Do Vanity Candidates Really Have a Chance? (Michael Medved)

Michael Medved's Townhall Blog ^ | February 8, 2007 | Michael Medved

[EveningStar]

Two days ago, in blogging about the abortion records of the serious GOP Presidential prospects (McCain, Giuliani, Romney), I provoked a great deal of anger by writing off the other current contenders (Huckabee, Brownback, Tancredo, Ron Paul, Gilmore, Thompson, Duncan Hunter) as "lesser" candidates who stand no realistic chance of winning primaries or grabbing the nomination. No matter how much you may admire these people, their candidacies are irrelevant – more a bid for attention, or a preparation for future races, than a realistic bid for power...

When, in the last 60 years of Presidential politics, did any obscure underdog manage to defy the odds and win the nomination of the Republican Party?...

[Tom D.]

It is pretty clear that Giuliani will be the Republican nominee for 2008. The National Review did not endorse him this week, but it tipped its hat to him. Medved's take is essentially correct: Republicans anoint a candidate and the anointed guy wins the nomination. Giuliani has adequately addressed the abortion question: He says that abortion is a political issue, not a Constitutional issue. Any fair reading of the Constitution would agree. Of course, his politics would say that statutes should allow a lot more abortions than we would, but if that issue is relegated to state legislatures, then the issue should be a dead letter for the Federal government.

Giuliani's gun control views are another matter. Of course, they are much less draconian than the views of any of the Dem. Presidential hopefuls.

My take is that in 2006 we sent some message to so called moderate Republicans that we will sit on our hands when it is appropriate. On the other hand, when sitting on our hands delivers the next 30 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence into the hands of the Dems, the situation is much different.

I guess that the long and the short of it boils down to this: I went to a wedding reception about 5 years ago. We went through some ritual to decide on which couple at the reception had been married the longest (>50 years). The husband in that marriage gave this piece of advice to the groom: "Decide right now, do you prefer to be right or do you prefer to be happy?".

That old guy was right. I had been married for more than 20 years at the time to a woman who knew a lot about the world. We often disagreed. She is more hard core conservative; I am more hard core Libertarian; nevertheless, for the most part we agree, and it is clear that our marriage will last in a very happy state until one of us drops dead.

I suspect that the constituite parts of the Republican Parth need to ask themselves the same question. We have the same traditional conservative views and the same Libertarian views as my wife and I have. There are some differences, but the world view is essentially the same.

2008 is not going to be the year of the hard line right, but God has not decreed that it will be the year of the hard line left either. It is up to us to descide. I for one am willing to believe Giuliani that he is happy to have a process and to live with the result than to risk process and result to the Dems.

[Junior_G]

It was a freuidian slip, I added the extra "N" to stand for "Nazi sympathizer."

LOL Yes...let the hatred flow, zbigreddogz...call people you don't agree with Nazis...

[staytrue]

Property tax rates in Iowa by the way are quite high for homes. For farms, well, that is another subsidy as it were!

Also true in Ohio.

[zbigreddogz]

I wouldn't have called him (excuse me, you) a Nazi if he hadn't said that Nazi's weren't really a threat to us before they declared war on us.

[WestVirginiaRebel]

Apparently, he's cloned himself several times on this thread : )

[pollyannaish]

Actually, there is a difference between the two in my opinion, although they are sometimes used interchangeably.

A koolaid drinker is a person who has bought into the party line without critical thought. A bot is a person who has fallen into the clutches of the cult of personality. Same result of course, but a different path to irrationalville.

Most of the time however it simply means "You must be an idiot because you don't agree with my infallible analytical abilities." So its hard to take either slur too seriously.

[AmishDude]

I wouldn't rule out McCain or Romney. The funny thing is that all of the indicators -- money, organization -- seem to be leading us to the notion that McCain really isn't taking this all that seriously. I think Romney could out-campaign Guiliani head-to-head, but he has a bigger hurdle.

[staytrue]

My take is that in 2006 we sent some message to so called moderate Republicans that we will sit on our hands when it is appropriate. On the other hand, when sitting on our hands delivers the next 30 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence into the hands of the Dems, the situation is much different.

I hate to tell you this, but the senate judiciary has a lot to say about scotus appointments and we need to win 23 out of 33 senate seats in 2008 just to get to 50. Further only 2 of the 12 democrat incumbents look even remotely beatable (landrieu and brain aneurysm Johnson).

[Junior_G]

Interesting logic there. I actually read (pardon me—wrote) that book, and it was not argued that we should not have gone to war with the Nazis. The argument that got Buchanan in the most trouble was his assertion that, in hindsight, it would have been better to let the Nazis and Soviets kill each other off a bit more before we moved in. Not unreasonable, but to thin-skinned rubes it's enough to make him a Nazi himself.

[Torie]

In fact, I can't think of any conservative figure with an IQ higher than the current outdoor temperature who is anti-free trade. Can you?

What do you think Duncan Hunter's IQ is? Remember, he is a lawyer, so don't get nasty.

By the way, did you know that:

"Chomskyan models have been used as a theoretical basis in several other fields. The Chomsky hierarchy is often taught in fundamental computer science courses as it confers insight into the various types of formal languages. This hierarchy can also be discussed in mathematical terms[14] and has generated interest among mathematicians, particularly combinatorialists. A number of arguments in evolutionary psychology are derived from his research results."

[pollyannaish]

Good list. And we should probably should toss Sowell in that mix as well.

[staytrue]

who is up for the senate in 2008

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G06/SenateByClass.phtml

frankly, we will be lucky to hold at 49.

[upsdriver]

Well, if that's your hope, then nominate Guilianni.

[CyberAnt]

Oh Geeeeeeez! Pardon me your highness!

Guess that's why I DON'T LISTEN TO MEDVED!!

[CyberAnt]

"... bill sponsorship ..."


What does that have to do with his voting record ..?? NOTHING!!!

How many bills he sponsored doesn't even have a rating!

THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE MISSING !!

[ichabod1]

I'm not going to read this whole thread, but I do want to say this: People say Gingrich doesn't have a chance because he had an affair. He is a choir boy compared to the skeletons Giuliani has in his closet.

I like Medved ok, but I'm not going to carry his train. If he's right he took the safe bet.

[CyberAnt]

"... find out more about him ..."

Excuse me .. I live in San Diego .. his district .. I think a know a little bit more than you do about him.

And .. as the former head of the San Diego Chapter of FreeRepublic.com .. I think I know a little teeny bit about "how politics works".

Don't you people ever get tired of insulting people and acting like you know everything ..??

As for MONEY - SOROS SPENT 23 MILLION AND HE DIDN'T GET JOHN KERRY ELECTED. Hello!!

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

[soccermom]

It isn't about "politics over principle". It is about pragmatism. Medved just laid out the historical realities. If you don't like the message, fine. But don't blame the messenger.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]