Quote:
Originally Posted by revrew
There are many within the conservative base who would argue this isn't an effective campaign strategy. It didn't work for Dole, McCain, or Romney. In fact, candidates playing right to the base, then running to the middle, smacks the conservative wing of the party as hypocrisy and duplicity. Hence, Romney and McCain, while succeeding somewhat in grabbing middle voters, saw their GOP base stay home on election night in record numbers.
This debate is representative of one of the major divides in the party, with the establishment trying to play the game you mention above, and the conservative wing saying, "Screw that! Give us a real conservative and watch how we show up on election night to give the GOP the victory!"
And contrary to the misinformed narrative of East Coast media outlets, the GOP primary isn't about who can "out-conservative" the next guy, or who can tack so "far to the right," although a bunch of candidates do in fact try to do that. What it's REALLY about, at least in Iowa, is who says they believe what we believe ... and then is actually trustworthy/honest/principled enough to actually BELIEVE it? To act on it?
We'll actually accept and support a more centrist candidate in the primaries, IF we can actually trust them on the issues we agree upon. The Mitt McDoles of the world may be more centrist, but by playing the very game you suggest, they shoot themselves in the foot with their own base.
|
This notion fascinates me so much. Of the three candidates you mentioned, Mitt McDole, they seemed to be center first, then pander right, then return to center.
Your trust thing is interesting because the way the field is shaping up it seems it will be a far right first, then some sort of movement towards mass appeal. I wonder how that will come across as far as trust. My guess is as long as they stay socially conservative they can venture into more fiscally moderate waters...Bush