a conversation I have had with various "conservatives."
"Conservative": Chris Christie is a big government progressive.
Pablo: How is it possible that Chris Christie is a big government progressive if literally he has decreased the size of the government. Google 2008 NJ state budget and 2013 NJ state budget. Then do the same for any other "conservative" governor (Rick Perry perhaps) and see if you come up with the same result.
"Conservative": Maybe so, be he is still a big government progressive.
Pablo: (head slap)
If you don´t believe me, we literally had this same conversation played out last week between Chris Christie and Rand Paul. The Kentucky Senator, talking about Christie´s request for federal funding during Katrina, said that Christie has a "give me, give me" attitude toward federal spending. Christie responded by saying that his state receives $.61 for every dollar it sends to Washington, while Kentucky gets back $1.51. Actually, New Jersey is the least dependent state on the federal government and Kentucky is the 9th most dependent. Yet, what was Senator Paul´s response? "Chris Christie is the king of bacon." Right out of the book of playground taunts.
The Christie-Paul feud (and by the way, in regards to the attack on Paul´s national security approach, I would actually take a middle ground position between the two) revealed a dirty little secret that has been covered up by the CMC: Some of the most conservatives states in the United States are the most depedent on the federal government. The goal of the CMC is to craft a product that tickles the ears of their listeners. "We conservatives aren´t the problem. It´s those big-spending liberals up north that want to destroy our country." Well, yes, those liberals up north are weakening our nation. But what about down south? Southern states are on the dole. Northerners are subsidizing the health care of those in the Diabetes Belt. Their taxes are going to welfare for people in conservative states because the leaders of those states have done next to nothing to improve educational standards and create better job prospects.
I would encourage you all to read a scathing critique of the Christie administration by a liberal, who summarizes the governors accomplishments over the past four years. The writer is no Christe fanboy. In his opinion, Christie is not good for New Jersey. However, keep that article in mind as I ask a few pointed questions to my "conservative" friends? Has Christie moved New Jersey to the right or to the left politically? After reading that article, how FAR has Christie moved NJ to the right or to the left? Can you list another "conservative" politician who has done the same?
And then there is my final question: It is hard to deny that Christie has pushed NJ to the right, while other "conservative" talkers have had no actual results from their rhetoric. The big question is why?
Because "moderate" governors get better conservative results. Because the country really is receptive to a conservative message, if only it was not laced with radical language and invectives of The Other Side. Because fearmongering might sell gold coins on Fox News but it won´t move the country to the right. I agree with my "conservative" friends. We need REAL CONSERVATIVES. I just have a few "moderate" governors in mind that would be best suited for the job.
I hesitate to bring up Chris Christie because I have no intention of being his fan boy for the next four years, but I simply can´t make my point fully without mentioning him. Allow me to summarize a conversation I have had with various "conservatives."
"Conservative": Chris Christie is a big government progressive.
Pablo: How is it possible that Chris Christie is a big government progressive if literally he has decreased the size of the government. Google 2008 NJ state budget and 2013 NJ state budget. Then do the same for any other "conservative" governor (Rick Perry perhaps) and see if you come up with the same result.
"Conservative": Maybe so, be he is still a big government progressive.
Pablo: (head slap)
If you don´t believe me, we literally had this same conversation played out last week between Chris Christie and Rand Paul. The Kentucky Senator, talking about Christie´s request for federal funding during Katrina, said that Christie has a "give me, give me" attitude toward federal spending. Christie responded by saying that his state receives $.61 for every dollar it sends to Washington, while Kentucky gets back $1.51. Actually, New Jersey is the least dependent state on the federal government and Kentucky is the 9th most dependent. Yet, what was Senator Paul´s response? "Chris Christie is the king of bacon." Right out of the book of playground taunts.
The Christie-Paul feud (and by the way, in regards to the attack on Paul´s national security approach, I would actually take a middle ground position between the two) revealed a dirty little secret that has been covered up by the CMC: Some of the most conservatives states in the United States are the most depedent on the federal government. The goal of the CMC is to craft a product that tickles the ears of their listeners. "We conservatives aren´t the problem. It´s those big-spending liberals up north that want to destroy our country." Well, yes, those liberals up north are weakening our nation. But what about down south? Southern states are on the dole. Northerners are subsidizing the health care of those in the Diabetes Belt. Their taxes are going to welfare for people in conservative states because the leaders of those states have done next to nothing to improve educational standards and create better job prospects.
I would encourage you all to read a scathing critique of the Christie administration by a liberal, who summarizes the governors accomplishments over the past four years. The writer is no Christe fanboy. In his opinion, Christie is not good for New Jersey. However, keep that article in mind as I ask a few pointed questions to my "conservative" friends? Has Christie moved New Jersey to the right or to the left politically? After reading that article, how FAR has Christie moved NJ to the right or to the left? Can you list another "conservative" politician who has done the same?
And then there is my final question: It is hard to deny that Christie has pushed NJ to the right, while other "conservative" talkers have had no actual results from their rhetoric. The big question is why?
Because "moderate" governors get better conservative results. Because the country really is receptive to a conservative message, if only it was not laced with radical language and invectives of The Other Side. Because fearmongering might sell gold coins on Fox News but it won´t move the country to the right. I agree with my "conservative" friends. We need REAL CONSERVATIVES. I just have a few "moderate" governors in mind that would be best suited for the job.
If you like what you see, please "Like" us on Facebook either here or here. Please follow us on Twitter here.
40 comments:
As usual, excellent points.
Pablo, you are a breath of fresh air. Stick around!
-Martha
I look at it this way, likr most polsters would.
If Liberal is '0' and Conservative is '100'. anything over 50% is conservative.
Most moderates are Conservative.
I rank myself somewhere in the 75-80% range.
I find that most PURESTS, are anti-social...my way or the highway. They never seem to stop and ask themselves, WHY don't PURESTS like me ever win elections?
The answer's easy...There aren't that many of you.
If Cruz ever wants to be President, he won't do it with folks that ONLY think like him.
BTW...Great Post Pablo. I to hope you stick around.
Thank you all! I will try to write a post from time to time, however, I am busy with some other projects right now. Hopefully I will find some time though. Thanks.
Nice job Pablo.
Although I would not lump Rand Paul into the same pile as the CMC crowd..
I have no horse as yet and I think the party needs to have a big debate about who we are and where are headed.
But I do agree the brand of "Conservatives" anointed and stoked by Talk Radio are more Rampage than Results...even when they occasionally win.
I prefer results.
I prefer results
Could you please give me some recent examples of these "results?"
Thanks.
2010 doesn't count. Conservatives get the credit for that one.
I think if you look at Romney's overall record in MA - he did a good job considering the tools he had.
Mitch Daniels in Indiana was a solid steward
Christie has done well in NJ - I think most Conservatives don't like him because of the "Hug"
Mike Pence who is a Conservative with the Reasonable Tone (and someone I am keeping an eye on) is off to a good start.
Harking back - Reagan - with his 70-80% Compromise Approach - got stellar results.
Typically the Rampage Conservatives emerge from the Legislature as the win a small seat and get national exposure via the CMC, so their records are votes as opposed to actual governance.
I like Mike Pence too, but he's no moderate.
Occasionally, stars do rise from the legislature, and make a difference. DeMint is an example...not so much through votes, but by altering the national dialogue and having a positive effect on electoral results. Cruz seemingly has similar potential and then some. He may not be the dynamic speaker some are looking for, but nobody frames an argument like that guy.
Bachmann tried, but failed miserably.
Bosman,
I don't believe for one second that you're a 75-80% guy. LOL
You want DeMint to run in 2016, right? He's as far from a moderate as one gets.
I've been reading your posts for 4 years. You supported Mitt because he was your governor. If you were from another state, you probably would have branded him a rino.
We Republicans have a pattern now of electing Democrats as Republicans, at least we've nominated many, like McCain and Dole. NWO makes sure their enemedia dirties the water, and they egotistically manipulate voters in the surge politics game. The media doesn't give enough information concerning the interests of Americans; they are state run propaganda. Our Republic cannot function without a free press.
Reagan and Bush both increased spending. We are a suicidal nation now. People keep asking the government to spend more money on us, but do not want tax increases. This is a disaster.
We've no urgency to pass amnesty, being tantalized by border security. At all times Obama can protect our borders, that is his primary job. Instead he tries to pawn off legalization of millions of new 'communist' voters by holding our border security hostage.
Obama turned NSA on domestic targets in a massive way. Our Fourth Amendment rights are in shreds, along with so many other atrocities done against our rights. Religious freedom is assaulted brutally by Obama, and our nation has fought and bled to obtain the freedom of conscience. Obama tramples our rights as if it was nothing at all.
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” ― Patrick Henry
It is our generation's turn to fight for freedom. Nobody is given freedom. Christie is a MAJOR friend of Obama, a bromance. Christie could have made a lot of difference for Republicans by appointing a Republican who’d run for the Senate. When we elect Republicans, we expect them to represent US, not our opposition. THE LEAST we ought to demand of candidates is that they promote Republican principles.
I also like old school, real Americans like DeMint. Many conservatives serve the nation well. One honest man is worth millions of an evil one, there is NO comparison. Christie is not honest, and Rubio works very hard to wipe out Republicans all together. There are plenty of Republicans who know right from wrong and are adults.
Nobody should run for President of the U.S. as their first attempt at public office; that is out of bounds. Our party has experienced the most horrendous assault of organized gangsters to ever achieve national office in America, so we are reasonable to be cautious, and foolish to be otherwise.
We need to find firm-minded people who know what is right and what is wrong, who have a record to back up their words.
Our Republican governors mostly do a great job. We need to find a former governor to run. We need consistent effort and communication. We can't let ourselves falter, or be silenced by the phony saboteur.
I do not get TOO mad at those who misunderstood Mitt Romney, the media did their WORST on him. Their flip flop mantra was so hypocritically applied. But I am certain that most Americans did want Romney.
Our candidate needs to be someone who will not attack Republicans, or mock our base. We need to be sure the military vote is counted, and that we have a true vote, without foreign influence. We need a big tent.
But our candidate needs to be the best we've got, excellent. We need someone who is ready, honest, and capable. No to the handicap'd person.
And Ann Coulter is correct: we MUST be single-issue voters about not allowing ANY sort of immigration bill. No need, and it is SURE that it will be used in an amnesty-trojan-horse manipulation; Boehner cannot be trusted in the least way.
People frequently exhibit phony standards saying Republicans need to nominate 'moderates.' The same people urged Republicans to vote for anyone but Romney, yet they argued for conservatives to reject Romney as a moderate. Romney isn't a RINO.
I am demanding that we reverence The Law, our Constitution. I am moderate along the scale of accepting differences among people.
Pendulum needs to be pushed back. We've incrementally let ourselves move into hell, tyranny. Only the most firm in requiring respect for the rule of Law will free us from its awful grasp. Certainly friends of Obama nixed.
Moderates are usually more successful because they don't get bogged down in pointless social conservative battles. Conservatives in many critical states seemed intent on sabotaging the party presidential nominee last year. Every other day, it was a new abortion law.
cimbri,
It's in the party platform. A large portion of Republican voters demand it.
http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_We/#Item14
Take it out, and they stay home. Same would happen if they took pro-choice language out of the Democrat platform. It's probably a wash.
Probably the only solution for you would be to join the Libertarian Party. Either that, or try to change the platform. Good luck.
I was very angry at Christie for sabotaging Romney last year, but ultimately, that is only one of the reasons we lost. Right now, Christie is my top pick. I think he can pick off a few northern states. Romney could have too, which was one of the main strategic reasons for my support of his candidacy (the flip side of Clinton stealing a few southern states), but he had to move so far right to placate the never satisfied social cons of the party, that it cost him a lot of moderate and conservative Democrat votes. Christie knows this and can adjust. If some cons stay home again, then we have Hillary for 8 years. Once again, that's their call.
I was more referring to all the state laws passed last year, for example in Virginia which probably cost us dearly.
Yeah....why do so many Romney supporters have such short memories? I'm still pissed at Christie for what he did. In my view, he disqualified himself.
I doubt it, Cimbri. Unless you can provide evidence that Mitt would have won VA. When you look at the results in the other swing states, that logic doesn't add up.
Many of the comments prove my point here. The CMC viewers care more that Christie walked with Obama on screen while thousands of people in his state were homeless. They care that he didn´t take more advantage of Lautenaberg´s death my appointing a Republican until 2014. But they don´t care that he has pushed a liberal state to the right.
"Could you please give me some recent examples of these "results?" " NO, he cannot, he is just full of hot air. I love how moderates yell and scream about how they are more electable, but then seldom win elections. Do they ever think about what they say or are they more concerned about NPR. It is almost comical.
"But they don´t care that he has pushed a liberal state to the right." Oh please, New Jersey is still one of the most Left wing states in the country. It is a Blue State still, it is not even a Bluish Purple State like Wisconsin among others.
OJ, surely you can admit that Christie is a bright spot in a sea of blue?? To be so dismissive of what he's been able to accomplish in a liberal state is just exactly the problem Pablo is talking about!
Listen, I'm no Christie fan these days! I'm not ready to vote for him, but boy the 2016 list sure looks sad to me, so if I have to vote for him I will.
-Martha
NJ Governor Jon Corzine's final budget - fiscal year 2010 - was $29.0 billion.
Governor Christie's first budget - fiscal year 2011 - was $28.4 billion, followed by $29.7 billion for fiscal year 2012, $31.7 billion for fiscal year 2013, and $33.0 billion for fiscal year 2014.
Governor Christie's budgets were HIGHER than Governor Corzine's final budget every year except 2011. Corzine, BTW, was a BIG SPENDING LIBERAL DEMOCRAT.
http://www.politifact.com/new-jersey/statements/2013/jul/07/barbara-buono/barbara-buono-claims-state-spending-was-lower-fy20/
Nice try, Pablo. Try again.
As for Christie's other "conservative" credentials, they are virtually NONEXISTENT!!!
For all the ugly details, read on:
http://www.conunderground.com/six-reasons-why-chris-christies-is-a-liberal-in-republican-drag/
No Martha, the real problem is that some characters are so dismissive of what Mr. Walker, Mr. Kasich and other Right Wing extremists have accomplished. Yes moderate accomplish a few things, but that is relatively peanuts compared to those who are serious. Hey, Ohio is far from perfect, there is a lot not to be proud of here, but I thank godness I am not a freaking Blue Stater.
Walker is probably better described as a moderate.
RW, I don't have a short memory at all, but I look at it the way they do in the Godfather movie. Business is business. Once something is done, you move on from there. Christie made a machiavellian decision that Romney probably wouldn't win, so he shoved the knife in, and looked out for himself and his state. Romney also kind of misplayed the hurricane and should have took another tack, rather than just sort of disappearing.
Cimbri, the race was a toss up at that point. There's no was Christie could have known Romney would lose. We haven't even mentioned the convention speech. Did you watch it?
It is obvious to me many haven't seen the video of the obama and christie promenade by the sea. One arm of each around the other, while they held hands with their other arms. It was NOT a small thing. Once you see it, you cannot recover. It will NEVER be the same for you.
Here's an update. Christie isn't the political savvy person we thought, not at all.
Beck is NOT being unfair. It IS fully justified. I saw 2 videos that made my eyes pop out. I couldn't believe it. Here's a mild non-photoshopped vomit worthy pic. http://www.glennbeck.com/publish/uploads/2013/05/iqsnv.jpg
You are going to doubt what I am saying. But you need to believe it.
http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/05/29/brokeback-boardwalk-obama-christie-rekindle-bromance/
Chris Christie has no intention to ever oppose Obamacare.
Chris Christie supports the assault weapons ban and all current gun laws. He opposes attempts to permit conceal and carry laws in New Jersey – hardly the NRA position.
Worse than that, he now supports Governor Jon Corzine ‘s law limiting handgun purchases to one per month.
During his campaign, Christie claimed that he was against the measure but “just one day after being sworn in, the newly appointed state Attorney General [Paula Dow] took the most aggressive legal posture available to defend former Governor Corzine’s one-gun-a-month handgun rationing law
Chris Christie himself donated personal funds to Planned Parenthood
Christie, Amnesty for Illegal Aliens
Don’t even ask Chris Christie about illegal aliens – he claims that no such thing even exits, here is Christie
“Being in this country without proper documentation is not a crime,” Christie told more than 60 residents and town officials. “The whole phrase of ‘illegal immigrant’ connotes that the person, by just being here, is committing a crime.”
“Don’t let people make you believe that that’s a crime that the U.S. Attorney’s Office should be doing something about,” he added of entering the country illegally. “It is not.”
Are you surprised then that Christie, while lamenting that he has no time to join a law suit to fight Obamacare – the single biggest liberty depriving legislature of the modern era – Chris Christie found plenty of time to direct his Attorney-General Paula Dow to join the attorneys-general of Massachusetts, Vermont and Maryland in the law suit of Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. In this suit, the University of California sought to punish Christian student groups for having “religious standards for leadership and voting membership” charging that such standards constitute “discrimination” on the basis of religion and “sexual orientation”.
Christie, Ground Zero Mosque
It simply isn’t possible to distinguish the nonsensical blabbering from Chris Christie on the Ground Zero Mosque from the nonsensical blabbering spewed by Barrack Husein Obama, except that Christie said that his own blabbering is in direct opposition to that of Obama, though no one is excalty sure how that is so. Here is Christie:
It simply isn’t possible to distinguish the nonsensical blabbering from Chris Christie on the Ground Zero Mosque from the nonsensical blabbering spewed by Barrack Husein Obama, except that Christie said that his own blabbering is in direct opposition to that of Obama, though no one is excalty sure how that is so. Here is Christie:
“Given my last position, that I was the first U.S. attorney post-9/11 in New Jersey, I understand acutely the pain and sorrow and upset of the family members who lost loved ones that day at the hands of radical Muslim extremists,” Christie said. “And their sensitivities and concerns have to be taken into account. Just because it’s nearly nine years later, those sensitivities cannot and should not be ignored.
“On the other hand, we cannot paint all of Islam with that brush.
My governor won Obama a teddy bear? Are you kidding me? Did they walk in the sand hand in hand. What the hell is wrong with Governor Christie? Hey Governor I use to like you. Now you can get the hell off the beach!
I didn't watch Christie's convention speech, but remember that he didn't even mention Romney's name. Yeah, you know, the more I think about, bad memories are coming back. I'm back to neutral.
Christie or not, I read an analysis that if we could have picked up 3% more of whites, Romney would have won. I guess you guys have been through this quite a few times, and I don't want to rehash it, but someone stayed home, either moderates disenchanted with Romney's move right or conservatives who wouldn't vote for a mormon or upset that he wasn't a "real conservative".
If this is true, how are we going to avoid this happening again? I'm not the problem, I'll vote for Cruz, Christie or anyone else with an R next to their name, simply because they are going to be to the right of Hillary. But who are these people not voting, how do we increase turnout. The Rs need to be working on this now, not 3 years from now.
In order to win elections, we need to pull more independent and moderate voters. We aren't going to accomplish this feat by nominating Tea Party Members who scare away all of the swing votes with their radical rhetoric. If we want to win, we need to nominate a moderate, and the Tea Party needs to show up to support them at the polls.
Post a Comment