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.
Nothing was wrong with it. Except the GOP establishment was livid. Ask yourself WHY he challenged Ford
that is precisely the point, onyx. those quoting the supposed 11th commandment want to impose it NOW, during the PRIMARIES. clearly that's nonsensical.
FGS -- heretofore, I really thought you were smarter. FR polls are fun, but meaningless.
As for your second contention, I have already posted about that to you.
Who was that?
Actually, the jury is still very much out on that.
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.
Good point, why prostitute yourself for someone that doesn't need your vote. These articles are being put out because Rudy knows he needs the conservatives and he sees that they aren't buying his sudden lurch right in his empty promises.
That's what the Rudy fanatics are thinking and hoping for. Now, in recent history a Republican has never won the presidency without solid support from the social conservatives, and I don't think Rudy can do it either. If he does, then it's a very major shift in the political landscape.
I agree. That was pathetic. Even more pathetic than Rudy's announcing his intention to divorce in a 'press conference' before telling his wife (pretty pathetic there too).
He wanted to be president, that's why. He thought he had better ideas and he was right. His chance came 4 years later, but he supported Ford, once Ford was the nominee.
This isn't rocket science.
Reagan didn't create the 11th commandment. California state GOP chairman Gaylord Parkinson created that slogan in 1966 during the race for Governor. It was meant to counter the attacks on Ronald Reagan from his GOP primary opponent, liberal San Francisco Mayor, George Christopher. For the next ten years that slogan remained dormant in the political arena. To my knowledge Reagan didn't use it.
In 1976, Reagan challenged Pres Ford for the GOP nomination. Reagan savaged the Pres with attacks on both Ford`s domestic and foreign policy agenda. Ford`s people attacked Reagan as a cowboy, unfit to be POTUS. This contentious campaigning went on through the primaries and into the GOP convention. In the primaries, Ford won 15 states and Reagan won 12 states in the closet primary election phase in US history. Ford beat Reagan for the nomination, 1187 delegate votes to 1070. Reagan lost the nomination by 60 votes!
My point being, not criticizing and/or attacking your political opponent has not been the case throughout US political history. That includes the political campaigns of Ronald Reagan. The Founding Fathers were real good at taking down their political opponents too. People should look at US history.
"The personal attacks against me during the primary finally became so heavy that the state Republican chairman, Gaylord Parkinson, postulated what he called the Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican. It's a rule I followed during that campaign and have ever since."
~~~ Ronald Reagan
..maybe .....I was just responding to the fact that you said there were no candidates and there were.....that is all
Oh my. Wow!
As for Rudy, he is telling me before hand that he is a pro-illegal alien, pro big government, pro gun control, pro homosexual union, etc etc liberal!!
There is no way in hell I can vote for this guy.
I heard him on Hannity's show and he was bouncing around like a rubber ball.
People who despise Hitlery for doing the same thing are now going to vote for Rudy because he's a RINO?
Perhaps he was a good mayor. That point, true or not, is beside the bigger point, and that is:
He is an enemy of the 2nd Amendment and his ACTIONS indicate that he will attack my right to keep and bear arms. I will not be disarmed as long as I have breath and ammunition, much less willingly by voting for him. If the Beast of Two Tongues and Bad Pantsuits is elected, then it will be also against my will. I have drawn a line over which I will not be dragged. My vote will not go to anyone who would disarm me.
As for romney, he's a desperation pick by some conservatives that want conservative representation. Allen was their first default choice, but he self-destructed. The difference here is that Romeny has magically become a conservative in just four years. Conveniently when he decided his furture in MASS politics was up.
Michael is a conservative, but he's being driven by fear right now. I'm not. For the record, Michale, i am supporting someone who is not a perfect conservative. He's a bit of a protectionist on free trade and voted for some entitlement programs. But he's head and shoulders above the Mavericks, Liberals and enigmas running right now that we're just supposed to swallow.
Even anti-moderate democrat.. which is what a RINO IS anyway..
I don't have to go sniffing around a garbage can to recognize that it's garbage. We're in the primaries. Now is not the time to be cracking the whip of party loyalty, it's the time to be fleshing out our best candidate. I will be fighting for a conservative candidate until the primaries are settled.
By the way, in this age of MSM garbage-digging, I'd rather find the flaw in our candidate possibilities BEFORE he becomes our betrothed. The left will surely dig stuff up after...
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.