Posted on 02/27/2007 8:58:32 AM PST by pissant
Every 4 years, to garner the nomination for their party, GOPers swerve right, and Dems swerve left, to placate their respective bases, who tend more conservative/liberal than the population at large. Makes sense, since it is usually true believers most involved in the grassroots political process. This has repeated itself for many, many election cycles.
Those that blur the lines between republican and democrat, are treated with suspicion by their bases. It could be a single issue, for example Joe Lieberman on the war, or a host of issues, such as Arnold in California. Their resultant election to office, driven largely by independents and those in the opposite party showing admiration for one of the "enemy" siding with them might be good for moderation in government, but it leaves the party in that particular state in shambles (witness california). While that is not necessarily a national tragedy if the CT dems or the CA GOP is dysfunctional, when it comes to the presidency, it would be, and both parties recognize it. It is not unprecedented in this country that one of the major parties crumbles and disappears. The GOP was on its death bed by 1976 following Nixon's resignation, our shameful abandonment of Vietnam, and the moderate Ford taking office. The few conservatives in the party were no match for the majority dems in combination with the blue blood GOPers that had long ago given up on fighting the creeping socialism, had resigned themselves to co-existence with an aggressive USSR, and were generally anchorless and powerless. But something different was brewing in CA and his name was Reagan. Not only did he espouse the Goldwater platitudes of "government is the problem", he did something else alien to the moribund GOP. He courted those who saw the radical 1960s and 1970s changes in society as alarming and anti-american and anti-God. Not only did Reagan stand tall against the liberal social tide, he ridiculed it, sometimes with humor, sometimes in scathing terms. So much so that millions of Democrats saw this man, a republican, who embodied the good of American tradition and respect for the beliefs of our forefathers, both democrat and republican, and they switched parties. Think Bill Bennett, New Gingrich, etc. The social conservatives of the bible belt quickly realized that it was the republicans that stood for God, Country, family, not the party of their lineage. The GOP elites fought back and fought back hard, using many of the same terms to describe Reagan as the dems and the MSM would in 1980. Ford won the nomination by a whisker. But the table had been set. The rest is history.
The grand coalition that Reagan created, that led to a strictly conservative platform, that led to the collpase of the USSR, that led to a new generation of fiscal AND socially conservative leaders, is now teetering. GHWB was no Reagan, yet won on his coatails, only to lose "that vision thing". Yet the coalition held steady, and he would have been reelected had the stalking horse named Perot not waltzed in. 1994 saw a strong resurgence of the coalition due to Clinton's over reach, but it has been dwindling ever since. It has been dwindling not because of the party moving closer to Reaganism, but becasue it has moved farther away from it.
Bold ideas are in short supply. In 2004, Bush set out to fix SS forever and give citizens a stake in managing THEIR money, and the GOP leadership pulled the Rug out from under him. But they did support Bush's No Child Left Behind and prescription drug plan, and did not even bother to fight for the free market parts of those bills that Bush had wanted. Bush has consistently defied the UN and world opinion, much to the betterment of American sovereignty and national interest, yet it is mostly Bush and Cheney standing alone defending their policies while the GOP leadership let the dems and the media shape the debate.
There is no Newt Gingrich in the leadership of the congress. We had Frist and Hastert, nice guys and all, but feckless and afraid of what the Washington Post said about them. When it became fashionable to bash Rumsfeld, GOPers were making a b-line to the microphone to join the chorus. When the NY Times kept leaking secret stories to the press, the GOP let the dems control the debate. When conservatives challenged milquetoast moderates in the party, the RNC almost always sided with the moderates.
So here we are now. The choice is stark. Does the GOP become the party of moderation, or do they insist on a return to Reaganism, with the unabashed, bold conservative ideas and a willingness to ridicule the party of treason. The leading candidate right now supported a communist, Mario Cuomo, for governor of his state because he had the right ideas. The leading candidate was endorsed by the NY liberal party 3 times, because he represented much of their platform. On the flip side there is a candidate that not only espouses Reaganism, but has lived and voted it. And for bold ideas, he vows to get the border fence built in 6 months, return the power of education to the states, confront China's growing militancy, boost our armed forces - including space based weaponry, and do everything in his power to see that Roe v. Wade becomes a footnote in history.
That my friend, is a powerful, positive agenda. Reaganesque, Thatcheresque, but certainly not Giuliani-ish.
Cheers
I would be more inclined to support Duncan but for 2 things: 1) I don't like his protectionist position, and 2) I don't think he can beat Hillary or Obama.
Ha!
Hunter needs to come to michigan and confront the liberals who are destroying my home.
I think that Hunter is our only hope right now.
"I think that Hunter is our only hope right now."
If you're hoping for protectionism, big government, and helping Comrade Clinton win, perhaps.
The only difference is that Rudy can win.
You must be thrilled about the impending influx of Mexican trucks on our highways!
No offense to Mr. Hunter, but he is one of the least inspiring candidates I've seen in a while. Someone said "market him as the new Ronald Reagan". That is just not going to happen. Being a nice conservative man with solid convictions just is not enough.
I saw him talking to O'Reilly about illegal immigration. First, he assured O'Reilly that the border fence WILL be built. He said it's already been funded. Then at the very end of the interview, he urged O'Reilly to put pressure on Congress to get the fence built.
I'm not sure if anyone other than me noticed the inconsistency.
Obama and Hillary are socialists. None of the RINOs are socialists.
***********
Optimist. :)
AT this point rudy is riding on a name recognition bubble. When the people who support him because of that learn his liberal positions, he's going to have a hell of a lot of trouble winning the primaries.
I don't like Hunter's big spending and after 20 years he is too much of an insider.
I don't think he will twist his buddies arms to do the dry, hard work of tort reform,tax reform,vouchers, entitlement reform runaway spending. He has certainly not led on these issues yet.
He'd prolly be good on the border and WOT.
I don't think another social conservative/fiscal liberal in the mold of W has a chance.
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2006/10/duncan_hunters_voting_record.php
JHBowden (President Giuliani in 2008! Executive branch backed abortions, gay marriages, gun control for all!)
I assume you're plugging your own candidacy right? 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.