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.
Yes, he is correct.
The only people on this site supporting Mayor Linguine D---are 9/11 fetishists, Hate Hillary Fetishists, celebrity worshippers, and coastal pseudocons.
LOL! I actually think Mike Reagan is right about this. No matter what, the 2008 candidate is always going to fall short.
Republicans will vote for Rudy regardless of what some on Free Republic say. Most people don't know what Free Republic is. They like Rudy and will vote for him.
Who has Duncan Hunter governed?
Take a breath an go find your own damn proof instead of trying to p.o. people who agree with you about gun rights.
Thank you Michael.
Excuse me, as you are the one making wild assertions, it is incumbent upon YOU to provide the proof for the wild assertions, not I. And if you agreed with me about gun rights, then you'd be pointing out Rudy's rotten record on the issue instead of making excuses for it.
Not really. I just pretend to. :)
Just saying we shouldn't focus solely on Hitlery. The other D candidates could be just as bad.
Let's not limit this to Hitlery, Osama Hussein and the others could be as bad.
Agreed. A candidate must be fully and consistently pro-life, not a flip-flopper like or a flamboyant social liberal like or a habitual liar like.
Some issues are foundational, and the right to life of every pre-born baby from conception forward is one of them.
Also, its interesting how some decry Duncan Hunter because he isn’t a free trade fanatic, or Mike Huckabee because he supported some public works projects, or Sam Brownback because he realizes (like most voting Americans) that the current approach to Iraq is not working. Yet they support Mitt Romney, Giuliani, and McCain, despite the pro-abortion, pro-gay, anti-1st amendment, anti-2nd amendment views.
Let’s be honest: we all have issues that are more important to us than other issues are. The question, via selection of a presidential nominee, is what issues should be prioritized. For me and millions of others, the right to life is #1.
Agreed. And also politically tone-deaf.
Which Reagan wasn't. Remember when Reagan Mocked the Rocking Chair?
So, really, it boils down to what issues are litmus tests, and why those issues are the top priority.
But on the -- not just one issue, but 4 or 5 ---issues that are most important to me at the Presidential level, Giuliani is a Democrat.
The big difference between him and Hil is, if Hil is elected, she will energize the emergence of an aroused, clanking, 24/7 opposition party which will block her every attempt to push a pro-baby-killng, pro-sweet-sodomy, pro-bigtime-illegal-immigration, pro-liberal-activist-judge agenda. And if Rudy is elected, it would be far harder to mobilize that kind of opposition: because the Repubs will be divided, and --- on the issues ---the Dems will be delighted.
And you can't tell me Giuliani would push for a Scalia or an Alito for USSC judge, no matter what he says. Why would he want to appoint judges that oppose his political position on abortion, gays, guns...?
Has he ever said a word against
And he would do a U-turn on this....why?
I believe the social conservatives will abdicate concerns about economics for a secure place at the party table.
I've been saying this for months now. Now that Michael Reagan has said some will actually realize this. But I'm not holding my breath on it.
I value the opinion of Reagan's Son than a self proclaimed Reagan Man. You got stuffed by Reagan's CONSERVATIVE son. Take that and chew on it :)
Go away little boy. Come back when you grow up.
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.