Posted on 09/18/2007 8:32:03 PM PDT by pissant
If you asked undecideds who among the current crop of Republican candidates they prefer to carry the GOP standard into the 2008 presidential election one heck of a lot of them would say "None of the above."
The dissatisfaction with the candidates they are being offered currently is widespread — a conclusion that has now led Ambassador Alan Keyes to toss his hat in the ring in the hope of offering an alternative to the present choices.
The problem that great horde of undecideds have in making up their minds about who they want to be their standard bearer lies, I believe, both in their inability to accept the pledges of the candidates that they really mean what they say about the key conservative issues, and, if elected, their willingness to stick to their guns.
Another sticking point is the popular perception, nourished by the media, that there are two tiers of candidates: those who are "credible" candidates the media views as capable of winning the nomination — the so-called front-runners — and those who the media elites declare unelectable.
Lately we have seen Sen. John McCain drop from the top of the first tier to the second, and now, seemingly has climbed back among the front-runners (how a candidate can be deemed a front-runner when not a single vote has been cast has always been a mystery to me).
This construction becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Voters, convinced that only the ordained front-runners have a chance, find their choices limited to the front-runners and dutifully pick and choose from among their number. The second tier of candidates are thus automatically eliminated from the contest.
This is a lousy way to choose the candidate you want running America for the next four years. Among that second tier are men of probity and competence who stand head and shoulders above the top tier yet are ruled out of the competition by what is an exercise in false logic.
If the primary system relied on the common sense of both the candidates and the voters, the various candidates' stands on the main issues and their consistency in defending their positions would be the determining factor in who would get the nod. Despite Ralph Waldo Emerson's dicta that "Consistency is the bugaboo of small minds," the ability to stick to one's guns in defense of one's principles is one of a man's most potent weapons in his arsenal of personal integrity.
There are political issues that are elastic and capable of being stretched as the occasion demands — a candidate may be firmly committed to opposing taxes for example, but willing to accept tax hikes when there is no alternative — but there are also moral issues where a man never can bend to the winds of expediency.
It is in that second category where a voter can look to see exactly of what kind of steel a candidate is made. To my mind abortion fits in that category and I'll use it as an example of what I mean.
Human life stands at the pinnacle of all of the human rights a God-fearing society is required to preserve and protect. Without that guarantee no other rights are possible. Medical science is unanimous in recognizing that human life begins at the moment of conception - the creature in the womb is one of us from that moment forward. No one, not the unborn child's mother nor government dictat nor one of Planned Parenthood's hired assassins has the right to do away with that human being.
As I said, that's the most basic of rights; it's also the most basic of issues. If a candidate's morality is of such low order that he or she cannot recognize the truth of the above, and has never been firm in the conviction that killing the unborn is just plain murder, he or she cannot be trusted on any other issue. If human life is expendable, so is every other human right.
Consistency on this issue is the key to unlocking a candidate's character. It's not an issue where a candidate has the option of changing his mind. If he ever denied the right to life, he displayed a deep flaw in his character that should eliminate him from further consideration.
Consistency in other key issues is also important. It is said that the "past is prologue" — in other words, what you had, is what you'll get.
If this primary campaign is to make any sense at all, GOP voters will have to look at the entire slate of candidates and not simply eliminate those not considered by the media elite to be among the front-runners. There are good men, very good men, held captive by the media down there in the also-ran pit.
Tragically, even some of the most sophisticated and experienced observers in the Republican Party are buying into the idea that the party must choose from among the front-runners when in their heart of hearts they know the best man is considered an also-ran. For example I keep running into knowledgeable Republicans who tell me that the candidate who would make the best president in the race today is Rep. Duncan Hunter. They hasten to say, however, that he can't win.
Of course he can't win if the very people who recognize what they see as his superiority dismiss his chances out of hand.
As I said, this is one lousy way to pick a presidential candidate. We deserve what we get.
Phil Brennan is a veteran journalist and WWII Marine who writes for NewsMax.com. He is editor and publisher of Wednesday on the Web (http://www.pvbr.com) and was Washington columnist for National Review magazine in the 1960s. He also served as a staff aide for the House Republican Policy Committee and helped handle the Washington public relations operation for the Alaska Statehood Committee which won statehood for Alaska.
He is also a trustee of the Lincoln Heritage Institute and a member of the Association For Intelligence Officers.
“””Those aren’t real guns...”””
There isn’t a lot of cleavage but if you look closely, you can see the nipples.
This would not be a problem if people had enough “snap” to vote their conscience. But, don’t get me started.
Ask yourself: What is the world capitol city of the United Nations and liberalism?
Thompson is not playing the media’s game and every so-called “conservative” Madison Avenue limousine liberal like George “open borders” Will is having a fit he is running.
I support Tancredo, Hunter, and Thompson. I will most likely vote for Fred Thompson in the primary. Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is just plain stupid...
Some of the Republicans are stuck on stupid. If the GOP gives me a liberal, I’ll write in “Bullwinkle.”
We have media provocateurs posing as “conservatives” who are really sleeper cells trying to cram liberalism and cross dressing liberal candidates down the throats of the GOP voting base.
For the past year, the so-called “conservative” commentators and columnists have been telling Republicans they need to compromise and nominate a liberal. Now all of the sudden Thompson isn’t conservative enough...
And these same media jackals who are supposedly “conservative,” are still trying to cram liberalism down our throats.
Also take note of who cried the loudest when Ann Coulter made the “faggot” remark at the CPAC event. Those so-called Republicans had to take a Midol to calm down. (They also need to be watched closely.)
Also, ask yourself: Where do the likes of George Will, Robert Novak, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Rielly, et. al; get their paychecks? Answer: the left wing New York media...
“He can’t even best the Hucktser..”
Oh, really?
“Duncan Hunter doubled the totals of the next-closest candidate, garnering 534 of approximately 1,400 votes cast. Fred Thompson came in second with 266 votes, and Paul rounded out the top three with 217 votes.
Here are all the results:
Duncan Hunter: 534
Fred Thompson: 266
Ron Paul: 217
Mike Huckabee: 83
Rudy Giuliani: 78
Mitt Romney: 61
Ray McKinney: 28
John Cox: 10
John McCain: 8
Sam Brownback: 6
Tom Tancredo: 6
Hugh Cort: 3”
“Time to re-double our efforts”
That’s the spirit - because we LOVE our country!
I agree with your post 100% and I have been writing and saying as much for sometime now. Guess what? No one is listening. There are a plethora of complaints and observations about the left leaning MSM and everyone seems to get it. But then, they turn right around and let the MSM choose their candidates for them. And so it goes.........Polls, popularity, electability.
The media polls tell them who has a chance and who hasn’t. Then they are always more than content to ‘settle’ in the name of electability or pragmatism. I have noticed things that settle usually tend to settle to the bottom. So I suppose, no matter how much an affront it is to some candidates, talk of 1st, 2nd and 3rd tiers will continue to the point of its ultimate and predictable conclusion. Then the talk of tiers will end and we can get on with the real tears.
“Volunteer. Donate. Do something! Just don’t let somebody else pick your candidate for you.”
Right on!
WTF do they know except how to dumb-down our country.
Hunter is far more commanding than either. Tanc fumbles and stutters, Huck blows nothing but BS. Hunter is direct and concise.
1. Duncan Hunter is the best candidate.
2. A country with states that elect complete scumbags like Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, “Dick” Durbin, Patrick “Leaky” Leahy, Jon Corzine, Ted “The Swimmer” Kennedy, John ‘F’ing Kerry, and Chuck Schumer will never elect Duncan Hunter.
Oh yeah, I see them!
I like Hunter, so perhaps I am hard on him. Nonethless, he did not go over as well as I would have wanted. Huckabee “spoke the language of Zion” and the value voters delegates proved that they don’t pay attention anything but rhetoric.
Read the article. The answer is there.
Then, if you have the courage, do the right thing rather than the “popular” thing. Collectively if enough do the right thing, we’ll get a worthy candidate with the experience and fortitude of character demanded by the office. Remember that Ronald Reagan always wore his blazer in the oval office out of reverence for the presidency. It is not something to be bestowed frivolously on men we think might be popular with the cacophony of voices driving our media engine.
One last thing. Popular sentiment has no bearing on the right thing - you are not accountable to your fellow citizen or God for the result, only for what YOU do. I’ve just given Duncan Hunter another $100. I hope everyone who reads this sends a little something his way, for all of the reasons stated.
Now, won’t you join us and show some courage?
The way President Bush is proceeding now a days he is putting out the Red Carpet for Hillary.
JMO
“Of course he can’t win if the very people who recognize what they see as his superiority dismiss his chances out of hand.”
That’s what I have been saying for a long while. Duncan Hunter is the best.
Hunter can win and he will win.
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.