Glad Tidings?
The New York Times online reports that a group of conservative, religious Republicans met recently and that they were ticked off that there were no Republican candidates that met their criteria for endorsement:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/us/politics/25secret.html?hp (You have to register, but there is no charge.)
The Council For National Policy, according to the article is a group of a couple of hundred, populated by people like Jerry Falwell, Paul Weyrich, James Dobson and Grover Norquist.
The group thinks that Giuliani, McCain and Romney are too liberal.
"Mr. Norquist said he remained open to any of the three candidates who spoke to the council [Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee and Duncan Hunter] or to Mr. Romney. He argued that with the right promises, any of the four could redeem themselves in the eyes of the conservative movement despite their past records, just as some high school students take abstinence pledges even after having had sex. 'It’s called secondary virginity,' he said. 'It is a big movement in high school and also available for politicians.'”
Mr. Norquist is apparently willing to take a candidate that will face him and "confess" to his sins (with his fingers crossed behind his back), so as to have someone to carry the banner for the religious-right masses.
This is a good thing for the Republican party, if it is accurate.
The two Republicans with a chance of getting the nomination, Giuliani and McCain, could make the decision that they don't have to pander to the rabid right to be nominated. Upon nomination they wouldn't have to go through that awkward transition phase where they "clarify" all the stupid things they said to get the nomination so as to reposition themselves as the moderates that they were all along.
The rabid right would be left with sitting out the general election or holding their collective nose and voting against the "crazy, leftist, cut and run" Democrat that had to pander to his or her party's extreme to gain the nomination.
The general election is then a contest between a candidate from the "middle" who doesn't have to explain away his right wing cant and a Democrat who will have to waffle to move back to the middle so as to try to attract the middle voters that decide the general election.
The true silent majority in the middle that have sometimes sat out elections or vote for the no name Libertarian candidate, might find Giuliani or McCain, who have been consistent, to be an acceptable candidate. Maybe the election would then be decided, again as some argued about '04, by how much of the left wing Ralph "One Suit" Nader can grab from, who? Hillary, Barack, Joe, ....?
I offer all this at no charge, but will accept no blame, when I am proven wrong by the events that unfold over the next twenty months.
6 comments:
I think McCain is actually a frothing-at-the-mouth right wing nut cleverly disguised as a moderate. We'll see.
I'm passed believing that government will actually do anything to help anybody but themselves and their affluent campaign donors. Personally, I think the best we can hope for is gridlock- maybe we can at least keep them from making things worse.
Most of my friends are liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal issues. The frosting on the Rudy Giuliani cupcake is the memory of how he handled 9/11. I think he's the one.
To respond to two differnt comments at the same time:
thomas, McCain, I don't think can actually win. Too much baggage; but, what do you think about Obama? Is he pretty face rock star?
Hedy, you've been enamoured of Obama, who's going to pay for what he speaks so well about?
Might not Rudy be Da Man? He won't change the world or our corner of it; but, he's in the middle of the mix. With a Democratic Congess we have the best of all worlds, mostly gridlock and someone who isn't going to pander, I hope, to the right or the left.
The next president has one helluva mess to deal with. I hope we get one with the wisdom and courage to do the unpopular things that will be necessary to fix it. I am not particularly hopeful. The current primary process does not seem capable of coming up with the best candidates. Both parties are hell bent on pandering to the most extreme and out of touch elements of their base, when they should be looking for the person who can appeal to the most people in a national election.
Obama is by far the most- forgive me- "articulate." I think he is the best political orator since the Kennedys.
I don't think experience is necessarily relevant to the office of the president. The most qualified recent presidents, at least on paper, were Richard Nixon and George H. Bush- and they were disasters.
What I'm waiting for is specifics. Every candidate wants peace and prosperity, but nobody has yet nailed down how they're going to achieve it.
So this has been a very long and wordy way for me to say, "I don't know."
This is good news. It could mean that the Republican Party will no longer be hijacked by the neocons and theocons who will, one can hope, be exiled to Iraq where they can govern a little neighborhood or two.
Post a Comment