Are Conservatives self defeatist?

Replying to the general question of the OP, not the specific candidates...

If real conservatives want the Republican party back, they need to denounce and distance themselves from the racists, fringe right, especially the Tea Party. It will be painful, but it's the only way out of the hole they've dug themselves into flirting with fringe politics. Almost all of the recent and not so recent political "values" gaffs have been from adopting nutbar politics. Conservative became blinded by fringe political snakeoil and all it's promises of massive silent majorities and instant victories.

Get back to basics, like real fiscal conservatism(not Ron Paul END THE FED hysteria). Stop pandering to the wingnuts. That's the only way forward.

Full disclosure: I am NOT a political conservative. But I remember when most were considered sane, reasonable people....

 

The John Anderson I'm referring to was the Republican Congressman who ran as an independent against Reagan during the 1980 election. His great idea was a 50 cent gas tax.

But don't worry about any bad treatment from "Conservative Media/RNC." What do you think that consists of? Fox? You guys control everything else. I would trade the conservative media position for the liberal one in a heartbeat.

 

Sorry about that!

Well I think there are a few potential candidates who could unify the party. But no, I don't think Cruz is one of them. He has a first rate mind, a great speaker and debater, and the Candidate debates with him in it would be fantastic to watch. But he doesn't have much experience, and he's proven he can't pull off a legislative coup. He failed big time with the 2013 government shut down. Either he had a strategy and never articulated it, or he had a strategy, and it failed miserably. I called it by the way!

Scott Walker could potentially unify the many moving parts of the Republican Party. So could Mike Pence, which I suspect, was behind this ridiculous attack against Indiana's "same law as the federal law and 20 other states." I know that Jeb won't be able to do it, no matter how much money he pours into the race. Jeb is as much a front runner as Rudy Guliani was in 2007.

 

Good lord at the windy OP post, purportedly about Cruz, but without one tiny piece of comment or complaint about any SPECIFICS with respect to Cruz or any prospective candidates. Hot air. Yes, OP, we are well aware that the left will steadfastly refuse to educate itself as to SPECIFIC policies and will simply vote Complex/Democrat without a second, reflective thought. Old news, so why even comment?

Maybe to encourage a Bush nomination I guess? the one GOP candidate with absolutely 0 chance of being elected. Transparent.

To the "topic," apparently, given 2014 Congressional results, conservatives are not "defeatist" as a matter of irrefutable fact.

 

You know, it gives me an idea to compare and contrast Republicans pre Reagan and Republicans today. Thank you for the information, I'll have to research more into this.

Really?

News Corp:

That's the company that Rupert Murdoch owns, and FOX News is a subsidiary.

Let's not forget Rush Limbaugh

Sean Hannity

Glenn Beck

Mark Levin,

I'm sure there's more, forgive me if I didn't mention your favorite.

I think that you forget, that many of these "commentators" have multiple outlets across various media, Conservative media is a juggernaut, not only do they have their own outlets, but they also have outlets in traditionally "liberal" outlets as well, I heart Radio, XM Satellite Radio, Clear Channel Radio, Mass amounts of conservative websites, newspapers, magazines, BOOKS BY THE *******MED TRUCKLOAD. (seriously, have you read any of these things? They are complete and total ghost written crap, usually stuffed full of copied material to fill out the book past the size of a pamphlet.)

You worry about liberal media? My friend, liberal media is, to be generous, on par with Conservative media, if not crushed under the boot heel of Conservative media.

Yes, we got our MSNBC, our CNN (not really) Our various networks, NPR, publications, Books (of equally horrendous quality, for the exact same damn reason.)

The reason that liberals are losing the media war? We suck on media.

Let's take one from my team. Bill Mahr. I want to like Bill Mahr. I really do, but he comes across as anti religious. I'm an agnostic myself. If there's a god, humans aren't going to be able to tell me about it. Bill, is on some tireless crusade to diss every religion in the world as some retardation instead of someone's personal faith. He's also arrogant, egotistical, not exactly that funny most of the time.

MSNBC is pathetic. NPR is boring as all hell, CNN is pedantic, So, I, for the most part turn them all off. I usually get my news from AP and Reuters now.

But I have come up with a game that I encourage liberals to play. I want my liberal friends to start watching FOX News. And come back onto a board like this, and read the comments from our Conservative friends, the same phrases and talking points come up, usually word for word.

This lets you know EXACTLY where the person you are reading got their information. It's absolutely amazing to watch people parroting word for word some pundit or host off of FOX News.

I'm sure if our Conservative friends were to turn on liberal media, they could do the same thing.

(I say round table podcast political talking points drinking game)

But it's no secret that for the last 8 years Conservatives have had a choke-hold on the national dialogue. The TEA Party really damaged the conservative image in the public eye. Not to mention the open carry movement. Then there was the whole Clive Bundy thing, the Birther thing, the Benghazi thing, etc and it kinda drowned out the core conservative message with people way too far to the right to really call themselves conservatives.

Lies are pumped into the public by all sides, but it appears that some conservatives, even when presented with an overwhelming amount of facts that disprove their stance on an issue, they ignore it, and go on believing the lie anyway. I'm not putting myself on a pedestal either, I've done it sometimes too.

I used to be quasi anti gun. (I'm not really anti gun, I'm anti gun nut) But I realized, that these people will shut the hell up if you give them their pacifier. (gun rights) I say that liberals really need to drop the gun debate totally. It's never going to happen, there are always going to be firearms in this country and we screw ourselves with the majority of the population by bucking against guns.

On the same token, Conservatives are screwing themselves with civil rights.

Popular on this board right now, is the term "Thug". Now we all know this is a pc version of the N Word (even though I'll get backlash for pointing it out) And my conservative friends are rife with these "alternate vernaculars". Substituting a synonym for a racial slur, just makes the new word a new racial slur.

Conservatives are going around the country passing draconian legislation targeting the LGBT community even though they in no way impact conservatives personally.

It would be as if liberals went out and said anyone who is a TEA Party member shouldn't be able to reproduce, and try and pass a law. (wouldn't it be completely and totally ridiculous?)

Is it that you think that if the LGBT community gets marriage equality that it will mean that you are going to be forced into a same sex marriage? I can assure you it doesn't.

So for that, I think that Conservatives should concede the same sex marriage issue. I think a fair trade off right? The left agrees to no longer pursue any gun control legislation, in exchange the right agrees to let gay couples marry. Sure, there will still be mass shootings just about every week, and gay people will still exist. But, that's compromise for you.

 

Well, I can see that you don't really understand. The Liberal media isn't just NPR or MSNBC, it's basically everything. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, every major newspaper in the country, control of every J school in the country...and you counted a couple of radio shows? It's everything.

 

The way this reads, if it's not Right Wing Propaganda, then it must be Left Wing Liberal. There is no doubt that some media outlets, Fox and MSNBC come to mind, proudly fly their partisan flags and openly promote their party support. Nothing particularly sinister or objectionable there. What I do object to is the assumption that every news organization in the world follows suit.

The world is not simply black or white. There are many good journalists and outlets that use them. While any organization may have its own agenda or advocate an editorial opinion, and should clearly label it such, few of them are strictly along political lines. It is rather obsessive to assume the world divides along any particular line or opinion just because it is a subject of personal interest.

 

You know Mike, maybe it's possible, and I'm only saying maybe here, that the so called "liberal media" had NOTHING to do with Obama defeating Romney or McCain? That maybe they lost because people preferred Obama? And the "media" took off it's mask after 2004, eh? Was it to prop up the black guy? So when Obama is out of office, will the "media" put it's mask back on? Just curious.

 

Colbert wouldn't take the really substantial pay cut. Stewart's free and might be interested. How about Stewart/Franken, a left wing show biz ticket this timel

 

This really deserves a longer more in depth answer than I feel like giving at the moment, but in general, all of those other news outlets; the TV news, the newspapers, and so forth...most of them don't regard themselves as left wing propaganda outfits. They regard themselves as objective news sources. Even if most journalists and editors are liberal, they feel like they are responsible enough to comb out the ideology from their product. What they can't comb out is their worldview. Particularly in a news environment in which everyone thinks alike. They don't even know what's spin and what's bias because that's exactly how they see the world, how they write it up, and how they present it. The biggest bias in media (IMHO) is in the editing. They obviously have to pick and choose what goes into a 22 minute broadcast, or the A section of a newspaper. So stuff that's important to them is what makes it.

Case in point, last week the news spent almost a full week as a major news story about some fratboys using the N word. Is that really national news worthy? Do you think there might have been some other story that was more important than drunken racist fratboys? It was a stupid story, water skiing squirrel stupid, but it absolutely dominated the news last week. What happened in the Ukraine? Who knows?

Now, if you sit down to an evening newscast and don't see it, it's because you share the same bias and worldview as the people presenting the news. To me, it's glaringly obvious. So to you, most of the media is objective and balanced because you think exactly like they do. For that reason, I don't expect you to see it. It has to be an extreme example like something from MSNBC or Al Jazeera America. But a 60 Minutes softball interview with Obama? It would probably look like straight news reporting to you.

 

I'm not sure what black guy you think the media was propping up 2004. You may have your elections confused. But to me 2004 was significant because the media got so totally outed with the Dan Rather story. That had never happened before to a major national news figures. I mean, all of the networks have been caught time to time faking consumer stories like blowing up cars or tainted meat, but this was real election news on the eve of the election. So I think they started to become a bit more threatened with the potential of online media and have become a bit more aggressive.

And no, the media won't put it's mask back on when Obama leaves. See the thread about the reporters laughing with Hillary about her email joke.

 

Are Conservatives self defeatists? I think Mike Pence can best answer this question.

 

sort of like CBS?

those who suspect the worst about the Obama administration and the media won’t have their beliefs contradicted by former CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson’s explosive new book, “Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation and Harassment in Obama’s Washington.”

“Stonewalled” (HarperBooks), in which Ms. Attkisson recounts the conflicts over coverage with network executives leading up to her resignation in March, isn’t scheduled for release until Tuesday, but eye-popping excerpts are making their way into the press and social media.



Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...isson-says-feds-hacked-compute/#ixzz3W9Xnqaex
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

 

That would appear to be the pattern.

In 2012, they were all wee wee'd up about "Obamacare" the fulfillment of TP superstar Jim DeMint's prescription of Romneycare "for the whole country!"

So after a nationwide search, who did they come up with as their nominee? The sole originator of the healthcare reform paradigm with its his touted "individual mandated" approach!

Now, they're pleasuring themselves with their sniveling about the probable Democratic nominee, despite my sound advice that they identify and support a viable alternative.

[E]ven as Clinton's image numbers have declined, her lead over her potential GOP opponents hasn't. She still leads Jeb Bush 54 percent to 40 percent in a prospective match-up, and her leads are even bigger against Ted Cruz (58-37), Scott Walker (55-38 ) and Marco Rubio (55-38 ). Those are all on a par with polling going back many months.

The reason? While Clinton isn't that well-liked anymore, these Republicans are in significantly worse shape. Bush, the former Florida governor, has an unfavorable rating of 53 percent, versus just 33 percent favorable, Rubio is 14 points underwater (24 percent favorable, 38 percent unfavorable), and Cruz is 20 points underwater (25-45). Only Walker's favorable rating (23 percent) is even close to his unfavorable rating (30 percent).

And here's the real kicker: While Clinton's favorable rating among independents is down to just 44 percent, she takes 49 percent of their votes in a match-up with Bush. Among moderates, 51 percent have a favorable opinion of Clinton, but 58 percent vote for her in a match-up with Bush. And she does even better against the other Republicans.

As long as the GOP candidates are losing voters who don't much like Clinton, they'll have a tough time beating her -- even if she's hardly the popular figure she was as secretary of state.​

If they were to persist in that, "She's too old!" theme their radio entertainers issued to them, I'd expect them to nominate Bob Dole.

 

One reason I follow your posts is you make good rational arguments. For any single example I probably have to cede to your analysis. However the argument looses some of its punch when you look across a large number of outlets. What may not be covered by one outlet would be expected to still appear in many others if it were just case of editorial opinion.

The danger of having one's world view formed by a single editorial opinion is well known and has received action in the past. When electronic media first appeared, we passed laws that media moguls could not own both the print and electronic media in the same market. This was fine to maintain some balance when you had very limited access, but today's markets are very different. With hundreds of choices available, you can no longer enforce variety which is probably a good thing. But today, at least among the politically interested, we too often self select a narrow world view that matches our own. We seek out validation rather than information.

The tell on if one has fallen into what I'll call the validation trap is similarity of the views and phases by a poster or a group. Those that have drunk the Koolaid of Fox or MSMBC will parrot the stories, recite the points virtually line by line, and have little factual rebuttal when new facts are presented. In contrast, those that receive their news from a variety of sources will have debaters scrambling looking for addition information or multiple views on the subject. It is these posts that keep me coming back here, forcing me to learn, explore, and understand new view points.

It seems to me that anyone that would accept any single outlet to the exclusion of others is far more likely to hold a skewed world view that one that seeks out the same news from a wide variety of sources. If I find a story that is heavily covered by one outlet but ignored by the vast majority, it makes me wonder if that story is an editorial selection to promote an agenda rather than any omission by the majority. I would think that I you wanted best reflection of the world's true state, yiu would need to seek out as many sources as possible and concider the concensus rather than rely on any single source.

 

The GOP field is going to be large again, the short list is long. The reality is most of them have no chance to even compete, they are in it for future name recognition.

After the primary no matter who the nominee is he will make a made dash for the middle and roll back all the far right claims and positions hes taken in the primary to appeal to the far right base

They all know far right stances and positions will not win them the white house no matter how many times, Rush and Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter and Hannity scream that from the rooftops. Its just not so.

 

Well I think you view the multiplication of media outlets as the cure to the bias of any particular news outlet is more or less correct. The current environment is far better than the previous one, when a Dan Rather could pronounce truth from power, and no one could effectively challenge him because, hey, how would they even get their message out? But of course that also leads to the current situation in which people stay in their own news ghettos and if they just absorb lefty news sources, may not have even heard of Benghazi other than some strange derangement of Conservatives or if you're on the right, the only thing you know about Bridgegate is that you're mocking Chris Matthews for it (whatever it is).

But the battle isn't really about people who are ideologically committed, it's about people who just are not into politics or news that much unless there is a major terrorist attack or war or the Presidential election every four years. Those people are ripe to be captives to the legacy media and it's add ons. That's why I'm far more concerned about what NBC, CBS, or ABC news says than what MSNBC says.

 

So what I gather from you Mike is...when the Republicans win, it's because the "liberal media" failed, and when they lose it's because the "liberal media" succeeded, amirite?

 

I think the liberal media provides an advantage. The right has no equivalent. But there are a lot of other issues involved. I think to reduce electoral victory just down to liberal media is simplistic.

 

America most always denounces the extreme right, the extreme left squeaks in now and then like Carter. Most all of republicans Potus in the past have ran and won on being moderates. Including reagan in recent history

 

I think you are looking for excuses to justify why most people tend to reject the ideology you identify with. But hey, whatever floats your boat. Watch out for the "liberal media" boogeyman under your bed.

 

Frankly, I don't blame you for your dismissal. If the media worked for my side, I would down play it too.

 

Frankly, Mike, I don't blame you for looking for excuses to justify the ideology you hold so dear being throughly rejected. I mean even the party which you vote for every election cycle doesn't really take you guys seriously. That must sting, right?

 

Pretending Palin had nothing to do with McCain's defeat is hard to swallow for those who were paying attention during the election. Saturday Night Live probably had more to do with McCains defeat than any other single factor. And the suspension of his campaign didn't help either since it was clearly a rather cynical attempt to exploit the situation.

And I don't have much recollection of Romney actively supporting Romneycare or endorsing it as a national model. Maybe you could provide examples.

 

Actually it doesn't sting, although yes I admit people like me are few and getting fewer. You can't win elections with just conservatives. And I recognize that this is pretty much inevitable. Entropy always wins. And in political terms, having a political platform that boils down to taking from them to give to you is about as entropic as it gets.

But when Whitaker Chambers decided to jump ship, he figured he was jumping to the losing side. When William F Buckley started National Review, he stated that he was "standing athwart history yelling stop." So yes, eventually you guys will be able to wreck this country to your liking.

I'm only trying to delay it. I have children, and would like for them to have as good a life as I've had before you guys ruin it for everyone.

But you embarrass yourself if you actually think the media isn't on your side and works for your positions.