Still more to say...

Back to my thoughts on last night's radio program...

Card made another point that has been sticking in my head. He brought up the candidacy of William Jennings Bryant in three election cycles: 1896, 1900, and 1908. This was an example of the Democrats running with a "purist" candidate that exemplified what the Party wanted to see in the next President of the United States. He was (like Dean in 2004) representing the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party", and made no effort to appeal to moderates or independents. He ran representing the extreme, and couldn't win anything close to the majority needed.

Even Reagan understood the need to compromise. He knew how to appeal to the masses, where his opponents did not (especially not Mondale!), and he did it while still keeping the majority of his promises and principles intact and functioning. Reagan was a popular President, but those that didn't like him REALLY didn't like him, and they were very vocal in that dislike. That makes beating him in an election that much harder. If you doubt me, then ask Bob Dole how popular Clinton was in 1996, and which campaign appealed to the most voters.

I'm not saying that a "popular" President is a good one, by definition... that is asinine. I'm saying that defeating a bad President is much, much easier when past mistakes are understood and avoided by the minority party as the new cycle approaches. Obama has the advantage right now because he can be shown to have accomplished something his party promised for years IN SPITE OF huge GOP and conservative opposition. I'm not saying what he did was good or right, but that is the FACT that his supporters will throw out when it comes up in 2012. Couple this with the fact that while the majority of Americans might not have supported the reform bill as it was passed, the fact remains that the vast majority of Americans DID support reform of one kind or another, and Obama delivered while the GOP fought him... and my point should be clear.

I have heard time and time again that the GOP needs to "stick to their principles" and stop trying to appeal to the center (and I've mostly heard this from Ryan), but that is EXACTLY what made Reagan such a popular President, wasn't it? All of us have experienced problems rooted in the insurance and health care industries, in one form or another, over the last 5 years (please, tell me I'm wrong on THAT point!), so who here can't make the argument that the country could benefit from some kind of insurance and health care reform? The very nature of the industry demands that those with the least risk be the most involved in the effort, so that those most at risk can gain assistance from the rest, right? If only the people who got sick bought health insurance, then the cost of the insurance would negate its availablility completely. If only those at most risk for catastrophic storm or flood damage were buying such insurance, then the cost would never be affordable to those that need it worst.

Making the case that the people who voted FOR the legislation are all commies and socialists out to tear the Constitution to shreds is self defeating in the extreme. They did what they felt needed to be done, one way or the other. We can question the method, but not the means, if we want to see a substantial change in the direction of the government in the next four years. Searching for a candidate (or candidates, when it comes to Congress) that appeal to "conservatives" gains us next to nothing in the long run, does it?

As has been said, is it better to be a "pure" conservative, or an "incumbant" conservative?