I won’t sit on a hot stove…
…till Ted Cruz credits me for coming up with this phrase, but I think I may have originated it. Here’s Cruz:
“I call them the Children of Reagan,” he says. He means the rising group of Republican officeholders who came to political consciousness during President Reagan’s two terms. He rattles off their names: “young leaders” like Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Nikki Haley, Mike Lee, Scott Walker .”‰”‰.”‰”‰. and then sometimes he’ll pause, letting you wonder if he’s leaving out any of the Children’s names. Sometimes a helpful fan in the audience will volunteer it, to general appreciation from the crowd.
Here’s my piece from a year ago at PJ from entitled “Reagan’s Children”:
Reagan was not young when he achieved national prominence. But still, he had no immediate heirs. George H.W. Bush, his vice president, was personally and ideologically quite different. So it is not insignificant that the current crop of conservative leaders-in-the-making were children or young adults during the Reagan years. Unlike those who cut their political teeth before Reagan was president, they didn’t think moderation was necessary for success. They saw for themselves that it was possible to stick to conservative principles and yet remain a viable candidate in a state that was not fundamentally conservative, and then to succeed at the national level. In a metaphoric sense, they are Reagan’s children.
I’ll gladly give Cruz the phrase if he does me a favor in return: gets elected president.
Brava! In other words, “good on ya.”
Not trying to cause an argument; and you did suggest that you yourself are of a generation that did think (erroneously) that “moderation was necessary for success, but…
There was a certain John McCain, and a certain Mitt Romney that the Michael Medveds of the world, the Hugh Hewitt’s of the world, and yes, the Neoneocons of the world told us with every drop of cyber ink they had to spill should be nominated because a) they were the best we had and b) they could win because the others were too “extreme” or something.
We can only hope that finally in 2016 people learn to take a chance, throw caution to the wind, grow a pair (metaphorically of course), have the courage of their convictions, etc., etc.
The timid…..lose.
Period. End of story. Finito. No exceptions.
Mike:
I’m tired of being misrepresented.
You cannot find a post in which I said anything like what you assert. I never said or wrote that those people:
They were not the “best we had.” I preferred other people as nominees both times, but you know what? The people I preferred either did not run at all, and/or did not win the primaries and did not become the nominees in 2008 or 2012.
In 2012 in particular, the minute I saw who entered the arena for the Republicans, I became very worried because I felt Obama had an excellent chance of winning. Of the people who DID enter the fray for the Republicans, I considered—and still consider—that Romney was the best candidate, and I explained why over and over. The others imploded or had personalities and histories that were terrible (Perry and Cain imploded early on, and Santorum and Gingrich were actually repellent); they would have lost by greater margins than Romney. And I saw (and still see) Romney (I probably wrote many hundreds of thousands of words on the subject) as far more conservative than he was believed to be by a lot of conservatives who simply swallowed the MSM narrative about him and did not actually study his life history. I saw, and still see, him as a conservative, and a good man who would have been a good president. Not a good candidate, but the best one who actually entered the race. It was a very weak field, as I wrote early on.
You are arguing with a strawman of your own making.
And study the following posts of mine, for example: this, this, this, this, and this.
neo, you did say in the comments a few days ago:
“I predicted before the 2012 election (I’m too lazy to find the link right now) that if Romney lost people would blame his loss on his being a supposed RINO, and would become even more rigid about not voting for anyone except ultra-conservative and/or ultra-libertarian candidates, thus ensuring the triumph of the left.”
Maybe that is the kind of comment that Mike had in mind? I had the same impression. I am thrilled that you like Cruz. There is nothing with moderation. But there should be moderation in moderation.
When Democrats control the primary system, it’s rather hard to get the GOP to un infiltrate itself.
Neo,
I do not agree that the others “imploded”. They were shot down as much by Republicans as D’s – Palin being Exhibit A in that department for all time, but Gingrich, Santoram, and Perry at least can be classed in the same group.
Not just shot down but also not supported or defended. Romney wa safe. McCain was safe.
I liked Romney. My fear was he really would not do what it took to win. He didn’t.
Now I consider it to be an fact that each person I mentioned above would have made a better President than Obama by miles and miles. The worst of the names above would have been infinitely better than Obama.
He was a no one from nowhere who never had a job and hated his own country. The Dems blew him up like a doll at the Macy’s Parade. Meanwhile, the R’s picked apart one of our guys, who happens to lead one of the most prosperous States in the Union, for not speaking withing 8 seconds at a debate, and so on and so on…
2016 will come up soon and we’ll have a choice again: The Good Loser who the Dems pick for us and moderate Rs accept as the least worst….or a Real Candidate.
I say next time we pick the Real one.
Are we all forgetting the significance of New Hampshire?
In both races, the “Boston effect” caused the entire conservative field to be down shifted — and establishing the most liberal Republican — however defined — to surge to the lead.
For obvious reasons, the shift was — and will always be — consecrated by the MSM.
After which, the snowball effect carries the prince to the nomination.
New Hampshire permits an OPEN primary. Savvy Democrat voters in uncontested (Democrat) presidential primaries (2012) are free to pick the Republican that THEY wish to defeat in the Fall. So, they do.
The Republicans, generally, don’t ‘get it.’
The national party needs to de-select New Hampshire INRE delegates permitted at the national convention. The state should be deemed a “proxy state” — and its delegates thrown automatically to the victor decided by the other 49 states.
As it stands, New Hampshire is insanely overrepresented by the Republican party.
This proxy status is mandatory as long as New Hampshire permits open primaries. The registered Democrat base is just too imbalanced.
BTW, many Boston Democrats have second homes up in New Hampshire. Thinking it through, they’ve simply shifted their voting domicile to New Hampshire. Between taxes and politics, it works. (Tax arbitrage) Such Americans can shuttle between New Hampshire and Boston the way Californians zip up to Sacramento from San Jose. It’s no big deal.
The Republican base inside New Hampshire is so small that this Boston effect is significant. On primary night, the Republicans are inherently split, voting for at least four candidates. The thumb-on-scale shift of even 15,000 votes is astounding.
This effect will persist as long as New Hampshire has an open primary.
Mike: “I liked Romney. My fear was he really would not do what it took to win. He didn’t.”
Romney did enough. It was the whole Right and GOP that didn’t do enough. The Left and Democrats play the Marxist-method activist ground game non-stop. They always have their eyes on the prize and their priorities in order. Obama didn’t do what it took to win – his tribe did what it took to win. The Right and GOP need to become activists and think like activists.
Add: Virally grow the popular movement first, then tab the candidates that represent the movement. Not the other way around.
I’m not sure if this is a recent phenomenon or not but Americans expect Presidents to be some sort of one many army, human made gods.
Against the might of the Left and the evil in this world, that’s not nearly enough.
Although conservatives find repugnant the making of political gods, leadership is still essential. Romney was a great leader in the world of corporate and business that demanded a certain amount of political correctness. The model was extended and refusing that extension was impossible for Romney. Still, I think he may have legitimately won without the election fraud.
Oh well, I’ll let that go. But I hope we’ve learned not to accept the RINO/Democrat selection for our candidate.
But, moving back even further, isn’t the decay and corruption of success irrestible?
Eric,
Romney did not do enough as demonstrated by the fact that he did not win. Period.
He had his chances, even late, to nail Obama on Benghazi and he chickened out – just like losers do.
The timid lose. Every time. Bank on it.
And please don’t say Romney was too good, or nice to play hardball. His failure was a personal moral failure. He could have saved us from 4 years of Obama. He had a moral obligation to do that if he could.
He chose not to. He has to live with his moral failure, and we have to live with it too.
That’s indistinguishable from the victory having the right to rewrite all the rules, because victory in itself gives unto humanity the moral right.
The concept that victory can decide wrong from right may be valid for one on one duels, but for an election that can be rigged and voters that can be hypnotized, coerced, or intimidated, victory does not guarantee divine rights.
The concept that if you do what it takes to win in a democracy that you are somehow “correct”, is one of the ancient mistakes concerning democracy.
Also, the same people who except the GOP to win by virtue of divine right and might in battle, do not necessarily say the same thing about Democrats. So not only unrealistic standards, but also unequal standards.
“The timid lose.”
Yep.
A candidate and a party must unapologetically believe in their own supposed principles. Anything else — ANYTHING else = loser. Virtually every time.
Ymarsakar,
I do not think so. You are making a moral equivalence between Liberalism and Conservatism (as both exist today in 2013). It is as if there is no difference and what he highest principle should be is some kind of gentlemanly approach to elections.
I am not saying that victory makes a thing right. I am almost saying the opposite – that there is the right, and the wrong, and there is therefore a moral obligation to do everything possible to win that battle.
It is not a matter of indifference or fairness of play as to which side wins. It is closer to life ad death, civilization or barbarism, freedom or tyranny.
Romney failed tactically because he lacked the virtue of courage would be the way I’d put it. His failure was a failure of nerve and conviction.
Cruz has it all.
Powerful intellect.
Great personal story.
Likeability.
Great speaker.
And no long record of votes.
Our Obama but with substance and the right ideas.
Mike,
Romney did enough to win in the same sense that Obama didn’t do enough to win.
The Democrats – and the Left – didn’t win on the back of the candidate. The candidate won on the back of the never-ending, never-stopping Marxist-method activist movement.
As long as you, the GOP – and the Right – think in terms of the candidate as the origin point to winning elections, you’ll be at a disadvantage for conceiving how to reclaim the political advantage.
Think in terms of the whole movement with the candidate as the tip of the iceberg.
gcotharn,
To achieve a “A candidate and a party must unapologetically believe in their own supposed principles.” in an election cycle, the prerequisite is changing the popular electoral political environment.
Obama and the Democrats got away with doing and saying things that would have been beyond the pale 20 years ago not due to Obama and the Democrats’ unapologeticness – but because the Left and the Democrats have used all that time dynamically changing the popular electoral political environment so that they could do and say those things within the pale.
The only way you can win a game against a cheater is to not follow the rules or to force the other side to stop cheating.
This, though, isn’t a tactical failure. Because the tactics used in the game aren’t enough.