Posted on 02/21/2012 7:06:41 AM PST by Mustang Driver
How do Newt's attacks on Bain Capital figure into your analysis?
It is a cheap convenience to dismiss dissenting opinions by asserting they're just based on beltway (or "Establishment") propaganda. As I said, I've supported Newt for this primary season, and still do despite his attacks on bain Capital and the ridiculous moon colony promise. But I nevertheless cringed when he started going after Bain Capital. That attack hurt him among a lot of legitimate conservatives because he was using the rhetoric of the left. And I didn't need any beltway insiders or "Establishment" figures in the GOP to tell me that.
But that doesn't fit within the overly-simplistic narrative you wish to construct, so you dismiss it. The truth is that admitting that a candidate you like screwed up doesn't mean you don't still support him. It just means you're not blind and deaf.
When all else fails, invent a strawman, eh? I never said that I could not make that determination. I said that different self-described conservatives see some issues differently. A Burkean conservative is not the same as a libertarian conservative, who is not the same as a social conservative. There are many overlapping principles, but some differences. Telling all "conservatives" that they should back the "most conservative" candidate, as if that would magically result in us all backing the same person, ignores that reality. Particularly in a field this flawed. My personal "most conservative" pick would be Gingrich, but I'm sure there are other conservatives who might disagree. Isn't an arbritray concept like "ability to win" really kind of a foolish predication?
No, because it is not arbitrary, any more than it is "arbitrary" for conservatives to recognize when a liberal has made a statement that will not play well to the electorate. The alternative POV, that all candidates are so equally likely to win that making any judgment on that score is impossible, is ridiculous. It amounts to saying that all gaffes and policy positions are meaningless, and don't affect voter opinions. It's saying that calling Obama more electable than Dennis Kucinich, Michael Moore, or John Edwards, is "arbitrary". You can subscribe to that kind of blindness, but I don't.
Man, Reagan’s toast. I sure hope we don’t nominate him. HE’S UNELECTABLE!!!
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.