Posted on 02/09/2007 12:30:35 PM PST by areafiftyone
Paul wrote last night about the "stature gap" that Republican Presidential candidates enjoy over their Democratic counterparts. This morning, the Washington Times, reporting on a reunion of Reagan administration alumni, describes a different sort of gap between the three front-runners and the party's conservative base:
Many conservatives say they pick "none of the above" when faced with a choice of Arizona Sen. John McCain, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani as the 2008 Republican presidential nominee.
"When I look at these top three guys, I think of Shania Twain singing 'That don't impress me much,' " said former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, referring to the popular country singer.
Such dissatisfaction with the leading Republican presidential candidates is widespread among the party's conservative stalwarts, including many of the 150 alumni of the Reagan administration who attended an annual reunion at the Heritage Foundation on Tuesday night.
It is true, as I've written before, that one oddity of this year's race is that none of the three front-runners lines up squarely with the core of the party. Each is, in one way or another, a bit off-center. Nevertheless, I find the kind of talk described by the Times grating.
For one thing, while there has always been a streak of isolationism on the right (as on the left), the international retreatism that the Times attributes to Armey and others in the group does not represent the mainstream of today's conservative movement. And the article's implication that there is some sort of conservative groundswell for Chuck Hagel, on isolationist grounds, is ridiculous: every conservative I know would rather tar and feather Hagel than nominate him.
Beyond that, when, exactly, has this country ever elected the sort of pure conservative that this group, as depicted by the Times, yearns for? These Reagan alumni have perhaps forgotten how disappointed conservatives were through most of Reagan's administration. (Remember "Let Reagan be Reagan"?) And who, if we put Reagan to one side, is the conservative paragon that the current candidates don't live up to? William McKinley, maybe? I can't think of anyone else in the last century.
The current crop of candidates is not perfect; what crop ever was? But they are strong leaders of extraordinary ability. And Giuliani, McCain and Romney are united on the key issue of our time, victory in the war against Islamic extremism. If a purer conservative wants to get into the race, fine, and I might well back him. (And, no, I'm not talking about Mike Huckabee or Sam Brownback.) But conservatives need to get over any fantasies they may harbor about the Gingrich administration that never will be and the Reagan administration that never was, and get on with the business of electing the best possible--and I do mean "possible"--candidate in 2008.
Listen if Rudy loses the nomination and Hunter wins he get 100% of my support! Simple as that.
Same goes for Romney or ((((CHOKE...GAG...WHEEZE...))) McCain!
I've said it before, but I don't get the premise that one's "principles" will not allow them to vote for a conservative-moderate candidate, but their "principles" WILL allow the to sit out the election and let the Clintons waltz back into the White House.
There's Barry Goldwater, but he's not exactly the best evidence for the idea that the way to win elections is to nominate a "true" conservative and victory will be assured.
There were many pressure groups that took credit for Reagan's 1980 victory and still believe they alone decide elections -- this despite the fact that the great 1980 victory was more due to Reagan's great campaigning skills and Carter's disastrous Presidency than to an overwhelming commitment on the part of a majority of voters to conservatism, particularly social conservatism.
Reagan was the most popular politician in the country in 1980 and 1984. Clinton had popularity and nothing else. Popularity is not necessarily the deciding factor, but it sure does help!! And who, among ALL Republicans nationally, is the most popular and respected? RUDY!!
The Twilight zone has arrived!
I've always liked Hunter, but I only even know about him from watching C-Span occasionally.
I'd have to do more research on Hunter and know more about him. So far, his PR campaign has been lackluster. As you said, that could all turn around in an instant, but in the interim, he needs to ramp it up.
I hope you're going to all the Hunter threads and talking about his policy on a variety of issues and trying to put together some links to his speeches and things so people can check him out for themselves.
Rather than wait for the President to ask Cheney to resign and Dick to accept, Duncan could become instantly famous this afternoon if he claims he fathered Anna Nicole Smith's baby.
Oh, and I meant to answer your question.
It's not being a realist. At least not for me. I've known about Rudy Giuliani for over 25 years and admired him. We used to live in CT and visit NYC frequently and had to stop in the 80's because it got so bad. I know how he took on the mob, Arafat, etc. He's fearless and that's what we need in a time of war.
His social positions don't particularly matter to me for reasons I've articulated a number of times (primarily because I think the states are better equipped to handle social issues and also because that's what conservatives USED to believe in - state's rights. I'm not sure when that all changed).
Anyway, I'm liking 3 candidates but really enjoy the Rudy threads and I think he shows positive leadership qualities and could be an oustanding president.
Goldwater's an interesting case. There really wasn't much difference between Goldwater's and Reagan's positions (maybe none), but Reagan put an appealing face on conservatism, and by the power of his own personality, and his character, he won people over to vote for him who didn't vote for Goldwater. It's clear that WHO the candidate is is about as important as what they adhere to. We can't nominate just any old "pure" conservative on the assumption that their positions alone will win the election. We need someone with the stature and (dare I say it) charisma to reach out to the vast middle of independent voters. Reagan had this ability. No conservative since has.
LOL
ROFLMAO!! OMG That is too funny!
Exactly. Voters look more to the candidate's personality and character than the political positions -- although in Clinton's case they apparently decided character didn't matter.
That's another point about those that believe Rudy would never win because of his personal life -- how can they explain Bubba's two wins? And if they respond "Ross Perot" -- don't get me started on a Friday afternoon about THAT, and how those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to live with the Clintons another eight years.
And yet we'll all suffer for their stupidity.
You've got that right! Good post. Now if we could only get rid of all those old fogies in the Congress and get some new blood in, there might be some hope for our Country.
Don't pick on old fogies; my mother would be very upset.
Did you like my post above on how Duncan Hunter can become famous today?
Ping to post 27.
I campaigned for Goldwater--I guess I am an old fogey!
He'd have to stand at the end of a very long line.
I heard your mother likes old fogies! Especially the klutzy ones! :)
I thought I was the only one!!!
Two terrible things happened that Election Day--Goldwater lost and our household goods arrived from Tokyo--after sitting on the dock in SFO for a few months--and everything was soaked and ruined!
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.