Posted on 02/16/2007 8:30:44 AM PST by meg88
The GOP Should Dump Its Litmus Test By Michael Reagan FrontPageMagazine.com | February 16, 2007
The philosopher Diogenes is said to have wandered around ancient Greece holding a lantern and seeking to find an honest man.
My fellow Republicans, sans lanterns, are now wandering around the political landscape seeking to find the perfect Republican presidential candidate.
I don’t know if Diogenes ever found that honest man, but I do know that those Republicans are never going to find the perfect candidate, simply because he does not exist.
Some Republicans insist that the only perfect candidate would be a clone of my Dad, Ronald Reagan. Aside from the fact that there is no such thing, it’s important to recognize that Ronald Reagan, as he often admitted, was anything but perfect.
One of the criticisms about former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney focuses on his record concerning the abortion issue. We are told by the modern day Diogenes clones that he can’t be trusted to fight abortion because he once, more or less, supported a woman’s right to butcher her baby.
It may come as a surprise to these purists, but Ronald Reagan once supported abortion too. Yet nobody ever questioned his strong pro-life credentials after his conversion to Republicanism. They accepted his sincerity. Why can’t they accept Mitt Romney’s?
Romney’s record shows he should be totally acceptable to all conservatives, yet because of one dubious question concerning the validity of his conversion to the pro-life side, he is deemed unsuitable to carry the conservative banner.
The same is true of Rudy Giuliani. On every major issue, he is a solidly conservative and extraordinarily adept executive, but because he backs abortion and some form of gun control, America’s mayor -- the hero of 9/11 and the man who did the impossible by cleaning up New York -- is all but ruled out as a 2008 candidate.
Not one of the major candidates is free of some real or imagined flaw that offends some conservatives.
This is madness, and if it does not stop, the GOP is going to lose the presidential election in 2008. In the search for the perfect candidate we are going to end up with an imperfect candidate. Keep in mind the truism that agreement with someone on most issues and disagreement on others is seen as normal, but should you agree with someone on every single issue imaginable … well… to put it plainly, psychologists say you’re nuts.
I recently got a letter from a conservative Christian organization that asked me if the current GOP candidates are the best the Republican Party has to offer.
“Is it possible that GOP conservative ranks are this thin?” the letter writer asked. “Has the GOP nothing better to offer? Should not pro-family pro-life voters also want a low taxes and limited government candidate before they vigorously support him? Increased taxes and expanded government hurts everyone. Was Ronald Wilson Reagan an anomaly and did he represent the values of his party?
“These GOP candidates,” the letter instructed me, “are little better than Bob Dole, Gerald Ford, or [George] H.W. Bush. Did anyone notice they all lost?”
This makes me wonder if anybody can stand up to the litmus test these people are applying to candidates.
Ronald Reagan had one litmus test he applied to candidates. Were they Republicans? If they were he backed them all the way. He would let the party choose the candidate and he would support and vote for the candidate. He didn’t go sniffing around trying to find some flaw in their character or their past. Once nominated, they were his choice.
And nobody was more candid in admitting that he was anything but perfect than my Dad. He knew that like all men, he had his flaws and he spent a lifetime combating them. Had today’s GOP litmus test been seriously applied to him, he could not have passed the test.
The Democrats don’t have litmus tests. If the nominee is a Democrat, they support their candidate all the way, and if they lose it isn’t because they didn’t fight like demons for their man or woman.
If we want to win in 2008, Republicans had better wake up, and quit talking Ronald Reagan and start being like Ronald Reagan.
The Democrats don’t have litmus tests. If the nominee is a Democrat, they support their candidate all the way, and if they lose it isn’t because they didn’t fight like demons for their man or woman.
You're forgetting about Perot and Nader.
EXACTLY!! Why are we talking about party loyalty IN THE PRIMARIES?!
Ping!!!
Michael Reagan at least speaks the TRUTH about his father...that he was NOT the "PERFECT POTUS"....
I pray that those on this site that keep cramming that lie down the throats of those of us that keep him in perspective..rather than beatifying him..
Hitlery is our worst case scenario.
The nation is very divided now and someone to either extreme of ideology is doomed to failure in the national election.
I guess Hillary might as well throw in the towel then.
News to you... France became what it is due to the "unimportant" social issues long before the WOT. Their response to the WOT is just a symptom of their slide...
"This makes me wonder if anybody can stand up to the litmus test these people are applying to candidates."
YES!!! http://www.gohunter08.com/Home.aspx
((((PING))))
I never understand someone when they say they will stay home or go 3rd party etc....I wonder if as children if they didn't get their way they would pick up their toys and go home......in my mind, yes, vote for the conservative you like in the primaries....but if let's say a Rudy wins, they think we'd be better off with Hillary......ludicrous.... some just act like spoiled kids.....
If that's true, I could support him.
That's a mighty big if.
I pinged the usual. This is great!
If your analysis is correct [for the sake of argument], you don't need us in '08. You and the "moderates" and "independents" will sweep Rudy into power and keep the White House. I'll just keep my principles.
If the Republican Paty drops its Por-life position, then I'm done with the party.
believe it or not, dyed-in-the-wool hard left democrats cannot STAND hillary, think she is a sell-out and way too centrist, and they will work to try to keep her from being the nominee. hard to believe, but true.
"Ronald Reagan had one litmus test he applied to candidates. Were they Republicans? If they were he backed them all the way. He would let the party choose the candidate and he would support and vote for the candidate. He didn’t go sniffing around trying to find some flaw in their character or their past.
if we don't come together behind the nominated candidate whoever it may be we lose.
There's a simple solution, nominate someone that we can come together behind.
It's really quite simple.
Reagan was a Democrat when he supported abortion; Romney was a Republican when he supported abortion. The former is expected; the latter is not.
I agree. I am focused on one issue right now and that is the war on terrorism and how a candidate will handle it. In a way, nothing else matters right now.
Great sumation... ;^)
I don't have to have a candidate that is 100% in agreement with me, but Rudy is about 5%. The WOT is about the only issue I can agree with him on.
So far the top of the GOP pack does suck...
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.