On Tuesday, Jon Huntsman officially declared his candidacy for the Presidency in 2012. The Drive-By Media is in dancing around Maypoles and declaring the "seriousness" of Huntsman and how Obama truly fears him. Translation: Huntsman is a wimpy, middle of the road RINO who will play the civility and compromise game, and probably lose to Obama. Huntsman wasn't a good candidate when he was named McCain, he wasn't a good candidate when he was named Dole, and he wasn't a good candidate when he was named Ford, so why would he be a good candidate now? The answer is, of course, he wouldn't be.
The political elite on both sides of the aisle firmly believe that independents/moderates decide elections. It's a falacy, by the way, but they firmly believe it. We live in a country where, at last check, 42% of Americans call themselves Conservative, while a mere 20% call themselves Liberal. (1) Furthermore, the last time a Conservative lost on the national ticket, it was Barry Goldwater in 1964. Meanwhile, we've seen eight Presidents elected/re-elected by running on genuine Conservatism since that time (Nixon twice, Reagan twice, Bush 41 once, Bush 43 twice. (Notice I said running on genuine Conservatism, not necessarily governing on it, in the case of the two Bush presidencies.)
Listen up Republicans, because you need to hear this: Real Conservatism wins. It won in 1960, 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004. Moderate, wishy-washy, wimpy Republicans lose. They lost in 1976, 1992, 1996, and 2008.
By the math, we only need to win over nine percent of the self-described moderates to win. Liberals would need to win basically all of the self-described moderates to win. When you consider the fact that 42% of Americans are Conservative, right-leaning ends up being more "moderate" than Liberalism anyway. The math bears that out: If you assume a proportional distribution of moderates going Conservative or Liberal, you will see 23% (of the 35% of Americans who call themselves Moderate) heading toward the Conservative side and only 12% going to the Liberal side. Considering that the Democratic party is planning to run one of the most Liberal politicians in history in 2012, I don't see why we should fear running a Conservative!
Just as importantly, if you've read this blog over the past few months, you know that I have stated that when the Drive-By Media calls a candidate "serious" they mean "wimpy," and when they say "Obama would be really concerned about this candidate" they mean "this candidate is bland enough for Obama to beat." Simple logic bears that out: Why would the Democratic Party (and their willing accomplices in the Media) tell us to run the person who they feel would best beat Obama? Is there goal to lose? Of course not!
The people the Lamestreamers and Democrats fear are the ones they attempt to tarnish! (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann, to a lesser degree Herman Cain and Tim Pawlenty) They want to keep those people OUT of a head to head campaign with Obama, because they know what I know: Only 20% of Americans are Liberal, 42% are Conservative. They know that a Conservative would only need to win less than 10% of the Moderates to win the White House while a Liberal would need to win pretty much all of them.
Dear Republicans: We don’t need to listen to the Lamestreamers! We SHOULDN’T listen to the Lamestreamers! They do not have our best interest at heart; they have their own best interests at heart, and the interests of the Democratic Party. I know you in the party establishment think a Conservative can’t win thanks to the 1964 loss by Goldwater, but I have to ask you; WHAT ROCK WERE YOU UNDER FOR THE 80s? Reagan was a genuine Conservative and he won big! While we’re at it, let’s not forget the elections of Nixon in ’68 and ‘72, and both Bushes in ’88, ’00, and ‘04 (they may not have governed as Conservatives but they were elected under those auspices!
Dear Drive-By Media: You may not choose our candidates.
(1) In 2010, Conservatives Still Outnumber Moderates, Liberals