Posted on 02/24/2007 10:59:07 PM PST by FairOpinion
Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen laments the fact that candidates are under heavy pressure to tailor their beliefs (or rhetoric) to "get past ideological bottlenecks" in early primary states:
"For Republicans, it's the religious right; for Democrats, it's economic pressure groups such as teachers unions. The rest of us can only stand by, helpless, waiting for extremists to pick a man or woman on the basis of issues that mean less to us."
For Republican candidates, the toughest litmus tests are not about any actual policy alternatives, foreign or domestic, but about "social issues." What most social issues have in common is that they are none of the federal government's business, let alone the president's.
The federal government will never pass a law banning or permitting abortion, so a presidential candidate's opinion on that subject has no practical relevance.
The federal government will never pass a law banning or prohibiting states and religious organizations from defining marriage, and presidents cannot enact constitutional amendments, so gay marriage is not a federal issue, either.
Licensing of handguns is mainly a local issue, and no candidate is about to push for ending the federal ban on machine guns and assault rifles.
...polls show that a substantial majority of Republican voters approve of Giuliani's positions on all social issues, so the demand for ideological purity in these cases seems to require that candidates capitulate to a minority of the minority party. That does not sound like a recipe for success.
In the general election, however, the winner will emphasize concrete ideas about those issues a president can actually affect and be properly optimistic about the wondrous U.S. economy.
(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...
PING -- I think this is of interest to the Rudy ping list.
"For Republican candidates, the toughest litmus tests are not about any actual policy alternatives, foreign or domestic, but about "social issues." What most social issues have in common is that they are none of the federal government's business, let alone the president's.
polls show that a substantial majority of Republican voters approve of Giuliani's positions on all social issues, so the demand for ideological purity in these cases seems to require that candidates capitulate to a minority of the minority party. That does not sound like a recipe for success."
HArd to call the 2nd AMendment a "social issue". Or for that mater buying into ALgores global warming hysteria & Kyoto. Or wanting the Military to lift its ban on openly serving gays. Rudy and McCain are racing to see who can out-Gore Algore.
That won't fly in a debate with Hunter. Yep, just a bunch of pesky social issues.
Excellent article. Many of the issues that they claim he is weak on, he would have absolutely no bearing on.
I could see if he was running for Governor or Legislator or nominated to be a SCOTUS nominee but the President will never do anything meaningful on Abortion or Gay Marriage or Guns for that matter.
So do you think Rudy is going to ask Congress to repeal the 2nd Amendment?
As I said, how far detached from reality, are you, really?
I quit eating cotton candy when I became an adult.
No, he won't do that. But I can tell from your ignorant question you know little about the 2nd Amendment or Rudy's history in regards to it. In his defense, he did say "hunter's rights" would not be affected. ROFLMAO.
"Reporters compiling lists of where candidates stand on the issues could simplify the process by asking where candidates stand on issues in which a presidential decision might actually be involved -- such as avoiding wars, establishing a workable immigration policy or restraining runaway federal spending. Unless we see some gutsy political entrepreneurship, for a change, gloomy economic themes may continue to dominate Democratic primaries and social issues may dominate Republicans primaries."
Not just reporters, but VOTERs should focus on issues that the President can actually impact.
Another good article:
Thinking Hard About Voting For Rudy Guiliani
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1790236/posts
"So I could have sworn, even a few months ago, that I'd never vote for Rudy Giuliani, in spite of my deep respect for his considerable achievements as mayor. So why would I even think of changing my mind? Two things: national security, and Hillary Clinton's Supreme Court appointments.
When I ask myself, who of all the candidates in both parties do I most trust to keep me and my children safe? The answer is instantaneous, deeper than the level any particular policy debate can go: Rudy Giuliani. And when I look ahead on social issues like gay marriage, the greatest threat I see is that the Supreme Court with two or more appointments from Hillary Clinton, will decide that our Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, created a national constitutional right to whatever social liberals have decided is the latest civil rights battle. "
The presidential link to the abortion issue is the SCOTUS. That's why his stance is crucial.
So, is Arnie farming y'all out to Rooty?
"The presidential link to the abortion issue is the SCOTUS. That's why his stance is crucial."
Giuliani said he would appoint strict constructionist judges, the likes of Scalia and Alito. Ted Olson, who has known him for many years, said Rudy always believed in that.
Just what kind of judges do you think Hillary would appoint?
FO: Food for thought.
EV: I quit eating cotton candy when I became an adult.
====
Yes, I guess the Investor's Business Daily seems like "cotton candy" to you.
I only say this rarely -- "It is better to stay silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt".
Bingo! We don't want another Souter, Anthony Kennedy, or Powell (or O'Connor) appointed by a Republican President. And if they are squishy on social issues, then they will probably go liberal on the other issues so that they can be acceptable to the DC cocktail circuit. We need appointees who have strong convictions before they are appointed.
Too bad you don't take your own advice.
And his history of supporting opinions by Scalai, ROberts, Rehnquest , etc is............next to zilch. So on top of being a lib, he's a liar.
For Republican candidates, the toughest litmus tests are not about any actual policy alternatives, foreign or domestic, but about "social issues." What most social issues have in common is that they are none of the federal government's business, let alone the president's.
Good one!
But you DO want more Ruth Bader Ginsburgs appointed by a Democrat president?
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.