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?...

[Pelham]

That sounds a good deal like a replay of Norman Angell's The Great Illusion.

[Torie]

Great movie.

[AmishDude]

Protectionism is particularly unsuccessful in America. With respect to any good, the overwhelming majority of Americans are consumers. So, lower prices are always popular. But smaller countries sometimes depend on one industry. So their politicans can make a much better case for protecting that industry. They can demagogue the US every time and get away with it, even if they hurt their own economy doing so.

[zbigreddogz]

Then report me. I double dare you.

[zbigreddogz]

I assume you mean Giuliani, and you are incorrect, I do not support Giuliani at this time, although morons like you are making me rethink my position.

And just what is the 'plain meaning' of the second amendment? I consider myself a solid second amendment supporter, certainly to Giuliani's right, that's one of the reasons I'm not supporting him now. That said, I'm guessing you are one of those people who think that the second amendment means you have the right as a private citizen to own a nuclear bomb. That's not the 'plain meaning', that's just stupid.

[zbigreddogz]

Hagel hasn't announced that he's running. All of the people Medved mentioned have announced. Hagel won't if he has half a brain.

[soccermom]

"Reagan, to whatever degree he practiced pragmatism, never allowed it to trump his principles." Don't be ridiculous. He signed abortion into law in California, despite pro-life principles. He allowed the deficit to grow, despite his principles against big government spending. He granted amnesty to illegals, despite his principles of respect for the law. Clearly Reagan didn't want to do those things and, in a perfect world, he wouldn't have had to. Pragmatism is all about having to compromise one's principles for a greater goal. Reagan is beloved because (a) he was a great communicator (b) he was able to get the "big things" done --- defeated communism and restored our economy and (c) he got those things done by working with the opposition party and -gasp- compromising on occasion.

[Kevmo]

Thanks for the discussion about principles versus pragmatism. To answer your question, no, that cannot be said about Tricky Dick. Interestingly, Reagan's biggest headache, Iran-Contra, arose because he chose to deal with Iranians and trust them to keep their mouths shut. I think he was sliding a little with respect to his principles on that one. Other than that, it was a pretty good plan to supply an army in the field.

[dirtboy]

Those that think they are the "true" conservatives had better figure out that they comprise about 1/5 of the electorate. They better enlarge the tent, unless they like being powerless.

Reagan enlarged the tent because of his conservatism, not in spite of it.

[SaxxonWoods]

"Reagan enlarged the tent because of his conservatism, not in spite of it."

No, with respect, I don't think that explains it.

Reagan enlarged the tent because of his Americanism, which took the edge off Democrat and Independent views of his conservatism.

He was conservative, but didn't use "Vote for me, you traitorous liberal morons!" as a campaign slogan.

That's the thing about politics, you must sugarcoat your message to win a national election. Reagan was a charmer, and could push his conservatism without turning off moderates. That is an art.

John Edwards is getting a similar lesson now, not that it will help him.

[Kevmo]

True enough. When I put myself in the Reagan Administration's shoes at that time in those circumstances, I can't come up with a much better plan. Their assistance in Afghanistan to harrass the soviets worked pretty good, maybe I would have looked for some kind of alternatives there.

[soccermom]

"Even though it involved dealing with the unsavory Iranians, it ultimately served Reagan's/America's principles of fighting Communism and winning another front in the Cold War." You've just defined Reagan as a pragmatist. Reagan compromised some of his principles -- as any effective politician would -- in order to achieve a greater goal. Likewise, Reagan had to compromise his principle of cutting the deficit in order to build up the military, which served the bigger picture of defeating communism. Reagan was a great leader who occasionally had to let his principles slide. There is no shame in that. It helped him to be a great leader and it would be unfair to handicap our current GOP leaders with the unrealistic notion that they must never compromise their principles.

[soccermom]

"Just today I sent a contribution to the Ron Paul 08 exploratory committee." I guess that means Cindy Sheehan is thrilled with you.