Posted on 02/16/2007 8:30:44 AM PST by meg88
The GOP Should Dump Its Litmus Test By Michael Reagan FrontPageMagazine.com | February 16, 2007
The philosopher Diogenes is said to have wandered around ancient Greece holding a lantern and seeking to find an honest man.
My fellow Republicans, sans lanterns, are now wandering around the political landscape seeking to find the perfect Republican presidential candidate.
I don’t know if Diogenes ever found that honest man, but I do know that those Republicans are never going to find the perfect candidate, simply because he does not exist.
Some Republicans insist that the only perfect candidate would be a clone of my Dad, Ronald Reagan. Aside from the fact that there is no such thing, it’s important to recognize that Ronald Reagan, as he often admitted, was anything but perfect.
One of the criticisms about former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney focuses on his record concerning the abortion issue. We are told by the modern day Diogenes clones that he can’t be trusted to fight abortion because he once, more or less, supported a woman’s right to butcher her baby.
It may come as a surprise to these purists, but Ronald Reagan once supported abortion too. Yet nobody ever questioned his strong pro-life credentials after his conversion to Republicanism. They accepted his sincerity. Why can’t they accept Mitt Romney’s?
Romney’s record shows he should be totally acceptable to all conservatives, yet because of one dubious question concerning the validity of his conversion to the pro-life side, he is deemed unsuitable to carry the conservative banner.
The same is true of Rudy Giuliani. On every major issue, he is a solidly conservative and extraordinarily adept executive, but because he backs abortion and some form of gun control, America’s mayor -- the hero of 9/11 and the man who did the impossible by cleaning up New York -- is all but ruled out as a 2008 candidate.
Not one of the major candidates is free of some real or imagined flaw that offends some conservatives.
This is madness, and if it does not stop, the GOP is going to lose the presidential election in 2008. In the search for the perfect candidate we are going to end up with an imperfect candidate. Keep in mind the truism that agreement with someone on most issues and disagreement on others is seen as normal, but should you agree with someone on every single issue imaginable … well… to put it plainly, psychologists say you’re nuts.
I recently got a letter from a conservative Christian organization that asked me if the current GOP candidates are the best the Republican Party has to offer.
“Is it possible that GOP conservative ranks are this thin?” the letter writer asked. “Has the GOP nothing better to offer? Should not pro-family pro-life voters also want a low taxes and limited government candidate before they vigorously support him? Increased taxes and expanded government hurts everyone. Was Ronald Wilson Reagan an anomaly and did he represent the values of his party?
“These GOP candidates,” the letter instructed me, “are little better than Bob Dole, Gerald Ford, or [George] H.W. Bush. Did anyone notice they all lost?”
This makes me wonder if anybody can stand up to the litmus test these people are applying to candidates.
Ronald Reagan had one litmus test he applied to candidates. Were they Republicans? If they were he backed them all the way. He would let the party choose the candidate and he would support and vote for the candidate. He didn’t go sniffing around trying to find some flaw in their character or their past. Once nominated, they were his choice.
And nobody was more candid in admitting that he was anything but perfect than my Dad. He knew that like all men, he had his flaws and he spent a lifetime combating them. Had today’s GOP litmus test been seriously applied to him, he could not have passed the test.
The Democrats don’t have litmus tests. If the nominee is a Democrat, they support their candidate all the way, and if they lose it isn’t because they didn’t fight like demons for their man or woman.
If we want to win in 2008, Republicans had better wake up, and quit talking Ronald Reagan and start being like Ronald Reagan.
Newt is the ONLY ONE right of the center(which is leftist) ..
Micheal conviently overlooked Newt.. on purpose..
There is no center.. Micheal is a leftist like Romney and Giuliani..
From what I read from Google. The hate for GWB on FR in 1999 and 2000 was incredible and shocking! But I guess it's a replay of the 2000 election all over again.
well my experience is quite different, no one i spoke to would stay home or vote RAT, they would go to the poll with a large barfbag and vote for rudy if he is the nominee. but they would do it grudingly, and those who were active in campaigning for President Bush the last 2 elections will not be moved to work for him, that's for sure.
He isn't anymore that I know of, but he use to be.
Well said areafiftyone - very well said.
Right now the issues for 2008 will be:
- The World
- The borders
- Our security
- Social Security
- Health care
The issues will not be:
- Abortion
- Gay rights
- The second amendment
(these are big issues - but there is simply not the urgency
on them compared to little things like war, terror, WMD, etc.)
My opinion.
Michael definitley knew his Dad better, then you or I. Whether he understood his Dad better then you or I, is open to debate.
A few things are for certain. Reagan did vote for Eisenhower in 52&56, and Nixon in 1960. Reagan did bolt the Democratic Party in 1962. The fact Reagan did it, leaves the door open for anyone to consider changing parties, at anytime. For that matter, voting for whoever they choose. Its a free country. I think Reagan would agree, the goal is for Americans to get out and vote.
Name one he could do, so long as Roe is on the books, that hasn't already been done.
I'm confident Rudy would do nothing on gun control. The gun grabbers in Congress have finally learned that's a fast track to losing elections.
I'm not a Rudy "fanatic." I haven't declared for anyone. All the electable candidates have flaws, so I'm waitin' and seein' for now.
Exactly. I can only imagine if Reagan were President now:
"RINO Sellout appointed O'Connor and Kennedy! He's a de-facto baby murderer!"
"Amnesty for Illegals! He's supporting an INVASION OF AMERICA! He should be impeached!"
"Stupid arms control treaty with Russia! His spine's gone soft. He's a total disappointment."
"Cut and run from Lebanon! Cowardly RINO emboldening the enemy! Unworthy to be CIC!"
...I would imagine that any blog or forum is much more left or right then that party as a whole...FR is probably much more divided than the Republicans' I'm bettting....hell, who did Bush have as his keynote speakers in 2004. Arnold, McCain and Rudy.....3 so called RINO's....LOL
Very good article!!
Michael Reagan is dead on with his assessment. Just the pure venom that I've been seeing lately here on FR regarding the candidates illustrates everything Reagan is warning us about.
A) It is composed exclusively of Giulianiesque wishful thinking.
B) The criteria you list could be adopted by any Democrat.
"Most of Clinton's policies are similar to most of mine." - Rudy Giuliani
It is a given for any Dem candidate that they will have the black vote. And they will have a majority of the female vote. However, I seriously doubt that Hillary will get half of the white male vote. Obama adds little to the ticket except affecting turnout of the black vote and he does bring some negatives.
P McCain does not handle himself well in front of the TV cameras. Hillary does not handle herself well in front of the cameras either but the press will never show her bad side.
Disagree. McCain handles himself much better than Hillary in front of the camera. In fact, he is an articulate, accomplished performer when it comes to handling the media. Hell, he has had enough exposure. Compared to GWB, McCain is Clarence Darrow or Cicero.
Although certainly not my first choice, McCain is strong on the war and he has security credentials that cannot be matched by any of the Dems running in 2008.
The elections are won state by state. The question is what states can Hillary win that Kerry didn't in 2004 and what states that McCain can hold that GWB won in 2004. So what 2004 Bush states do you see Hillary winning?
Of course, I'm going on what I've been told, I was in grammer school at the time.
Silly comment - very silly.
I don't think Michael missed him....I think he alluded to the others exactly because they are more moderate than a Newt etc....he was not giving endorsements....and personally I see Rommney more of moderate then Rudy might be...Newt is NOT the only one...what about Duncan Hunter who is actually running......Newt, we don't know about
Yes, your comments were very silly, and betray a gross lack of understanding of the Republican electorate that nominates Republican presidential candidates.
Carry on....
..as well most of my friends and family...vote for the "R" in the end....hiding at home is not an alternative as some here and their "friends" would do.....
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.