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.
Well, Mr. Brennan, we plan on changing that!!
***
I’ll bump to that!
Now, now... You’re sounding just like the Rudybots - “ONLY RUDY can fight the WOT!” despite him, like Thompson, lacking any military experience at either the field or policy level.
I happen to believe that any Republican running could beat Hillary. Her negatives are high (half of voters won’t vote for her under any circumstance), and if the past is any guide more Hsu-like scandals are inevitable. I think you and many others are confusing the media drumbeat with popular sentiment. Have a little faith in your fellow Americans, FRiend!
“Get some guts people and vote for Duncan Hunter. After all, isn’t this what we have been trying to do? Elect a person who believes what we believe and is already doing the job our President won’t even do?”
You tell ‘em! Duncan Hunter has the guts to do what’s right, so the least we can do it support him!
Today someone from the state Agriculture and Markets came to our house to pick up used dog food cans, because two of our dogs were very, very sick at once. We don’t know if it was the dog food, but we want to make sure.
Anyway, we got to talking about China poisoning pets and people, and I told the worker that Duncan Hunter is the only presidential candidate speaking out against China.
Every chance I get, I get his name out, in addition to editor’s letters.
“I happen to believe that any Republican running could beat Hillary. Her negatives are high (half of voters won’t vote for her under any circumstance), and if the past is any guide more Hsu-like scandals are inevitable. I think you and many others are confusing the media drumbeat with popular sentiment. Have a little faith in your fellow Americans, FRiend!”
That’s what I’m always saying. People don’t like Hillary!! No reason for conservatives to PANIC!!!!
Isn't that special? Those who point out Duncan's flaws are paid political hacks, or part of the faceless borg.
LOL ! No doubt . I was an early Romney supporter until Fred got in . I was accused of being a paid hack when I supported Romney too ... LOL
Somebody please tell me where to go to get paid to do this , i’ll sign up in a heartbeat !
And yet you look at history........MA, in some ways THE most liberal socialist state in the union, went to Reagan! Interesting how many other so called blue states did as well. I wouldn’t put my money on your above post if I were you!
Twenty-four years is a long time ago. California, and even New Jersey, used to elect Republicans, too. But now look at them - - hopeless toilets.
Good post! That is my point, and I would like to add the following question, who here, or on FR in general for that matter, would NOT support Hunter should he get the nomination? There is nothing there to NOT support.
He would be doing much better if the activist base supported him. They don’t and it isn’t because of the “MSM”. He simply doesn’t inspire people, apart from some very loyal people on this forum.
If he can’t generate significant support from the base, what possible chance does he have with the general electorate?
Good post , you are exactly right .
Were he able to generate tons of money and blitz the TV sets all across the country, things might be different. He might become well enough known to prevail.
My thought is that we should make a strong effort to retake the House, and then (a bone to you) if he is not nominated for President, make him Speaker.
Think for a minute if you will, about what conservative goals could be accomplished with any Republican President and a good solid Conservative like Duncan Hunter as Speaker.
“Thompson is the only Conservative candidate that can bring the whole party to the general election.”
Most Americans OPPOSE ANY amnesty for ANY illegal aliens. Fred Thompson will NOT get their Republican vote.
Fred Thompson on Citizenship “Deal” for Illegal Immigrants
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkN2fYnMTBs
Nothing odd about Bush 41 being “followed by” (as you put it) Clinton.
Bush 41 was running for reelection and he lost to Bill Clinton. People like Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot helped that happen, and Bush 41 himself did not run a good campaign.
However, no matter what he or others did or didn’t do, the country fell for the flim flam man Bill Clinton, and they would do so if he ran again.
We are a country of smucks. Quite a few Republicans have been smitten by Huckabee. Another Bill Clinton-like schmooze artist with a silver tongue.
The party will align behind Thompson when he takes the nomination. Like it or not .
Duncan is leaving his House seat. His son, Duncan Dwayne Hunter, right now in Afghanistan, is running for that seat. Or did you not know that?
Probably did not know that.
I hold the man in very high regard.
That chumminess seems to have happened after the two agreed to work together to raise money for the tsunami victims. Both men do dearly love golf and both are members of the very small ex-President club. As far as Clinton succeeding Bush 41, there wasn’t anything odd about it at all. Bush 41 lost an election to Clinton, with help from people like Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot, for instance, and from the fact that Bush 41 could not mount a good reelection effort. However, the main reason it happened is that this country stupidly fell for Bill Clinton and it would elect him again today if he ran.
I do as well. I wish he would stay in the House but I understand his decision. He’s been there a long, long time. He’s not getting any younger and I don’t think he wanted to be Speaker. He never ran for it far as I know. There has to be something good in store for him, surely, at least I want to believe there is. Someone like him, a rarity, has got to count for something in these perilous times.
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.