Looking for Mr. Right(Dick Cheney maybe...)

Time ^ | Jan. 4, 2007 | KAREN TUMULTY

[kellynla]

It wasn't so long ago that conservatives believed that George Bush's presidency would usher in a political realignment that would last for decades. But as the right looks forward to the next election, something close to panic is setting in. Surveying the leading G.O.P. contenders for 2008, direct-mail guru Richard Viguerie pronounces "not a one of them is worthy of support from conservatives." Says Craig Shirley, a public relations executive who represents many conservative groups and who has written a book on the Reagan revolution: "There's anger, there's angst, there's dismay in the conservative movement." Some activists, Shirley adds, have even begun talking quietly among themselves about forming a third party.

All that worry might seem premature, given that the Iowa caucuses are still a year away. But the race for the Republican nomination is already taking a shape that alarms many conservatives, especially the Evangelicals who were so crucial to Bush's re-election in 2004. None of the top three potential Republican candidates considering a bid to succeed Bush has a record that makes the right entirely comfortable. Senator John McCain originally opposed Bush's tax cuts, supports looser immigration policies, voted against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and was an architect of the deal under which Senate Democrats retained their right to filibuster Bush's judicial nominees. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is in favor of gun control, abortion rights and same-sex civil unions. And outgoing Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney espoused liberal views on gay rights and abortion when he was running for office in Massachusetts, though he has disavowed them as he has moved into national politics. Many conservatives had high hopes for Virginia's George Allen and Pennsylvania's Rick Santorum--until they lost their Senate re-election races last year.

[Hildy]

meanwhile, they're all in office (except Guiliani who was term limited out). Thank you for making my case.

[rockrr]

Hildy is right.

"Conservatives" who stayed home last time gave us an unwitting (and dimwitted) preview of the likely outcome of '08. Because too many weren't unwilling to compromise with an unpalatable set of choices, the balance of power shifted. Those who shouted "I refuse to vote for a "RINO" (codespeak for anyone they don't like)" treated themselves and their neighbors to the taste of defeat.

"Rudy is a RINO. He cannot energize 30% of the US electorate which is conservative."

Sorry, but there may be 30% of the electorate who are Republicans, but conservatives are but a portion of that number (remember the GOP as the "big tent party"?). Now it may or may not be true that Rudy can energize enough support to win the race (He definitely isn't my first choice!), but unless we suspend our inter-party differences, no one that we put up will beat the Dhimmicrats. They ARE energized after their "big win", and are gullible enough to believe that they are "fated" to win.

"No conservative will vote for a RINO candidate, just because he wears a red tie."

You can count me among them. I steadfastly refuse to vote for ANYONE because they wear a red tie (I hate them!), but I'd rather vote for a "RINO" before throwing my vote away (or giving my country away).

The problem is that by the time we eliminate everyone that anyone calls "RINO", what we end up with is UNELECTABLE. Sad fact, but fact nonetheless.

Put up the very best that you can, promote the heck outta him, but don't pout and have a tantrum if (more like when if he's too extreme) he doesn't survive the primary.

Who knows - I may even hold myself to my own advice and (gasp!) pull the lever if McPain gets the nod (I can't believe I said that!).

"RINOplasty has taken on a whole new meaning."

Nope. Still means the same thing - cutting off your nose...

[Lexinom]

Cheney/Hunter

A lot of people would have a lot of fun with that one :-)

That said, that would be a dream ticket, and probably a winner.

[Hildy]

that would be a dream ticket, and probably a winner.

May I ask you a question? Exactly what Country do you live in?

[Lexinom]

Cheney, Hunter, and Brownback are in office.

I see a lot of people on this thread demanding that we get used to and get over mass child-dismemberment posited as casual "choice", to accept the grabbing of our arms, and to embrace the Hispanicization of America. Given the choice between a gradual evolution toward that leftist utopia (frog-in-boiling-water paradigm) or a sudden submersion into four years of Hillary Hell as a wake-up call followed by the ascension of a Reagan conservative, I would take the latter. Looking long-term, the net result of the second option may in fact be better because it would draw out the antithesis between good and evil all the more starkly.

That said, I'd support any of the GOP candidates with the exception of Rudy and possibly McCain.

[Lexinom]

Sometimes it seems like Mexico.

[Hildy]

I didn't say "WE" as in here on FreeRepublic. I was saying WE, as in this country in general.

[EternalVigilance]

meanwhile, they're all in office

So are tons of Democrats. Big deal.

[Hildy]

You said it all. Unfortunately, the people here are stuck in the 1970's, thinking Ronald Reagan is just around the corner. And he's not. The country has changed immensely in the past 30 years. There are some here who just don't want to admit it.

[Lexinom]

You said it all. Unfortunately, the people here are stuck in the 1970's, thinking Ronald Reagan is just around the corner. And he's not. The country has changed immensely in the past 30 years. There are some here who just don't want to admit it.

Or accept it. You are correct. There are some of us who are willing to admit we are held to absolute standards of right and wrong, every bit as ingraved on every heart as the Pythagorean theorem and Newtonian physics are ingrained in the ontology of the physical world. Were it not so, we would be like animals with no sense of justice nor any concept of culture, devoid of ultimate purpose.

There are others with no such moral moorings - or more precisely, a denial of the moral sense stamped on every heart. For them, the devolution of society into increasing decadance is touted as "progress". Thus they view those in the first group as unreasonably inflexible, not accounting for different epistomological starting points.

So you can see that the real root of the debate goes much deeper than politics, and is part of the epic struggle that has been waged since the beginning of history.

[bannie]

Can Lynn be his running mate?

:-)

[bannie]

I reject Newt for a couple of reasons: One, he's damaged goods, politically, due to his own personal failures.

I think that's sort of a self-fulfilling worry. He's damaged because we allow the left to SAY he's damaged. He's certainly not pure; but I see him as an excellent feduciarily-conservative leader.

[Hildy]

what a bunch of crap.

[bannie]

You can't just sit by and refuse to participate if you find fault with all of the candidates. Sometimes you just have to vote for the best of the choices, or you'll get the worst.

[Lexinom]

See #165

[trumandogz]

See Dick Run!

[bannie]

:-)
OK

[oldbrowser]

Neither will suffice. The '08 nominee must be a warrior for secure borders and the enforcement of our immigration laws, or he will lose.

Looks like we are going to break up into a bunch of single issue "mini-parties". We have a lot of issues and they can't all be the number one priority. Our only hope is to find our most capable candidate, throw our support behind him (her?)and let them take on the problems as best they can.

[Lexinom]

I'm concerned about that too. The scale seems to be from, on one side, the highest concentration of ideological purity to, on the other, the broadest appeal.

The situation is a little like the Laffer curve: A victory for a candidate who stands for little or nothing of what conservatives believe is hollow, but a candidate who embodies conservatism but upsets some constituencies by ideas or personal won't prevail.

I've dealt with the former (the vanilla candidate) earlier in this thread. The questions becomes, how much can we get and still win.

The libs are in the same boat - their ideologically-pure Hillary Rodham would have a tough time in the general... if she were to face one opponent.

Therefore, we need to avoid balkanization but retain enough of our priciple to make the ensuing victory meaningful.

[rockrr]

I highly admire and respect Richard Cheney. To me, his has been the "adult voice" amongst the chattering of many children. that said, Cheney won't run, so he's a moot point.

Hunter and Brownback are both long-shots IMO. Neither have the stature, the background, or the name recognition. I'm not saying they can't win, I'm just saying that it would be a long, hard, uphill, extreme outside long-shot for either of them.

McPain is a ringer that the drive-by media is boosting. His success pre-primary would fracture the Republican party, thus guaranteeing a win for whichever Dhimmicrat that they put up. He carries more baggage than Amtrak and is (once again IMO) unhinged on a good day.

"Given the choice between a...(fallacy of a false choice) I would choose (D) - none of the above."

I never have and never will support a liberal. Fortunately I've never had to. Consistent with my last post, I will work to support the most conservative candidate that I can (which means including that I think can win). But when it comes down the the final vote, I'll always pull the lever for the Republican because the alternate is unthinkable. Where I live the Republicans lean to moderate. I hate it, but recognize that what it is, is what it is. The alternative is the Dhimmicrats which are VERY liberal. My choice is easy ;'}