Posted on 05/18/2011 7:00:04 AM PDT by Kaslin
The Republican presidential logjam has finally broken.
Donald Trump, who believes not only that he would make the best president but that he could win, declined to run because making money is his true "passion." It's as if Cincinnatus loved his plow too much.
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee also bowed out, with class and dignity even his friend Trump could not buy.
Ron Paul, the libertarian Harold Stassen, is in for another go, presumably on the mistaken assumption that America has turned into Tea Party Nation. (If only!)
And then there's Newt Gingrich.
On NBC's "Meet the Press," the former House speaker -- a man who has spent much of the last decade declaring the need for radical transformation of this, that and the other thing -- denounced Paul Ryan's Medicare proposals as too "radical" and nothing less than "right-wing social engineering." He also came out in favor of an individual mandate for health insurance.
This last bit of news was no doubt greeted with jubilation in the Mitt Romney camp, given that Romney had only days earlier given a speech defending his own landmark achievement -- a state-based individual mandate that helped inspire "Obamacare." By my count, Romney's speech bombed with 9 out of 10 conservatives (the 10th being influential conservative talk-show host Hugh Hewitt).
To have Gingrich out there defending the mandate -- and by extension Romney -- had to have the former Massachusetts governor jumping for joy so high his hair might actually have moved.
By midday Monday, however, Gingrich was reversing himself in response to a deluge of criticism. But the damage was done. The simple fact is that despite Gingrich's immense talents and achievements, Ryan -- who's not even in the race -- is more popular than Gingrich among conservatives. It's hard to throw someone under the bus when it's not your bus. More to the point, Gingrich reinforced the impression that his mouth deserves a patent as a perpetual motion machine.
Still, the real significance of the last week or so is not the breaking up of the political logjam of candidates but of the policy logjam.
Not only did Romney and Gingrich blur the lines between the GOP and Barack Obama, they also sharpened the distinctions between themselves and the rest of the GOP field.
In this, they were playing catch-up with Mitch Daniels, Indiana's extremely effective governor and putative front-runner among conservative policy wonks, the Bush family and insomniacs. Daniels yanked away collective-bargaining rights for public workers years ago, without the Sturm und Drang that accompanied Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's more tepid reforms. Just this month, Daniels successfully withdrew all state funding of Planned Parenthood, a holy grail for social conservatives.
Daniels, however, also steadfastly refuses to sign anti-tax activist Grover Norquist's pledge to never raise taxes. He famously called for a "truce" on social issues, which social conservatives translate as "surrender" to the left since they rightly believe that the left is the aggressor in the culture war. And last week he playfully suggested he might tap former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as his running mate. Floating a pro-choice veep is not the way to reassure social conservatives.
For those paying attention, these should be fascinating developments given the perennial claims that the GOP base is too right wing, extremist and closed-minded to tolerate such philosophical diversity. (And with the exception of Gingrich and Paul, there are no Southerner candidates in a party allegedly captured by the South.)
Does all this mean that the GOP has re-embraced its Nelson Rockefeller roots? Of course not.
But it does hint that this year's primary season won't involve a replay of the dreadful 2008 debates in which the candidates auditioned to play the part of Ronald Reagan in the school play.
It also suggests that the front-runners -- a group that includes former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty -- might be ahead of the rank and file of the GOP.
Come November, it is very unlikely that conservative voters will stay home. So, barring a truly fringe GOP nominee, they will vote against Obama no matter what. Already, the conversation on the right is moving toward the all-important question of "electability" -- i.e., which candidate can peel off the handful of moderates and independents needed to win in an election that will be a referendum on Obama and his record.
Unfortunately, there are some FReepers who refuse to consider "electability."
Articulating conservatism increases someone’s “electable” status, despite what the elitists think - that one must be “pallatable” to the “moderates”.
(And with the exception of Gingrich and Paul, there are no Southerner candidates in a party allegedly captured by the South.)
Right. Herman Cain is from New York City? The writer is a jackass.
“Electability” got us a nominee last time around named “McCain.” Remind us how that crap worked out.
Since he doesn’t mention Herman Cain it’s obvious that he is ignoring him or thinks he doesn’t have a chance. Personally, I could vote for him
Then there are Freepers who allow the state run media to define who’s ‘electable’.
I considered electability with John McCain and didn’t support him in the primaries for a host of reasons, that included. I was proven right.
I wasted my vote on the party nominee.
That won’t happen again.
1. I’ll not vote for anything other than a conservative.
2. I will vote for some conservative over a party nominee who isn’t pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, and pro-America.
Winning.
You are wrong. It got us McCain because the LSM pushed him on to us.
WE MUST NEVER MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE
OK, let me put the following Achilles Heels for each candidates who have signalled their intention of running.
Perhaps you can refute or correct me.
ACHILLES HEELS (ADD YOURS HERE and/or REFUTE ME ):
Mitt Romney : ROMNEYCARE ( unrepentant ). Need I say more?
Newt Gingrich : Talks a good conservative game but when push comes to shove, shows his RINO colors.
Supported pro-choice liberal Dede Scozzafav in the NY-23 GOP Congressional race over Tea Party candidate, Doug Hoffmann. When Dede lost, she turned around and ENDORSED the Democrat.
Let’s not forget Newt’s attack on Paul Ryan’s budget as “right wing” social engineering and his support of a “variation” of the individual healthcare mandate. ‘Nuff said
Mitch Daniels : Pro-Amnesty, Uncomfortable with defending social conservatism. Weak on foreign policy.
Tim Pawlenty : Supported Cap and Trade.
Ron Paul : Foreign Policy nut case, sure to evicerate the military. Said that killing Osama Bin Laden was not necessary. Wants tolegalize Heroin and Prostitution ( need I say more ?).
Herman Cain : Against auditing of the Fed. Articulate on many things but NOT foreign policy (some say he also tried playing the reverse race card but I have no proof of this ).
Michelle Bachmann : A pork-bareller for her district in Minnesota as a Congresswoman.
Ric Santorum: Supported the liberal double turncoat, Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey in the PA Senate race.
Ric Perry : Pro-Amnesty. Mandated STD vaccine of Gardasil for Girls in Texas Public Schools (some say his ties with the drug company, Merck are too deep ).
That’s the playing field of those who have made their INTENTION known.
Anybody have their PERFECT candidate?
“You are wrong. It got us McCain because the LSM pushed him on to us.”
Who are the arbitors of electability? Who defines it if not the MSM? Of course they pushed that lying sack of crap on us, because they KNEW it would divide the party and allow an easier Obama victory, but they used “electability” to do it.
The comments on that thread are interesting.
I keep reading and reading and reading on all of the “potential” candidates and I still come down on putting my support behind Cain unless Palin announces.
The rest just give me a feeling of “UGH!” I could vote for Bachmann and out of the Romney-Newt-Daniels-Pawlenty crowd, I may be convinced to vote for Daniels.
My vote isn’t about me. I will vote for the GOP nominee because either the Democrat or the Republican will win in 2012. Any vote that isn’t for the GOP is complicit in Obama’s success. For me, voting is not about making me feel good about myself. Instead, it will be a choice that I will probably once again describe as the lesser of 2 evils. But what’s new here? When has it not been that? 2012 will be my 10th presidential election and this time for me, stopping Obama is the most important factor in the election.
It looks like you have a beef with every candidate. You might as well stay home, because there will be no candidate you will be 100 percent satisfied
Kinda like the Democrats and Independents getting behind an unknown entity, just because he's Black and an obvious way to dismiss the past 8 years. Yeah, winning as the be-all, end-all of campaign logic works well, doesn't it?
Nope. I’m voting principle this time. I’ve done it the other way around for quite a while, and I’m done with it.
Voting for an unelectable, moderate rino is just as complicit as anything else. McCain was a loser and I knew it from the beginning. I wasted my vote. I could at least have stood up for my principles.
My hope is to encourage a king-maker, conservative party that will have the option election-to-election to throw in with a conservative republican or to go their own way.
The Pubs cannot win without the conservatives. They need to have that hammered forcefully home
LLS
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.