T Nation

The Need for a Moderate Conservative Media Network

Great video

I liked it, Nick…a lot.

I’m certainly where the speaker is.


A want, not a need. If enough people want it, it’ll happen.

Excellent presentation. I absolutely 110% agree with his sentiment that there needs to be this source (at least a more accessible one) or else polarization will only continue to get worse.

Sloth brings up a good point though-most things are ultimately profit driven. If the monetary incentive can be shown, creation of this source will follow. Otherwise, I don’t see it happening in this case.

3 thumbs up

So, I think naturally a discussion of what is a true ‘moderate conservative’ should follow.

Is it the Olympia Snowe / Susan Collins ‘conservative’? Is it more (social) libertarian (small L)? Who are the prototypes of this ‘needed’ space that doesn’t exist?

One thing that I disagreed with in the video was the description of John McCain as too conservative. Perhaps I misunderstood/misinterpreted. I understand ‘too (socially) conservative’ of the ticket when it includes Palin, but on his own, McCain isn’t quite the poster child for ‘conservative’.

Remember, until he was a candidate against Obama, McCain was a media darling because of his ‘moderate’ views. In fact, he WAS the poster child of a ‘moderate Republican’.

I think to try to artificially carve out this niche would prove to be problematic and unstable. Unstable in the sense that it’s trying to fit a blurry ideology into a clean bracketed space. One reason the Libertarian (capital L) Party is in a perpetual state of shambles (at least on a national level) is because internally everyone argues about who is ‘the most Libertarian’ and the discussions turn pedantic versus floating candidates who are actually effective or viable.

I can see the same problem arising in this space about who is ‘moderate’ enough.

Great points, SD.

This all would most likely be better suited as sort of a “Personal Code” in the way in which one lives and views the World than a “movement” or outlet of expression (media or otherwise).

The last few years have shown me that people support and flock to “sides”, with clearly defined Battle Lines that can give them plenty of “Fuck YEAH!” moments.

And when it comes to Media, it’s pretty obvious that people either WANT biased sources…or they have no choice.

I lean toward the former.


I still like what he had to say.


Socially Liberal and Fiscally Conservative ===> Moderate Conservative or Liberal (Rockefeller Republicans) or Conservative Democrats (Boll Weevils)

Examples may be…

2004 Mitt Romney

Howard Dean

Nelson Rockefeller

Joe Lieberman

But could also be seen as social libertarians. Fiscally conservative but believe in gun rights, gay marriage, etc…

Canada has this third way or 3rd party. The Canadian political spectrum goes New Democratic Party on the left, the Liberal party in the centre and the Conservative Party on the right. The Liberals usually win but not recently. The Liberals are pro business, fiscally conservative, pragmatic yet socially liberal.

Modern Rockefeller Republicans are typically center-right, reject far-right policies, and are culturally liberal. Many espouse government and private investments in environmentalism, healthcare and higher education as necessities for the nation’s growth, in the tradition of Nelson Rockefeller, Alexander Hamilton and Theodore Roosevelt. In general, Rockefeller Republicans oppose socialism and the redistribution of wealth while supporting some pragmatic regulation of business and federal social programs in matters pertaining to the public good. They represent a diversity of views on foreign policy, but historically most were considered “hawks” against communism and strong supporters of American business abroad.----> wiki

The speaker of the video comes from Australia. You have to put it in context he grew up in a country that has free health care and he is an investment banker who specializes in mergers and acquisitions. So it makes him very Nelson Rockefeller esque.

Obama is closer to Conservative moderate than Romney is (now) Romney maybe could have fit the bill while he was Governor

Ok, what the heck is a ‘moderate CONSERVATIVE?’ The descriptions here describe either a libertarian, or a progressive…

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Ok, what the heck is a ‘moderate CONSERVATIVE?’ The descriptions here describe either a libertarian, or a progressive…[/quote]

It is some one concerned about spending too much money and not worried who marrys who. Or if some one should have to give birth to a child that was forced on them , or if employers should dictate to Insurance companies on what should be covered on their employees

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Obama is closer to Conservative moderate [/quote]

You are retarded if you aren’t trolling right now.

Great article by former Reagen aide.


The ultimate question for Republican primary voters, then, is whether the next Republican president should be a Rockefeller Republican or a Reagan Republican. A nominee and a president who accepts the precepts and principles of Rockefeller Republicanism – or one who does not. A nominee who believes, as did Reagan, that government is the problem, not the solution. A nominee who believes not that government is something that should be pruned or, as Romney says, “restrained” here and there, but instead sent throught the shredder entirely with the operating funds returned to the American people. A nominee who believes in eliminating the Department of Education, as Romney once said he believed, not falling in like with it, as he now says.

The question is whether the GOP will choose a candidate who emulates the Rockefeller pattern of lots of rhetoric on freedom and economic growth while accepting the liberal Republican Establishment status quo view that America’s problems are best solved by a nudge here or a nudge there. Meaning in today’s world a Romney style “restraint” here and cutting a tad over there.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

For Push and others:

Andrew Jackson was a hard-bitten military man who made a name for himself as a lawyer on the lawless frontier of Tennessee. He fought 13 duels over the course of his life. This was mostly in response to the very messy and underhanded presidential race of 1828, where Jackson’s political opponents attacked his wife, Rachel, accusing her of being an adulterer and a prostitute who slept with African slaves.

Rachel was deeply grieved by the insults levied against her, and died about a month before Jackson’s inauguration of a heart attack. Jackson never forgave his political opponents for what he saw as causing Rachel’s death.

The only man Jackson ever killed in a duel was Charles Dickenson, who was nationally famous for being the best duelist in the United States (with 26 successful duels to his credit).

Dickenson had earlier accused Jackson’s wife for adultery in 1806, which enraged Jackson into declaring a duel with him. Dickenson was the faster shot and got his round off before Jackson even lifted his pistol (although by some accounts, Jackson actually let him shoot first). The bullet missed Jackson’s heart by inches. Jackson, still standing, slowly raised his pistol while Dickenson was reloading and fired the fatal shot.

The bullet was so close to his heart that it could not be safely removed. In fact, Jackson had been shot so many times in duels and had so many bullets lodged in his body that it was joked that he “rattled like a bag of marbles”.

Jackson was a tough ass ‘ole sum’ bitch, that’s for sure.

I say that if a candidate doesn’t like a negative TV ad…forget this “debate” bullshit…shoot the son-of-a-bitch…

Jackson would certainly approve…