Geeze. Life isn't perfect, you know. You have a right to vote, not a right to have the person you absolutely think is the best have a statistically even chance of winning the election. It is a rough and tumble system that rewards, uh, smart politicians.
Speaking for myself, you assume a lot of false things regarding motivations and beliefs. Further, it is factually erroneous and emotionally insulting (or it would be to me) for you to describe those who disagree with you as stubbornly searching for "the perfect" candidate and of being so sissified that we don't recognize or understand your "rough and tumble" system.
It is so rough-and-tumble and your kind of thinking misunderstands it so thoroughly, in fact, that such thinking has allowed fear to rough-and-tumble the Republican party into Big Government Liberal Lite over the past 30 years. Yes, you should know all about rough-and-tumble, because you've most certainly been rolled.
I have, too. The difference is, I've figured it out. You have yet to get the big picture.
Thanks Finny. I appreciate your thoughtful comments. I’m sorry if mine were taken as insensitive.
You know, I agree that the GOP is liberal lite. I’m not happy about it. I’m interested in constructive ways to address it.
But in the context of this race I think the reasons we don’t have a more conservative front runner, in rough order of importance are:
1.) No excellent more conservative candidate stepped forward.
2.) The ones that did step forward were marginal in terms of background.
3.) They underperformed. (Except Ron Paul, who overperformed)
I would add reason 0.) above them all: we are a more liberal country in many respects than we were 30 years ago. The Republicans want a hand in governing. We have a two party system, and inevitably both parties try to sit on the middle of where the voters are to get to 50+1% and win.
Thus neither major party is ideologically pure. For a while, we had a tiny bit of momentum to roll back FDR’s restructuring of America (say Newt’s Contract as the high water mark), but we blew it. Some of the most ideological Republicans blew it the worst. (Including the Clinton impeachment which totally killed the smaller government momentum in Congress.)
I recently re-read “The Conscience of A Conservative”. Goldwater sold a few million copies of the paperback when running for office in 1964. It is interesting to read. Most of the things that he is disputing are completely settled. He argues against special union laws. He argues against much of the 1964 Civil Rights laws.
As long as we have Social Security we are saying to citizens “It is the governments job to take care of you”. At least some of the time. (When you are young, old, unemployed, have babies you can’t afford, sick, retired or can’t afford your medicine).
When was the last time you heard someone seriously argue for eliminating social security? Bush wanted to let people under 40 put 20% in stocks.
That was demagogued like he was proposing putting swastikas on the flag. Even 30 years ago you could still talk about whether Social Security made sense.
So, with all that in mind I have little patience for people proposing that George Soros is controlling the timing of primaries. Hey, he doesn’t need to work that issue!
If my tone conveyed exasperation it was with the extremely tenditious arguments and confused issue jumping of the orginal article.