Posted on 02/24/2007 10:59:07 PM PST by FairOpinion
Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen laments the fact that candidates are under heavy pressure to tailor their beliefs (or rhetoric) to "get past ideological bottlenecks" in early primary states:
"For Republicans, it's the religious right; for Democrats, it's economic pressure groups such as teachers unions. The rest of us can only stand by, helpless, waiting for extremists to pick a man or woman on the basis of issues that mean less to us."
For Republican candidates, the toughest litmus tests are not about any actual policy alternatives, foreign or domestic, but about "social issues." What most social issues have in common is that they are none of the federal government's business, let alone the president's.
The federal government will never pass a law banning or permitting abortion, so a presidential candidate's opinion on that subject has no practical relevance.
The federal government will never pass a law banning or prohibiting states and religious organizations from defining marriage, and presidents cannot enact constitutional amendments, so gay marriage is not a federal issue, either.
Licensing of handguns is mainly a local issue, and no candidate is about to push for ending the federal ban on machine guns and assault rifles.
...polls show that a substantial majority of Republican voters approve of Giuliani's positions on all social issues, so the demand for ideological purity in these cases seems to require that candidates capitulate to a minority of the minority party. That does not sound like a recipe for success.
In the general election, however, the winner will emphasize concrete ideas about those issues a president can actually affect and be properly optimistic about the wondrous U.S. economy.
(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...
Ignoring the real pressure group is the Sheehan wing of the demonrat party. Soros funded and determined to bring downt he United States of America, sooner rather than later.
I'm sure you're referring to Rudy. Rudy is not my favorite candidate, but you are correct. His positions on topics that offend conservative Republicans would not affect his running the country. But too many people on this forum and elsewere demand ideological perfection. Which means that a ideological pure candidate might be nominated in 2008. And get crushed by Hillary.
I personally don't agree with Rudy on those hot button social issues, but he is electable. The main reason is that he is right on economics and defense, and simply many apolitical Americans like Rudy. Many times the election comes down to that. Likability. Nobody knows who Mitt Romney is. When nominating a candidate, the ability of a candidate to actually win the election has to be accounted for. I hope Republican delegates keep this in mind next year.
bump for later reading, adding Duncan Hunter keyword
Tells us something about how Republican Catholics feel, but what about Republicans in general? If the Social Conservatives aren't even in tune with the rest of Republican voters, what chance does a candidate who meets Social Conservative standards have in a general election?
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.