Posted on 05/22/2004 7:43:29 PM PDT by Maurice1962
Of course, he is "electable". So is Hitlery, or just about any other candidate.
Whenever someone talks about "electability" they are typically trying to advance their candidate while trashing the others, because, after all, their guy is the only "electable" one.
Let's pick the best guy, or girl, and run with them. I believe the American people will rally around someone who is an honest conservative.
BTW, Guiliani is a gun-grabbing statist, and I can't see how how any "conservative" could support someone like that.
That and his pro abort stance renders him highly unlikely to get nominated much elected as a Republican. If he were to switch parties, especially after a bad Dem loss this November I think he would be very viable as a Democrat in 08 because he looks to be very strong on security and defense. The same could be said for McCain. Either one could be elected as a Democrat this year if he had switched a year ago, that is- if we assume W does not have some rabbits in his hat for summer and fall. Actually I am pretty confident he has a hare in his hat, maybe several.
I don't know how far back Newt's affair goes so it would be hard to speculate. But here's what I'm trying to say:
Moderate Republicans will not support a true conservative at the top of the ticket. They'll join right in with the Democrats, calling conservatives "extremist", "hard-right", "dangerous", etc. While a lot of conservatives are lectured about supporting Bush, Schwarzeneggar, Specter, Chafee, etc. "for the good of the party", moderate Republicans don't make the same sacrifice. They play right along with the Democrats in marginalizing the conservative as ignorant or unelectable.
"But what about Reagan?" you might ask. Reagan had two things going for him that other top conservatives didn't - he had positive name recognition held over from his movie career. They *tried* to bad-mouth Reagan all the way up to his swearing-in ceremony. The moderates wanted Bush Sr., remember? The master stroke of Reagan was to get Bush onto the ticket or else he would have lost the support of liberal Republicans while at the same time picking up more conservative "Reagan Democrats".
The other thing Reagan had in his favor is that he'd already been elected Governor of California twice which means he had already demonstrated he could carry 1/4th of the country - and not a particularly conservative 1/4 of the country at that. Any Republican coming from Washington would have had the tint of Watergate somewhere in his past. Reagan could campaign completely as a Washington outsider.
But the moderates detested Reagan and tried to undermine his presidency. The moderate Republicans 1) believe what the New York Times and Washington Post tell them and 2) want acceptance at all the Washington functions where they are elbow-to-elbow with Democrats. Conservatives go to Washington with the idea of changing it. Moderates don't want change. They just want to stand in the way of the anti-business ideas of the Democrats.
The moderates are still the power-brokers of the party and they will continue to give us Bushes and Doles and lecture conservatives to support them "for the good of the party". That's why they would never support somebody like Newt if he had decided to run for President. After the Times and the Post were finished portraying Newt as evil incarnate, the moderates would have distanced themselves from him like roaches when the kitchen light gets turned on.
Precisely. See my post above.
OK...this is terribly off topic, and just plain silly, but I initiallly read this as "if we assume W does not have some rabbis in his hat..." :-)
Good analysis. Dead-on accurate, IMO.
"Guiliani is to the left of Bill Clinton."
ROTFLMOA!!!!!!!!!!!
You could just scream, "I'm an unreasonable right-wing fanatic."
It accomplishes the same thing.
I wouldn't support Rudy for the nomination either, but please, talk logic.
I explicitly said that most people don't like abortion, but aren't particularly interested in changing the existing status quo.
Take no solace from these polls - while I like the fact that 56% of Americans don't think abortion should be legal is wonderful, but the fact remains that enough of them clearly are not passionate enough about the issue to make a difference.
Like I said - most people don't like abortion but most people don't want to change the status quo. Draw whatever conclusions from that fact, but a fact it is.
The point is this: The GOP has no reason whatsoever to go soft on abortion.
The field for 2008 is wide open, and the GOP has to be thinking ahead. What is clear is that as it stands, dubya has no natural sucessor or legacy in 2008, and that is a problem.
Guiliani supported Clinton in 1996.
What is "unreasonable" about wanting a smaller and less intrusive gov't? Most of the American people support this.
Very well said. I agree with your post 100%.
Since CFR passed, and both parties front-loaded the primaries, it's going to be real tough for anyone to challenge the system.
People will, by and large, support a PBA ban, plus parental notification, and maybe even limits on when it occurs in the pregnancy, but a TOTAL ban? Probably not.
You're correct, too, about the states if Roe V. wade were reversed. There is no way more than a few states would even consider an outright ban. and they would be pariahs in short order.
There's nothing unreasonable about it at all. Unfortunately, "most of the American people" only support it when THEIR OWN goodies are not threatened by it. When you add it all up, most VOTERS are apparently quite comfortable with it.
Nearly 50% of voters are over age 50, and most of those hold on to Social Security, for example, like an octopus on a crab.
On the surface, most people agree with smaller government, but once they understand that THEY'LL have to give up something they consider a "right", they go the other way.
In a nutshell, you have identified why senators make bad presidential candidates: They have to go on the record too many times. Everyone can find something in a senator's voting record to dislike. Running a senator for president is like painting a target on your back.
Thanks for the compiment but I think your surprise at an articulare reply on FR is misplaced. I find that smart replys are very common on FR.
I'll just address points where we disagree since, like before, we agree more often than disagree, I think.
As for the change in the status quo in a post-overturned Roe world, I think using the political landscape prior to 1973 to get a bead on what states would outright outlaw abortions is very misplaced. The USA has changed a lot since 1973. Actually, your reliance on that does peripherally demonstrate one of my points - your frame of reference is 30 years out of date. That hinders your effectiveness (and our effectiveness) in 2004, not helps it.
Granted this is all speculation, but we can speculate smartly or foolishly. Look at the state legislatures, the democrat influence, the republican influence, and the social mores of the day. While most people say they want abortion illegal, most of those same people are not notably active about it or voting that way. I don't know why, but I do draw the conclusion that for most people, sadly, the status quo is just dandy.
Conservative revivals are possible, of course, but I don't see one happening anytime soon. In any case, I am evaluating things on my evaluation of the situation now. I will calibrate to changes in the future. For now, we need a firm grasp of politican and social reality NOW. As it stands now, there is no conservative revival (nor signs of a conservative revival) anytime soon.
As far as MA judicial tyrrany, you need to get a better grasp of what happened. While the legislature couldn't pass it, they couldn't muster the support to stop it or delay it, either. What you cite isn't evidence of conservative victory or influence, its evidence of a standoff.
We do have some serious problems and are clearly not of like mind on some matters. You say "I am thinking of my voting as not to achieve a political end but to be consistent with my moral beliefs"
That's a poor frame of reference and I don't know where you got it. Voting and the political process is EXACTLY to 'achieve a political end.' If your thinking is that voting is not to achieve a political end, you are just patently wrong.
I am not saying sacrifice moral beleifs, but I am saying be realistic. No politician I ever voted for is exactly consistent with my moral beleiefs if I held that standard, I likely couldn't vote for anybody), but there are many whose beleifs, best as I can tell, are aligned with my own.'
It was simply never intended to be an 'all or nothing' game - your adherence to that sentiment is not based in any political tract that founded this nation, nor based on the practical application and development of political power in the USA.
I say that the idea . I will also say that as a practical matter, I am not willing to lose political ground on numerous other important issues because of an unrealistic idea regarding national abortion policy.
Please accept the fact that as of 2004, in regards to abortion issues, most people passively support the status quo. You will flatly not change the national policy from the outside, only from the inside. And even then, only when there is a significant change in public perception and conciousness.
That change is not just around the corner, I suspect that it is a generational shift. Rushing or overstating the issue works against our interests, not for it.
You explicitly frame this as a moral problem, which it is. You appear unwilling or unable to accept that it is a political problem also. It is not an either-or proposition, and I don't know why you choose to frame it as such. That limits your range of options needlessly. It is not one or the other - it is, in fact, both.
My presciption for the movement is to treat the problem as both, since emphasis on either at the expense of the other doesn't get us where we want to go.
I am not saying the Republicans should adopt the pro-abortion policies of the Dems - I am saying that we should be on the right side of the 2004 issues, and not be fixated on the 1973 issues.
Again, we lost the 1973 battle. Accepting that and crafting a new strategy is essentioal to victory in the war over the issue.
See, I think you want to go back to Constantinople. But, you can't go back to Constantinople. Even old NY was once New Amsterdam, why they changed it I can't say, people just like it better that way.
People, for better or worse, just like it better this way.
Accepting that is essential in crafting a policy to effect change. And thats what I want to do. You don't seem interested in effecting change. Opting out of the process, in fact, helps the political advancement of the other side.
Opting out may make people feel good but it helps create a worse situation on the polituical landscape.
It is not an either-or proposition. In seeing it that way it limits your range of options.
Ypur last thoughts are telling and demonstrate your problem. " I'm not sure where you're getting allowing PBA's and outlawing parental notification. I haven't mentioned nor supported those things. "
Of course you aren't sure - you haven't thought this through and have opted for a self-reflexive posture that ostensibly is more about you than it is for the issue at hand. I know you are not for these things, but your self-imposed exile from the political process helps the side that fights for PBA and no parental notification. In doing so, it feeds the existing culture of death that is pervasive, and makes your battle on the moral front (changing people's hearts and minds) more difficult, not less.
By opting out of the process, your inaction helps the opposition on these fronts. You do not effect positive change on the issue - you sit by while the enemy advances, feeling good about yourself. You directly help cause damage to our side of the issue.
You probably never considered this, or maybe are unwilling to. The truth can be rough.
If you still wonder how your inaction on the political sphere hurts our side on the issues of 2004, then you really need to rethink this. Contrary to the implicit subtext of your comments, this isn't really 'all about you.'
Gingrich didn't run in '96 for two reasons:
1. He overreached in 1995 -- he thought he'd been elected Prime Minister rather than Speaker of the House. Her forgot who owned the "bully pulpit", and as a result he was radioactive with the middle-of-the-road voters.
2. As a House member, even as Speaker, he didn't have a broad enough base to win the nomination, much less the election. Has anyone ever been elected president directly from the House of Reps?
The point isn't that at all. The point is to fight the fight of 2004. I'm not saying go soft on abortion at all, I'm saying take care of business.
I think the absolutist mindset on our side helped get us in the jam we are in now.
Be realistic. If a president issued an executive order outlawing abortion, it would take about three days for the Supreme Court to overturn it. If the president ordered the DoJ to ignore the Court, the Congress would impeach him and remove him from office -- with a majority of the Republicans in the Senate voting for conviction.
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.