Posted on 02/09/2007 12:30:35 PM PST by areafiftyone
Paul wrote last night about the "stature gap" that Republican Presidential candidates enjoy over their Democratic counterparts. This morning, the Washington Times, reporting on a reunion of Reagan administration alumni, describes a different sort of gap between the three front-runners and the party's conservative base:
Many conservatives say they pick "none of the above" when faced with a choice of Arizona Sen. John McCain, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani as the 2008 Republican presidential nominee.
"When I look at these top three guys, I think of Shania Twain singing 'That don't impress me much,' " said former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, referring to the popular country singer.
Such dissatisfaction with the leading Republican presidential candidates is widespread among the party's conservative stalwarts, including many of the 150 alumni of the Reagan administration who attended an annual reunion at the Heritage Foundation on Tuesday night.
It is true, as I've written before, that one oddity of this year's race is that none of the three front-runners lines up squarely with the core of the party. Each is, in one way or another, a bit off-center. Nevertheless, I find the kind of talk described by the Times grating.
For one thing, while there has always been a streak of isolationism on the right (as on the left), the international retreatism that the Times attributes to Armey and others in the group does not represent the mainstream of today's conservative movement. And the article's implication that there is some sort of conservative groundswell for Chuck Hagel, on isolationist grounds, is ridiculous: every conservative I know would rather tar and feather Hagel than nominate him.
Beyond that, when, exactly, has this country ever elected the sort of pure conservative that this group, as depicted by the Times, yearns for? These Reagan alumni have perhaps forgotten how disappointed conservatives were through most of Reagan's administration. (Remember "Let Reagan be Reagan"?) And who, if we put Reagan to one side, is the conservative paragon that the current candidates don't live up to? William McKinley, maybe? I can't think of anyone else in the last century.
The current crop of candidates is not perfect; what crop ever was? But they are strong leaders of extraordinary ability. And Giuliani, McCain and Romney are united on the key issue of our time, victory in the war against Islamic extremism. If a purer conservative wants to get into the race, fine, and I might well back him. (And, no, I'm not talking about Mike Huckabee or Sam Brownback.) But conservatives need to get over any fantasies they may harbor about the Gingrich administration that never will be and the Reagan administration that never was, and get on with the business of electing the best possible--and I do mean "possible"--candidate in 2008.
Your tagline would make a great bumper sticker. Might be a little hard to read, tho. :)
How is it I'm the only one posting here? Guess the party's over.
Thanks for answering the question.
had to stop in the 80's because it got so bad.
***That does appear to be one feather in his cap. He had a novel and unique approach to crime fighting, which was to start harrassing the small time hoodlums who break windows & write graffiti, and soon the word was out that it was a giant pain to break the law. Good move.
Good one ;-)
Anything can happen. I was very surprised to see Reagan win in a landslide.
When Clintoon first started running, Gennifer Flowers had audiotapes of him telling her to lie under oath and the MSM gave him a pass. It will be harder to conceal that kind of baloney this time around.
Exactly!
Gave him a pass? 60 Minutes did a fawning interview with the Clintons just before the NH Primary to rehabilitate his image. Somehow the Flowers incident ended up helping him.
Thank GOD.....an article that tries to burst the damned mythogrification of Reagan!
"The scramble has already begun. White House hopeful Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) hit the airwaves on Dec. 19 with a television ad in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Funded by his PAC, Peace Through Strength, it touted his tough stance on border control."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1782090/posts
"Nobody wins the presidency without winning South Carolina," Hunter said.
Hunter already has some deep-pocket allies in the state, including textile magnate Roger Milliken, who supports Hunter's promise to protect U.S. manufacturers threatened by cheap, overseas labor."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/25/AR2007012500745.html
It's something that drives mne up a wall!
I keep fighting the delusions, by posting FACTS, but get attacked and called specious names for doing so.
The president is NOT going to make him VEEP and the CONGRESS would have to agree to that, should the president kick Cheney out of his job; which they wouldn't do.
The president can NOT give Duncan "exposure".
It takes far more than just name recognition, for a candidate to win a primary and a general election; none of which Hunter has, or will have.
If every single person, in the entire GOP, with presidential dreams, died, and Hunter was the nomination, yes, I would hold my nose and support him.
How about YOU? Are YOU willing to vote for whoever the GOP presidential candidate is in '08?
I did....it was VERY clever and vERY funny! :-)
By my reckoning, that's giving him a pass. Look what the lame stream media did to Gary Hart. Look what the MSM tried to do with Rathergate and Swift Boat Veterans -- sweep it under the rug. It's not so easy to do these days.
What part of Hunter having NO chance, whatsoever, of making it past February 5, 2008, don't you understand?
***Cool. You're getting shrill on us. It means we're making progress. Inside, you KNOW that DH could get an overnight spotlight and then the socon base would line up.
The president is NOT going to make him VEEP
***Why not?
and the CONGRESS would have to agree to that, should the president kick Cheney out of his job; which they wouldn't do.
***Congress doesn't even have to agree. That's the beauty of the plan. Just generating all that publicity would give DH the spotlight he needs.
The president can NOT give Duncan "exposure".
***The president CAN give Duncan "exposure". There, if your logic is infallible, then so is mine.
It takes far more than just name recognition, for a candidate to win a primary and a general election; none of which Hunter has, or will have.
***Ever hear of George Bush? The guy who said Reagan's plan was Voodoo economics? Anyone? Anyone? Exactly how many elections did Bush senior win before he ran for pres? I never heard of Jimmuh Carter nor Bill Clintoon until they won in the early states. And some of those states send phonies packing, which is about what we can expect of at least one RINO.
If every single person, in the entire GOP, with presidential dreams, died, and Hunter was the nomination, yes, I would hold my nose and support him.
***Can I ask what you're doing here, on a socon site that says "As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America." There is one candidate who fits that bill, and you would hold your nose to vote for him if " every single person, in the entire GOP, with presidential dreams, died, and Hunter was the nomination."
How about YOU? Are YOU willing to vote for whoever the GOP presidential candidate is in '08?
***Why? Is this a GOP site? Did I stumble onto a Republican Party backroom and forgot that I signed my name in blood for 9 years? This is a CONSERVATIVE site and Duncan is a CONSERVATIVE candidate. Maybe you could get more traction going to a RINO site and pushing your favorite RINO candidate. Unfortunately, I have no burden to help you in finding such a website.
Thanks for the ping.. Good article.
"the key issue of our time, victory in the war against Islamic extremism."
That says it all...
"Follow the big money and that will tell you who the realistic candidates are. It's easy to click on an online poll for Duncan Hunter or Newt Gingrich, but look carefully at the number of people who have put their money with their mouth is and that will tell the real tale. People tend not to waste their money on pipe dream candidates, especially the saavy large donors."
to
"And that very same protectionist stance, is going to keep far more deep pocketed BIG MONEY MEN against Hunter's candidacy."
the anti Duncan Hunter folks are getting funny.
Consider the attacks an honor. You're playing with baseballs, they have a basket of nerf balls :)
I realize that you don't support his trade views, and I respect that, but what else do you find so repugnant about Hunter that you would have to "hold your nose" in order to vote for him? It seems to me that his pro-life, pro-WoT, and pro 2nd Amendment views would make it easy to compromise with him on such a minor issue such as trade agreements.
As a followup, why don't you partake in the New FR Poll? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1782311/posts
Oh, and feel free to throw your baseballs of deduction at us nerfball-wielding Socons on that thread. It might prove enlightening.
Poll:
Let's just say that Hillary (or someone equally as vile) gets the Democrat nomination and a pro-life, anti-gay marriage, pro-gun, pro-defense, pro-borders, pro-small government, pro-low taxes, peace through superior firepower patriot gets the Republican nod. Who would you vote for in the general?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.