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.
ROFL !!!!!!
...if it does not stop, the GOP is going to lose the presidential election in 2008.
So says the mercifully adopted and beloved son of Ronald Reagan.
What keeps occurring to me is that too many Republicans actually do care more about winning a Presidential race than winning the Race of Faith Unto Everlasting Life. Is it good or right to seek to win the presidency thoughtless to what "must" be compromised? Neglecting to consider that no matter the number of compromises you have made, your victory is not guaranteed?
What does it feel like to watch the returns on election day and see the candidate for whom you compromised your principles lose anyway? - you sold your soul thinking that would get your candidate elected, but he lost, and here you are, without principles and without the presidency.
Jesus said, and it is worth remembering,
For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
~Mark 8:36
How sad that men are willing to compromise what they know is right and good, and are willing do so even without knowing for sure that such a sell-out will bring them the victory they seek.
How much better it would be to keep one's integrity, one's convictions of goodness and righteousness, and trust the outcome to Almighty God.
Everybody is serving somebody.
Who is served by the compromise of Conservative principles?
As for me and my house, like Joshua, we will serve the LORD. Amen.
"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."
Amazing, how the purists forget reality and history of the man, Reagan, a great American and president.
Does ANYONE have CREDIBLE numbers among the "super voters" and the primary candidates?
We have poll numbers for "no way will I vote for X" but do we have "super voter" numbers for those that get support in the primary?
If it turns our that the "super voter" will never vote for McCain and Guiliani in a primary then we are just wasting our time with those RINOs.
Their campaing runs are as valid as Kuchinich (IOW on the tax payer's dollar)
Reagan was first and foremost about defeating the Evil Empire and restoring fiscal integrity and respecting the taxpayer's money.
So you are telling Hydroshock and other conservatives like him (me, for example) that you don't want our vote or our opinions in "your" party? You may very well get what you wish for if you don't give other conservative views some consideration.
I think FR is a conservative web site, not a Republican web site.
Hyperbolic exaggeration is not going to change where the conservatives go.
This is the place to be.
None other comes close. And if you think this is "fringe-ville" then you haven't been very far around the Web...and it begs the question what FR-popular issues you frame as "fringe"...
Your claims as to it formerly focussing on economic and military viability are still very much a core of FR activity. But to that end, now that we are focussing on finding REAL REPRESENTATION, rather than rubber-stamping, or passively accepting, what we are being handed by a particular candidate...we are entitled to be as up-front about the axes we wish to grind as the next person.
I am coming to the conclusion that one mans "fringe" is another mans "centrist". It is an almost meaningless term. As Rush has always said. There is no such thing as a political center. None. There is only Right and Left. Anyone denying they are part of either...is being either cowardly or duplicitous.
BUMP TO THE TOP!
A breath of sanity in a world afraid-to-death-of-being-labelled-"Fringe" by RINOs and RATs.
That just isn’t rational in view of the fact that the Iraq War is incredibly unpopular amongst most people nationwide, and is the cause of 2006 losses for Republicans.
Most social liberals will vote for Clinton (or Obama or other Democratic nominee) because of their intractable opposition to the Iraq War, and because of a visceral need to retroactively repudiate Bush.
Thus, nominating a social liberal like Giuliani (or McCain or Romney) would guarantee the general election suicide of the Republican party.
And for the record, michael is a fool.
So what do people hope to gain by pushing Giuliani and trashing the pro-life, pro-marriage people? I think they hope to recreate the Republican Party of an earlier time, in the days before the Reagan Democrats go on board, a Rockefeller party that supported business interests joined to a Goldwater party that took a libertarian line on people's "private" lives.
The bottom line seems to be that those who are pushing this change despise traditional social mores and, even more, despise those who promote such values. Whether they win elections or not is beside the point.
To offer just one illustration, consider this comment from a fellow FReeper on another thread earlier today, about the supposed exodus of religious people from the GOP:
Good riddance to bad rubbish! They should have NEVER been partnered with the GOP and its small government philosophy. Brought some short term electoral success but look where we are now. Hopefully now that the "spend taxpayers money for Jesus" crew is deserting perhaps the Republican party can get back to its successful roots.I believe that's what all this Giuliani hoopla is really about.
I won't go that far. But this is the most unconservative article I've ever seen M.Reagan write. In many regards, an essay containing some foolish thoughts. Especially his remarks about Rudy Giuliani being "solidly conservative" on "every major issue". A falsehood of major proportions.
Why did you ping me to your rant?
You've heard of FISCAL conservatism, I hope.
onyx; Howlin; Mo1; Txsleuth;
I can tell you right now that the above four which includes me are not Guiliani supporters. so why did you ping us?
Your crystal ball needs cleaning, Miss Cleo.
Try reading my tag line next time before giving me a lecture
What flips out so many around here, is that about a third of the posters on this site, will vote for Rudy, as things stand now, and no amount of hectoring will change that. The only thing that will change that, plus or minus, is how issues evolve, how the polls evolve, and how the candidates present themselves, as time goes by.
What will surely fail, are hyperbolic posts that choosing one candidate or the other as the GOP nominee, will destroy the party. That is garbage, garbage, garbage. It is a stuck on stupid mentality. Only the most gullible will buy into it.
Dare I say it, but is it not time to chill out a bit?
By the way EV, you continual pinging of JimRob is just so girly man. JimRob will ban in his own time. He does not need your fingering help. He knows well just who are the usual suspects. He, and he alone, will decide just when, if ever, to push the nuke button, and cleanse this site.
The GOP wouldn't recognize a conservative if he bit them in the a$$.
GOOD post, Torie! In fact, it's excellent.
Of course, you'll get a snarky reply and if you're lucky, you might get tattled on too.
You may not be alone but you and they will get the government you all deserve. I guess having a dem as President is so much better than having even a rino like Rudy because after all, the dem will definitely listen to the republican base...right?
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.