Home › Blogs › Patrick Ruffini's blog ›

Stop the Circular Firing Squad

Submitted by Patrick Ruffini on Sun, 10/26/2008 - 10:08
in

Folks, listen to Mark McKinnon on this one: There is nothing to be gained by second-guessing the McCain strategy at this point. In ten days, we'll get to have a discussion about where we go next -- about Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, or Eric Cantor. We'll have to elect a new RNC Chairman who gets to figure out how we rubuild the edifice from scratch and wage the first $1 billion campaign in 2012. We're going to have new people at the NRCC and NRSC who are going to have to come to terms with the fact that there are no safe seats anywhere, and that we need to do 72 Hour and have real campaigns in every district. That will be much more important than looking into the rearview mirror on the probably unwinnable race for the White House. 

Like McKinnon I too feel the McCain camp could probably have done some things differently, but it probably wouldn't be enough to save them. What is striking about 2008 is how little the campaigns have mattered in comparison to the fundamental nature of the two men running.

Nothing the McCain campaign did could change the reality of McCain the candidate's poor management instincts and his tendency to fidget around and not stay on message. When the economic crisis hit, this reality flew in the face of the McCain campaign's message of steadiness versus inexperience. Whether by design or the candidate's nature, Obama's caution and deliberation was a living, breathing talking point against the experience card.

Likewise, I think it will be said that the McCain campaign has yet to really lay a glove on Obama character-wise because Obama himself simply does not project the cloying, insecure, effete tendencies of past nominees like Gore and Kerry, though the only two times he's come close (Wright and bitter/cling) have barely figured in the general election campaign. I do think "celeb" was the best chance we had to define Obama personally, but again, though there is something to be said for attacking a guy's strength, Obama's grassroots appeal was a legitimate strength, not a hidden weakness.

I am becoming more and more convinced that to run for President, you need to be the kind of person who doesn't give a s*** what's said about you and you just keep on going, steady as she goes. Obama has this, and so did Bush in both his campaigns. The key is to appear calm, unruffled, and grounded in your persona while seeming to be a man (or crucially, woman) of action in politics and policy. 

So, number one, the race was very, very tough because of the political environment, and it became hellish after the economic crisis.

And two, the race was very, very tough because of the particulars of the Obama-McCain matchup. I happen to think Romney/Palin would have been a stronger ticket, but I'm not sure it could have won either.

2.5
Your rating: None Average: 2.5 (2 votes)

Comments

Are you stoned?

Submitted by Sterling on Sun, 10/26/2008 - 11:40.

Talking about the campaign in the past tense is CONTINUING the problem, Patrick, not ending it.  As far as I'm concerned McCain is going to win next week and if you can't rouse yourself to at least that possibility then you ought to STFU or at least stay out of the way. 

I'm done with this site.  Unfollowing on Twitter.

Are you stoned?

Submitted by gabriel on Sun, 10/26/2008 - 19:56.

McCain is going to win? Win what? Arizona?

 

 

 

Win the election!

Submitted by JakeD on Mon, 10/27/2008 - 12:38.

Regardless, Barack HUSSEIN Obama will not be sworn in as President on January 20, 2009.

Who's going to shoot him? You?

Submitted by Anderson on Mon, 10/27/2008 - 17:48.

So, EVEN IF he's elected, he won't be sworn in?

I realize this is the natural result of the McCain campaign -- which hasn't run on "we're Republicans and we're better than the Democrat, because of X, Y, and Z" but rather on "Stop the scary black Muslim terrorist!" -- but still, it's depressing to see how well some have picked up on the message.

I shudder to think of how many people share JakeD's resolve.

The McCain Campaign is not to blame for sociopaths acting out

Submitted by lagomorph on Tue, 10/28/2008 - 12:56.

The entire concept of personal responsibility is missing here.  No one is "making" anyone do anything, including hanging Sarah Palin in effigy in West Hollywood, or hatching an American Nazi Party plot to commit mass murder which was thankfully stopped by the ATF.  These deviants are operating way outside societal boundaries and are responsible for choosing to do so.

 Yesterday a prominent Clinton supporter who's also a Hollywood producer, Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, slammed the way that Keith Olberman has attacked Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin while demeaning her supporters.  All of us on the Right of good conscience have completely repudiated Ashley Todd for faking an attack by an Obama supporter and the neo-Nazis who wanted to murder about a hundred people including Barack Obama.  

I completely, adamantly and passionately disagree with the Obama economic plan and with all of his radical association, but if he does become President next week I will pray for his safety to fulfill his term(s), and to wish otherwise is to be far beyond unhinged. 

Some people are violent, hate-filled sociopaths on both the Right and the Left.  Let's all condemn all of these people across the board and stop blaming the candidates for questioning Obama's associates, which is a legitimate question of judgment but in no way conflates him with being a terrorist. 

John McCain has gone out of his way not to inspire hate with his rhetoric or his ads - to wit, he has specifically bucked the entire conventional campaign methodology by going out of his way to exclude any discussion of Jeremiah Wright. 

No one has any business posting an unacceptable threat on this site.  This is a site for political grassroots discussion and debate, it is not a site for fomenting partisan hate and discontent. 

JakeD, I know that you live

Submitted by mj on Tue, 10/28/2008 - 10:03.

JakeD, I know that you live in NY area and you have been posting death threats toward Obama over several months. I will give your Id to the Secret Services so they can question you about the death threats-(this one and many other threats that you posted on Washintonpost, NYtimes, and Politico) to a potential president. In this day and age, we can all agree to disagree but to become enraged and publicly post death threats to future president that you disagree is unacceptable.

Did I say "Shoot Him"?

Submitted by JakeD on Mon, 11/03/2008 - 14:52.

I never made any threat to Obama -- I live in San Diego, so you must have me confused with someone else -- it's just a prediction of election returns and the outcome of a lawsuit filed to prevent him from taking office.  I would never advocate anything illegal.

Throttles up!

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 10/26/2008 - 12:02.

Said it already. Will say it again. 

http://www.thenextright.com/ironman/full-throttle-folks

Most of this nonsense is coming from yuppie DC pundits (i.e. Brooks, Frum et al)  who've made a life of sitting around pontificating, instead of pounding signs into lawns or working train stations at dawn. 

Nothing the McCain campaign

Submitted by Mithras on Sun, 10/26/2008 - 12:12.

Nothing the McCain campaign did could change the reality of McCain the candidate's poor management instincts and his tendency to fidget around and not stay on message. When the economic crisis hit, this reality flew in the face of the McCain campaign's message of steadiness versus inexperience. Whether by design or the candidate's nature, Obama's caution and deliberation was a living, breathing talking point against the experience card.

Coming from an Obama supporter and volunteer, I think it's still faintly possible for McCain to pull this one out, but you're right that he seems incapable of having the discipline necessary to stick to the message needed to do that: "Obama and congressional liberals will raise your taxes and I won't." It's a lie, but it's a lie that people might buy, unlike the Ayers thing or the "most liberal Senator" thing. However, for it to work, Obama would have to lose all of the ability to counter negative messages that he displayed against Hillary and McCain so far. 

Instead, McCain's spending a ton of money to throw mud against the wall in Pennsylvania, which isn't even really in play.

A Lie?

Submitted by MacGregor on Sun, 10/26/2008 - 20:55.

I feel the reason that McCain may have trouble sticking to one point or not seeming somewhat frantic is that he cannot believe or understand the ridiculously unfair treatment he and fellow repubs have had over the last number of months.  Its gotten so bad that even rational folks like the ones that run this site are buying it.

I can understand the

Submitted by Mithras on Mon, 10/27/2008 - 09:16.

I can understand the frustration behind your response - Hillary supporters said the same thing - but unsurprisingly from my perspective I don't see it.

Media treatment didn't require McCain to do essentially nothing between the time he locked up the nomination and the time he picked Palin as VP.

And I don't see how, given how much of the campaign messaging has gone around the media as well as through it, why it's the media's fault that the McCain campaign couldn't find a theme and stick to it. What I do see is that the Obama campaign didn't just take the attacks like Kerry did in '04; they fought back, and often pivoted to turn the conversation to their advantage. McCain's people just got out-thought.

They got out-worked, too. Republicans mainly used winner-take-all in the primaries, which meant that smaller states didn't matter. The Democrats used proportionate representation, down to the congressional district level, and their primaries lasted right through the last contest. That meant Obama had volunteers, organizational structure and goodwill built up at the local level all over the country. I started volunteering for Obama on March 15th and essentially never stopped. It's hard to quantify, but that level of visibility all over the country may have helped to mute McCain's message.

that level of focus on the death match

Submitted by RisingTide on Mon, 11/03/2008 - 16:30.

between hillary and obama certainly had somethign to do with it...

 

but afterwards? what did mccain do? a biography tour!

worst campaign in history

Submitted by tmragusa on Sun, 10/26/2008 - 13:04.

why didn't pick a vice president who wasn't so embarassing...elections are won and lost with moderates and we have an extremist who only appeals to the rightest of right...i called my liberal friend and told him that obama had won the election the day that mccain picked palin...there are larger forces at work than mccain right now, he cant stop the monster (his campaign) that has been created

Extremist? Are you kidding me

Submitted by MacGregor on Sun, 10/26/2008 - 21:02.

Why do you really hate Sarah Palin so much?  A governor of a State and former small town mayor who shares the values of the heartland majority of americans and can relate to women is an embarrassment?  Because she is a christian i wouldnt go so far as to call her an extremist, especially since 80 some percent of americans believe in the christian god.  Yes his campaign has been garbage and he has missed every major opportunity to make some ground, but picking Sarah Palin was not one of them.  It seems you have been brainwashed by the media and their constant onslaught of lies, distortions and hatred against her..

Poll numbers among women and

Submitted by Mithras on Mon, 10/27/2008 - 09:27.

Poll numbers among women and other independent voters don't support your view. Just because Palin is a woman doesn't mean her views on issues appeal to women. She's against abortion in all cases, including rape and incest. She's against sex ed and birth control. She's against stem cell research. These positions are not popular among indepedents and women.

Also, women who were undecided had gotten fired up because of Hillary's presence in the race, and Hillary's qualities - hard work in the face of relentless sexism and criticism, extensive grasp of policy issues, and success without relying on physical attractiveness to win support - are the antithesis of Palin's.

Palin was a base pick - someone designed to appeal to people like yourself. She wasn't a swing vote pick. McCain would have had a much better shot with Ridge or Lieberman, but the base wouldn't let him. I can tell you from my direct experience that picking Palin lost McCain Pennsylvania. There were a lot of suburban Philadelphia women who were thinking of going for McCain before the convention. It was causing us real concern in the Philly Obama office. But as soon as Palin's policy views and inability to handle basic questions came to light, they began switching to Obama.

I, personally, don't hate Palin. I just would fear for my country if she were to be in the White House, a lot of people share that view, and I think that's why she was a lousy choice.

Palin makes you scared? What?

Submitted by MacGregor on Mon, 10/27/2008 - 10:54.

But yet the inexperienced government first radical Obama would make you feel safer?  The gaffemaster himself Joe Biden who voted against the first Gulf War would make you feel safer?  Why exactly would she make you fear for you country?  Is it because she is a devout christian who strongly believes and adheres to tradional values, or because you cannot separate the rational believer from the whacko religious zealot?

I understand that Palin is a Conservative's Conservative, and i dont share all of her views.  I personally believe that Romney would of been the best pick for VP.  But, she has been demonized to the point that her REAL views dont even matter, and quite frankly we dont even know what they are anymore.

Palin did compliment McCain in areas where he lacked, fired up his base, and worked to pick off  emotion first women voters who would vote for a women because shes a women.  Not unlike the 95% of blacks voting for Obama.  Cynical though it may seem, i believe it was a calculated move to rev up the base as you mentioned, but also an attempt to gain Hillary supporters who were not voting for Hillary on issues.  If anything she has fired up the conservative base and helped to expose the unbelievable hypocrisy amongst the media and left leaning thinkers especially the feminists...

Hold on a second...

Submitted by smg77 on Mon, 10/27/2008 - 15:27.

It's not anything like 95% of blacks voting for Obama because nowhere near that percentage of women are going to vote for McCain.

You have to stop insisting that people have a problem with her simply because she is a Christian. Being against abortion even in the case of rape and incest, being against stem cell research, being against sex education and birth control are extremist views. There are millions of Christians that have opposing viewpoints and are very, very uncomfortable with somebody like Palin becoming president.

Palin is not anti-contraception

Submitted by NStevens99 on Mon, 10/27/2008 - 15:33.

As far as I can tell, Palin is not anti-contraception. See OntheIssues.org:

Palin said last month that no woman should have to choose between her career, education and her child. She is pro-contraception and said she's a member of a pro-woman but anti-abortion group called Feminists for Life. "I believe in the strength and the power of women, and the potential of every human life," she said.
Source: Anchorage Daily News, "Little play," by K. Hopkins Aug 6, 2006

I think that too much of the Palin commentary has been based on rumor and stereotype.

She is a member of Feminists for Life

Submitted by NextRightNando on Mon, 10/27/2008 - 15:57.

By virtue of her membership in Feminists for Life you would have to say that she supports "non-abortifacient contraception" - which means she wants to interfere with your choice to use an IUD, the Pill, and other effective means of contraception. She also favors teaching abstinence only "education" in schools. No further comment needed on that point.

You missed my point

Submitted by MacGregor on Mon, 10/27/2008 - 18:58.

My point was that there is a large number of blacks voting for Obama because he is black, and there are women who voted for Hillary because she was a woman.  I am sure there are some votes that went from Hillary to Palin, because those voters arent voting on issues, they are voting on identity like the blacks who dont share Obama's views but identify with him.

Palin derives her values from her faith, which most people have.  And calling her "religious" views extremist is a bit much.  I feel people are unjustly scared of devout christians, calling them extremists is a simple ploy to trivialize their values.  She seems like a rational enough person who believes in god, personal accountability, and the sanctity of life.  I wouldnt call that extremist, but to insinuate that she would try to unwind the separation of church and state we have or impose some radical theocracy is ridiculous, and that is precisely what calling her an extremist does.

yes, the fbi does seem untowardly scared of the Mennonites

Submitted by RisingTide on Mon, 11/03/2008 - 16:35.

but someone who aids in a witchhunt... eh. I dunno, that just seems off the wall. Let alone the Falwell's and Dobson's....

 

I belive that she sent her husband out to stalk her sister's ex husband. I believe that sort of vengefulness does not speak well to the freedom of speech.

 

If she won the Presidency, I'd leave the country.

 

Save John McCain's Life: Vote Obama!

aiding in witchhunts is not something

Submitted by RisingTide on Mon, 11/03/2008 - 16:32.

most American Christians do.

Sorry, but not even as a small town mayor (and I know one).

 

Sarah Palin pisses off Professional women to an inordinate degree .. this is how Obama raised money from Hillary Fanatics.

Escape from the Fringe

Submitted by goshbiz on Sun, 10/26/2008 - 13:16.

Patrick, as someone who once had respect for Sen. McCain, I believe this loss isn't just a case of "poor management instincts." It's far more about being wrong on the basic issues. At one time, McCain had smart and popular stands on issues that differed from the Republican party line:  forward-thinking approach to global warmng, even-handed approach to tax policy, opposition to the Iraq war fiascos, strong stands against wasteful defense spending, distance from the excesses of the Religious Right. That McCain might have had a chance in the general election.

Of course, he had to win he primaries first. So he overtly ditched all that to ingratiate himself with the party orthodoxy. But the party's stands on all these issues -- and many larger ones, like Wall Street regulation -- are not with the people. They're just not.

The "Maverick" is long gone. By becoming an almost complete sell-out, he mocks his motto of "Country First!" (It's obviously "Winning at All Costs!") And so McCain pushes losing arguments.

The many campaign management fiascos are just the day-by-day backfirings. The long-range trend is equally disastrous for Republicans if they continue to cling (bitterly) to losing ideas.

Then there are the distasteful displays at these rallies of appealing to the most paranoid emotions of elements in the hard-core base. The stoking of hate and conspiracy theories ("Obama is a Muslim Antichrist Terrorist!") It's just a huge turn-off to people, especially when times are so bad and the real issues so much more compelling.

It's been a long 8 years of nightmare under W. For some -- too many -- it will also be a rude awakening.

Amazing how large that "fringe" was....

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 10/26/2008 - 13:26.

before Wall Street tanked......

Thanks for the "advice"..

Wrong party

Submitted by Lynn on Sun, 10/26/2008 - 15:26.

Of course, he had to win he primaries first. So he overtly ditched all that to ingratiate himself with the party orthodoxy. But the party's stands on all these issues -- and many larger ones, like Wall Street regulation -- are not with the people. They're just not.

When you have to cover up your real stand on issues to win primaries it is obvious that you are running in the wrong party.

The problem here is that party elites, the media, independents and even Democrats picked the candidate. The base didn't get much of a say.

Close the primaries, change the schedule, give all Republicans a vote and McCain would never have been our candidate.

The elites got their way and now they're getting Barack Obama as a result.

P.S. Palin is a Joke

Submitted by goshbiz on Sun, 10/26/2008 - 13:26.

Ignorance matched with arrogance.

She is an insult. LIterally. Talking about "real" "pro-American" parts of the country. It's an insult to 80 percent of the population.

A message to the 80% of the population...

Submitted by davidfarrar on Sun, 10/26/2008 - 13:50.

The appointment of Sarah Palin to the RNC's chairwoman's position will send an unmistakable message to the 80% of the population who now have to go through one of life's little learning curves; the Republican Party's leadership intends to return to its traditional fiscal conservative roots for the 2010 Congressional elections.

ex animo

davidfarrar

 

Palin would be perfect as Chair of the RNC

Submitted by Caroline on Sun, 10/26/2008 - 15:04.

Let this shrill hateful woman be herself and she will personify exactly what the GOP is all about. Excellent choice; I hope it happens.

are you familiar with the type?

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 10/26/2008 - 15:06.

shrill hateful woman  ?

This is a moronic leftist whose personal bias is showing.

Submitted by Big Ben 4 liberty on Sun, 10/26/2008 - 16:03.

Don't expect any intelligent, rational thoughts from this idiot, she has been drinking too much of the kool-aid.

I stiil think that if McCain loses, she should stay as AK governor and run for a second term in 2010.  Although I do think she would be a damn fine RNC chairman who would piss of the RINOs, Dems and their media sycophants.

Hey

Submitted by Evil Conservative on Sun, 10/26/2008 - 16:37.

Caroline is NOT an "idiot, moronic leftist"

She has come on conservative sites for years because I think she is genuinely interested in what we have to say. She is on the blue team and we are on the red team. We were almost all born into an environment to be on those teams and cultivated from there to root for them. She's an (almost) unapologetic cheerleader for the blue team that can sometimes - like all of us - get a little carried away with her side's spin being the truth.

This is a case in point. I don't know if "shrill" and "hateful" are the two best adjectives for a negative liberal view of Palin. Especially since those two exact words have been adjectives for a negative conservative view of Hillary for decades.  I don't think those two women have a lot in common in terms of temperament, political method, biography, and the demographics of base political support. So I don't think you can describe them the same way.

If the shoe fits

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Sun, 10/26/2008 - 17:58.

Governor Sarah Palin doesnt have an ounce of hate in her body.  Anyone who announces such a shrill over-the-top statement attacking governor Palin in this forum is engaged in trollig and baiting, not discussion. calling this liberal names is an "If the shoe fits" retort.

She's an (almost) unapologetic cheerleader for the blue team that can sometimes - like all of us - get a little carried away with her side's spin being the truth.

If I wanted shrill and vapid smears against Republicans, I'd visit dKos. Can we at LEAST keep the trolls from content-free bashing.

And here's a message for all those Obama supporters:

Open up the Obama's 'change' box and you find that Obama is for: taxpayer-funded abortions; racial preferences; job-killing CO2 regulations;
social security benefits and drivers licenses for illegal aliens; higher capital gains, income and payroll taxes; ending the right to secret ballots in union elections;
special interest giveaways to trial lawyers and groups like ACORN; $800 billion in new spending in 4 years; weakening traditional marriage by repealing DOMA;
gutting tools to fight terrorism; earmarks, pork-barrel, and Government bailouts without end; restrictive, high-cost health-care mandates; restricting domestic-energy drilling;
liberal activist Judges who legislate from the bench rather than rule based on law. Obama dishonestly calls his massive increase in welfare-state redistribution a 'tax cut'.

The real change we need is not to elect the least qualified, most left-liberal and socialistic candidate for President ever, but
to fire the Pelosi and Reid-led Democratic majority Congress that has weakened us with wasteful spending increases and threats of higher taxes.

 

Seconding the comment

Submitted by Lynn on Sun, 10/26/2008 - 18:12.

If I wanted shrill and vapid smears against Republicans, I'd visit dKos. Can we at LEAST keep the trolls from content-free bashing.

Amen!

To Patrick, what does the far left contribute to a discussion of the next right?

 

Because we helped to beat

Submitted by Mithras on Mon, 10/27/2008 - 09:41.

Because we helped to beat you. Maybe it's worthwhile to figure out how to engage us successfully, rather than wall yourselves off like RedState.

Just a suggestion.

Your suggestions unwelcome.

Submitted by Lynn on Mon, 10/27/2008 - 10:09.

Get lost!

I'll leave that up to the

Submitted by Mithras on Mon, 10/27/2008 - 10:48.

I'll leave that up to the site owner. Does anyone want to have a substantive, civil conversation with liberals?

Patrick, how about a response here...

Submitted by Lynn on Mon, 10/27/2008 - 11:12.

This is what I would like answered by those who own this website.

If we are here to build the next right why are we forced to do it with liberals?

That is a serious question that I have asked Patrick and others several times only to be ignored.

If you want the left to build the next right then I will leave them to it.

Whose opinions do you want, Patrick?

Just give us the word, please.

Lynn, I don't think Patrick has the monitoring bandwidth

Submitted by lagomorph on Mon, 10/27/2008 - 11:58.

And even if he did, my guess would be that as long as our opponents conduct themselves in a manner that is not outrageously offensive, their opinions are welcome here along with yours, which I certainly value.

I do agree that we must be open to engaging our political adversaries in debates rather than "walling ourselves off at RedState" (not that I don't appreciate RedState, mind you).  If we can't rebut statements that we disagree with, if we can't debate with critical arguments, then what's the point of expressing our opinions?  Are we hoping to persuade, or are we simply hoping to reinforce what we already believe?  As big a challenge as persuasion is, I would hope that would be one of the goals of this site in addition to discussing overall tactics and strategy. 

As much as I love the Right and being a conservative, I really regret that the level of discourse has deteriorated to the point where some of my family members, colleagues and neighbors in Southern California are so full of vitriol about their Liberal point of view that we can't even discuss the subject of politics at all. 

Sure, there are trolls who visit this site, but with all due respect to Evil Conservative, there is no way in hell that Freedoms Truth could possibly discern that Caroline is not a troll based on her assessment of Sarah Palin as shrill and hateful.  I'm willing to admit that Palin could use a good voice coach, LoL, but I agree with FT that she doesn't seem to have a hateful bone in her body - in fact, she's refreshingly tolerant with the exception of Americans who obviously hate the country they benefit from, and everything it stands for. 

FT, your passion is admirable (as is yours, Lynn) but let's ask ourselves in the arena of psychological operations in which we obviously find ourselves, which is more helpful - to attack the other side, or to patiently and specifically educate?  And is doing both at the same time a good tactic when it sends the message of "I despise you but here's my worthy opinion that defies your own"? 

If the intent is to persuade then FT, you're one of the most articulate messengers out here so man up and be polite.  Lynn, you're one of the few women out here don't leave me here all alone - man up too, LoL, and share your conservative views with these Liberals.  Think of it as being patient and charitable.   Caroline, come on back any time but give specifics about your opinion of Palin instead of ad hominem attacks that piss conservatives off. 

I dunno about you, but I feel so good now that I'm gonna go give myself a hug.  And for anyone who's not sure why some of us that think Liberalism gone wild is a really, really BAD idea, please view this.  Thank you.

Liberal POV

Submitted by NStevens99 on Mon, 10/27/2008 - 12:34.

Agreed. I like to hear the other side. That said, the trolling is annoying.

It depends on the purpose

Submitted by Lynn on Mon, 10/27/2008 - 14:51.

The website is entitled the Next Right.

I have seen it stated here that the purpose of the site is to determine how the right will proceed. That will be decided by the right and not by the left.

However, if the purpose of the site is simply to provide a place to debate and to collect page views then it doesn't matter who is here.

BUT, if we are really interested in where the conservative movement goes from here that is a decision to be made by the right and not by the leftwing.

For debate of issues it's fine to talk to the left but I'm not at all interested in having to fight off liberal moonbats while discussing the future of conservatism.

For that, I prefer the Redstate model. Perhaps I will see some of you there or at the GOPUSA forum.

Good luck!

 

I double-checked the purpose of the site

Submitted by lagomorph on Mon, 10/27/2008 - 17:08.

I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding and stepping on the purpose by mistake.  Here's what's written in "About Us":

The Next Right is the place for wired activists to build a new Republican Party and conservative movement. As a community-driven grassroots action website for the right, we'll feature in-depth political analysis, on-the-ground reports, and strategic discussion and debate.

Clearly the intent of the site includes debate as well as determining how to proceed. 

Some topics seem to magnetically pull more Liberal opinions than others, especially when they're written by Patrick, Jon or Soren.  They're all pretty widely read and respected by all sides.  I'll look for you at RedState, and I hope you'll also post here again. Good luck to you too, Lynn. 

Palin's campaign rhetoric

Submitted by Mithras on Mon, 10/27/2008 - 09:46.

Palin's campaign rhetoric about "palling around with terrorists" and "pro-America parts of the country" didn't go over very well with moderates and independents. It sounds hateful to them, and to those of us who are her targets.

Also, I think you're going to be disappointed if you expect to run and win in the midterms on how extreme President Obama and the congressional Democrats are. If you do, you're going to end up facing the same problem that McCain is: The middle doesn't want to hear personal attacks, they want to hear substance. Come up with substantive policy proposals that don't include calling people "socialists" or advocating lax regulation and tax cuts for the rich. That is, if you want to win.

Then if people are so "turned off by negative rhetoric"

Submitted by Big Ben 4 liberty on Mon, 10/27/2008 - 11:42.

then why does Obama and the left-wing Democrats engage in so much of it?  Why are we not suppose to criticize are enemies and their failed polices? That is the "you have got to be 'likeable' as we the left define it" meme.  No thank you, that is not how you win elections and you know it.

Other than "George Bush has been the worst president ever"

Submitted by NextRightNando on Mon, 10/27/2008 - 11:55.

what examples can you offer of Obama using negative rhetoric?

Obama's campaign theme has

Submitted by Mithras on Tue, 10/28/2008 - 00:52.

Obama's campaign theme has been this amorphous, kumbayah post-partisanship stuff. That's negative rhetoric? Criticizing George W. Bush is the same as criticizing the Right as a whole? I don't think that's an argument you want to make.

on hatefulness and vengefulness

Submitted by RisingTide on Mon, 11/03/2008 - 16:39.

court records say otherwise.

In this, the temperment of both women differs only by degree -- clintons were well known for being vengeful, but they were too smart to stalk people. Nix them from the christmas party? sure.

Make Palin Chair of the RNC...

Submitted by goshbiz on Sun, 10/26/2008 - 15:59.

... and marginalize the party even further.

If you need proof Palin would be a good...

Submitted by davidfarrar on Sun, 10/26/2008 - 19:12.

...choice for the RNC's chairwoman's position, just start counting the  who have decided to come here to voice their opposition to just such an appointment.  I tell you, Palin in the RNC chairwoman's position would drive the left nuts.

The only thing we would need to prepare the party for the 2010 Congressional elections would be a good moneyman for the RNC's chairman's position -- and judging by his convention speech, Romney

just might be the man.

ex animo

davidfarrar

 

more Palin means fewer white collar Repulbicans

Submitted by superdestroyer on Sun, 10/26/2008 - 19:31.

Having Palin around after the election means that the Republican Party has decided to permanently write off white collar educated white voters.  The groups almost universally despises her and sees her as a continuation of the incompetence of the Bush Adminstration.  Having here ever appear at a Republican event again is lousy idea and is just another sign that the Republican Party should just hang up the "Going Out of Business" sign.

PhDs for Palin

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Sun, 10/26/2008 - 19:43.

I am a white collar PhD professional worker conservative Republican, who is just *fine* with Governor Sarah Palin as VP pick, and so are most of the white-collar conservatives I know.  Laura Ingraham has got more on that. Key word: Conservative.

Fact is that there is raw prejudice among white-collar liberals who think a leftwing community activist who sat in a black liberation theology church for 20 years is 'cool' and a moose-hunting small-town mayor turned governor is un-cool. Prejudice of an odd sort is what it is. And the liberal MSM knows a threat when they see one so they strangled the Governor Palin threat in the crib, a la Quayle. Been there, done that; so quit adding logs to the fire.

We wont win those white-collar libs back with Romney any more than Governor Palin. When and if Obamanomics yields a sluggish economy, the ones in the private sector will reconsider.

Having here ever appear at a Republican event again is lousy idea and is just an

Listening to you is a lousy idea. Palin speaks to and for millions of like-minded and like-living Americans, including this father and family man (as well as PhD). Hundreds of thousands have thronged to her rallies in this campaign. Every leader has pros and cons, and pointing out the cons without the pros is foolish and wrong.