Posted on 03/08/2007 9:04:04 AM PST by presidio9
THE axiom is as old as human striving: The per fect is the enemy of the good. In politics, this means that insisting on perfection in a candidate interferes with selecting a satisfactory one.
Which is why the mood of many of the 6,300 people, lots of them college age, who registered at last week's Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, was unreasonably morose. Sponsored annually by the American Conservative Union, CPAC is the conservative movement's moveable feast. Many at CPAC seemed depressed by the fact, as they see it, that the top three Republican candidates - John McCain, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani - are flawed. Such conservatives should conduct a thought experiment.
Suppose someone seeking the presidential nomination had, as a governor, signed the largest tax increase in his state's history and the nation's most permissive abortion law. And by signing a law institutionalizing no-fault divorce, he had unwittingly but substantially advanced an idea central to the campaign for same-sex marriages - the minimalist understanding of marriage as merely a contract between consenting adults to be entered into or dissolved as it suits their happiness.
Question: Is it not likely that such a presidential aspirant would be derided by some of today's fastidious conservatives? A sobering thought, that, because the attributes just described were those of Ronald Reagan.
Now, consider today's three leading candidates, starting with McCain, the mere mention of whose name elicited disapproving noises at CPAC. This column holds the Olympic record for sustained dismay about McCain's incorrigible itch to regulate political speech ("campaign-finance reform"). But it is not incongruous that he holds Barry Goldwater's Senate seat.
McCain, whose career rating from ACU is 82 (100 being perfect), voted in 2003 against the prescription-drug entitlement because
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Funny how they always need to attack Reagan to make MittMcRudy look better...
If you're waiting for a guy who could win but is not running, the candidate is Santorum. If you're looking for a guy who could win and will run, the answer is Gingrich.
Different headline. Please pull.
Straw man argument.
Very few people insist on a perfect candidate. But most people -- at least those with principles -- have a certain threshold which a politician must meet in order to be considered minimally acceptable, or, as Will puts it, satisfactory.
For me, Rudy and Romney fail to meet even minimum qualifications for acceptability.
So how does Santorum get destroyed in his own state in a Senate race and then go on to win the presidency?
What are you smoking?
If the new trend is for Socials to now grab the title "only true conservatives", thereby kicking the people who believe in live or let live out of the conservative camp -- how small will this new 'conservative' camp be?
It is possible to be pro-choice and still be a Conservative.
Will doen't mind gun grabbers. I do.
A gun grabber is not merely "imperfect", he is INTOLERABLE!
It is possible to be pro-choice and still be a Conservative.
It's early and there's time for someone to work to win us over. There's a lot to like about Fred, although I have a similar concern that I have for Duncan Hunter - what executive expertise do they bring to the table?
Remember Newt before 1994? He was awesome. He took no prisoners - just pounded the issue.
He used to be rock solid, great ideas. But he didn't do as well as an actual leader- he couldn't handle the dirt that the Dems were dishing. Well that's a problem if you are looking for a President. Since his resignation, it seems that the members of both houses have been wobblier on conservative issues.
There are several considerations in choosing a leader of this country. It's up to those in or considering joining the race to do the work and make the case to us.
Dick Cheney....Jon Kyl!!
Crap on any one of those groups, and your chance of winning drops.
What are you smoking?
Santorum faced a political perfect storm. He faced the son of a very popular former governor who was running as a social conservative. The only thing he had to run on was his support of the war, which had become very unpopular. In a national election, Santorum would have little problem carrying Pennsylvania. That alone would probably be enough to win him the election.
He may not have been an executive, but he could play one on televiion.
Your theory is off the charts wishful thinking.
It is not 1980.
Absolutely. Rudy will have to make it clear he won't pass any federal anti-gun legislation if he wants to win the R nomination.
He's already said things to that effect, and he's known for speaking what he really means, so we'll see.
:-) LOL Good one. He already has, on Law and Order.
As I said, I like him. But he has a lot to tell if he wants to run and win.
As does Duncan Hunter- he's in the case and he has to show that he has the management/executive ability.
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.