We seem to have people who still misunderstand the primary system, both in our CapQ community and in the national political movements on the Right. Over the last couple of weeks, we have had grand ultimatums from a couple of factions which have demanded a particular type of nominee, or else the faction leaders claim they will depart the Republican Party. A few commenters have asserted the same ultimatum in the comments on this blog. It shows a lack of understanding not just of the primary process but also in how to build the necessary political coalitions that result in agendas getting addressed.
First, primaries serve as a testing mechanism for the various factions that make up the major political parties. Each faction gets a chance to convince a standard-bearer to run for President (as well as Senator, Governor at the state level, and so on). Primary campaigns allow these groups to make their best argument to the people with whom they are most closely aligned. The primary elections themselves test for the support within the party for the factions as well as the candidates themselves. It shows which group can pull together the largest political coalition, the strongest constituency within the party, as well as the most successful candidate for a general election.
It’s a good process. If someone cannot win primaries among political allies, they’re certain to lose general elections against political opponents. It allows the major political parties to produce the most successful candidate so that the entire alliance has a good chance to affect public policy.
However, it relies on all of the members of that alliance to act responsibly, both during and after the primary process. Those groups that want a certain kind of candidate to win the primary election need to find that candidate and support them in the primaries. They need to make the case to the party that their candidate makes the best national case for election. If they can’t do that, or if their candidate does not succeed, then they need to honor their alliance and go with the candidate which does succeed — because to do otherwise makes them unreliable partners on whom the party should never rely.
Let’s take a look at a particular example. Richard Viguerie sent an e-mail last week that stated in part:
As you may know, I was part of a group of over 40 conservative leaders who met recently and resolved not to vote for Republican candidates who are pro-abortion.
We will present the petition to the members of the Republican National Committee, the President and Republican members of Congress, media and blogs, and many other Republican leaders. It will be a powerful warning to those in a position of influence that, if the GOP turns against unborn children, a significant portion of its base will not vote for Republican candidates.
That, frankly, is absurd. The RNC, the President, and members of Congress do not select the party’s nominee. The Republican voters in each state do that. What good does a petition do? Why doesn’t Viguerie simply put all of that effort into actually supporting a candidate, rather than issue petitions aimed at people who have nothing to do with this process? Is Viguerie demanding an appointed candidate, one that comes from a smoke-filled back room rather than an honest primary process?
Along with the splintering rhetoric from James Dobson and others, it shows an immaturity and a complete rejection of the primary process. It’s a form of extortion; select a candidate despite the voters’ own preferences, or they walk out of the party. If the party nominates someone who cannot win a majority among their own voters without the threat of extortion, what chance do they have in the general election? None.
The silliness extends to the general election. On the radio shows I do, I hear the same refrain I heard in 2006 — “We’ll stay home and teach the party a lesson.” What lesson — that its allies are completely unreliable? That those who claim to speak for a majority would rather marginalize themselves and the rest of the agenda on the Right rather than accept the conclusion of the party’s own voters in the primaries? That’s not democracy, it’s petulance. All elections are cost-benefit choices, at all levels. If people can’t understand that much, they have no business leading any kind of political movement.
Support your primary candidate passionately and with positive assertions of their policy stands. Once the primaries are over, do some intelligent and mature cost-benefit analysis instead of indulging in hurt feelings and childishness. That goes especially for those who came out of Salt Lake with dire warnings about third-party efforts if they don’t get the candidate they want, especially since none of them appeared prepared to offer a specific candidate in the first place.
UPDATE: Shaun Mullen doesn’t like the caucus process, as he explains at The Moderate Voice. I’m not terribly enamored of caucuses as opposed to primary elections, either, and I think Shaun confuses the two a little in this post. It’s a good read nonetheless.
Once again, Ed, I will not vote for a supporter of abortion, period. End of story. The primaries only matter if you are a Pavlovian supporter of either political party. I do not vote for someone simply becuase of a letter after their name. *And* I don’t vote for the lesser of two eveils.
Sorry if this disappoints you.
Not voting for the “lesser of two evils” ensures the election of the greater. And the Dark Side is strong in her.
Ed, I have posted this at a couple of other blogs. I post it here just to reiterate. And I might add that the pro-lifer came to the Republican Party because the party supported the pro-life position.
Let’s face it: The Christian right votes Republican. Overwhelmingly. The Republicans win elections narrowly. If the Christian right leaves or is marginalized by the rest of the Republican party, the Republicans are done as viable aspirants to the White House. The party ignores or ousts the Christian Right at their own peril. I guarantee that the Republicans will not be able to lure enough Independents and Democrats to make up for the loss.
Although I am not crazy about the TONE of some of the Christian right, they are being consistent about their beliefs. Assuming we isolate this to the abortion issue alone (perhaps not accurate with respect to the Christian right), then nominating a candidate who is pro-choice is asking them to vote for someone who holds that the killing of innocent human beings is acceptable.
Let’s change the situation a bit. Let us say that one party had, in its platform, that the current state of affairs, that of legalized lynchings, was acceptable. People who were against lynching were, for the most part, members of the other party. Then this other party decided to support a candidate who would only put into place some mild constraints against lynching, but basically upholding its morality. Would it be justified to vote for such a candidate?
I realize that, looking at this from a cost-benefit analysis, that staying home is a bad move, certainly in the short-term, but also quite possibly in the long term as well. For me, however, this analysis is not the central factor in my voting. If you want to say that I would be (indirectly) helping Hilary to get into the White House…I would have to agree with you. If you want to say that it plays into the hand of the Democrats, I would have to agree with you.
But I doubt that I will vote for anyone who supports the continued legalization of abortion seeing it as a good thing. Seeing it as something which the political realities force me to accept in the short term, perhaps; this does not seem to be the case for Guiliani, however.
Also (I should have mentioned this earlier), one of the main arguments for supporting Guiliani has been that he the the most ‘viable’ candidate, i.e., the one who is most likely to beat Hilary. When persons such as Viguerie and Dobson are threatening to not support Guiliani, they also point out that among many (normally active, donating, volunteering) Republicans, Guiliani is not acceptable to a broad number of members of the party. This would clearly affect the viability of the candidate, and hence is highly relevant to one of the main reasons given to support him.
Well here is the problem for me. What happens when the Party’s elected representatives and most of it’s top tier candidates no longer stand for the values that built the coalition? What happens when they pay lip service to fiscal responsibility, yet preside over just about the largest expansion of federal spending in the history of the nation? What happens when they say they support the Constitution, yet pass and sign McCain-Feingold? What happens when the leading candidate has all his life been an anti-gun, anti-free speech, pro Roe v. Wade politician? It is only in comparison to mayors Dinkins, et al, that Rudy looked good. I have the least problem with the Roe v. Wade part, it is about the only position he hasn’t changed. Much like some old liberals I feel that I am not leaving the party, the party is leaving me.
Dobson and Co. aren’t interested in democracy or consensus building.
Isn’t part of the primary process also about nominating the person that BOTH represents your party and has a decent shot at winning the general election?
Isn’t it better for Christian conservatives to say NOW that they will stay home and not vote for Rudy than to say it AFTER he secures the nomination? I agree that they should probably pick a candidate and try to get that guy to win the primary, but if Rudy is a deal breaker for them that needs to be something that other primary voters need to think about before making any final decisions.
If Christian conservatives sit this one out, the GOP loses for sure and may lose close down ticket races as well.
Ed, I don’t agree that the primary system is so wonderful. Seems to me we got generally better candidates (and Presidents) when the party conventions actually nominated them. Plus, we weren’t saddled with endless campaigns, and the conventions were a lot more fun!
The primaries put way too much emphasis on fund-raising and 30-second TV advertising, and give way too much power to the media, who love playing the ‘horse-race’ game to the exclusion of any content whatsoever.
And what is the point of a party primary where ‘independents’ and members of other parties can vote in yours? Several states allow such ‘crossover’ voting, including the vaunted New Hampshire.
The primaries also force the campaigns into starting earlier and earlier. The current crop of candidates have already been running for a year, and there is still another year to go! That of course makes continual fund-raising even more important.
It makes no sense. I think the primaries should be abolished forthwith.
But we are stuck with them for this ‘cycle’ (a term that itself is a by-product of the perpetual campaign). I do agree that for one faction to threaten to take its marbles and go home is self-defeating. It is understandable when the issue is of overriding moral importance (i.e. abortion), but I agree that it makes more sense to get behind a candidate who agrees with you and work hard for him, than to just threaten to bolt.
Idly, I wonder what would happen if Rudy Guiliani switched parties and ran as a conservative Democrat. He might attract sizeable numbers of Democrats who can’t stand the moonbat wing of the party.
/Mr Lynn
Some people refuse to recognize reality. The anti-abortion side (my side) lost the political battle, permanently, in South Dakota. There the legislature passed, and the governor signed, exactly the sort of law suggested by abortion opponents.
The people of South Dakota threw it out in a referendum. In a state where 60% of women voted for Bush.
Abortion is not going to be eliminated by legislation in the United States of America, and even if Roe were to be overturned (correctly in my view), there are not more than a small handful of states that could even come close to prohibiting early-term abortions.
As a practical issue in American politics it is therefore irrelevant, no matter how much the 3% of Americans favoring a complete prohibition continue to rant and rave. Because they do not understand the difference between a movement and a party, that 3% continues to damage the Republican Party, and by extension (because I believe Republicans have the best answers to our challenges) continue to damage all America.
I’ve seen it here in Johnson County, Kansas, where anti-abortion Republicans continue to win primaries, only to lose by ever-increasing margins to a weak Democrat (Moore) in the general election. We can let it happen again and again at the national level, if we wish …
… until someday we find that home-schooling is prohibited, talk radio has been shut down (in “fairness”), all workers are required to pay union dues, health care is delivered by an HMO run by the DMV, our military has been weakened (once again), and much of US policy (both foreign and domestic) has been put under the authority of the emerging UN world government.
Single-issue voters of any stripe are narrow-minded idiots, with absolutely no sense of context, perspective, or history. The sooner Republicans can ditch their single-issue (abortion) people, the better for all of us.
Why doesn’t James Dobson et al back someone other than the “top-tier” candidates if Right-To-Life is their most pressing issue? Is it because they don’t believe any of them will carry that issue and they want an iron-clad guarantee that their position will be adopted? Like you say, Ed, the process doesn’t work that way. Maybe some think the process ought be changed, but right now that paradigm doesn’t exist.
While I support single-issue special interests to voice their concerns by addressing the RNC and letting them know who will likely get the most funding and backing during campaign season, the appeal (in your back room parlance) to avoid the process via individual candidate platforms is a bit oppressive.
If Dobson et al is dissatisfied with the options available and their special interest coalition (if it could be called such) cannot produce a candidate on its own, then they can either vote for the lesser of two evils after primary season or not at all. It’s a bad idea to bow out of the process entirely, but I respect their ideals if their beliefs are that strong. I’d just prefer they look at other options within the current field rather than try to manipulate the levers.
Capt’n, usually you and others (such as The Anchoress) usually make a lot of sense, but in this I don’t think you’re see the full picture.
Coalitions and partnerships work when all parties think they get something out of it. What I have seen since at least 2000 (which is around when I started paying closer attention to politics in general) is that on the Repub side, there are those who were asked to compromise on their stances to get candidates elected. In return, they were essentially promised that part of their agenda would be focused on: National Security, Fiscal Responsibility, Conservative Justices, etc. What I’ve seen them get instead was open boarders traded off to get more illegal immigrants and ports run by Dubai, record deficits and massively increased debt with no cut back of entitlements, and Hariet Miers who the Administration never really made a serious case as to why she should have been supported. Why should they continue to compromise if they get nothing out of it?
In the interests of full disclosure, I am moderately conservative, but not a member of any party. I agree with George Washington on the usefulness of Political Parties.
That said, I see this demand to vote lockstep with the party lest you not even get the crumbs from the table as one of the major reasons why parties are so harmful to democracy and why I detest them. It is harmful and will tear apart your coalition even more readily than the demands you are seeing.
Sorry Capt’n, but I think you, Anchoress, and many others, despite the usual wisdom and common sense I see on your sites, are wrong on this.
StargazerA5
I feel abortion to be the most despicable of murders. However, the only thing a President can do about it is appoint people to The Supreme Court who, hopefully, will do something about it. Meanwhile, look back at the elections that we won only because the democrat party split votes with a third party that had no chance to win.
The abortion issue, health care, Social Security, bridge safety, etc, will all be moot issues when the right to life people are lined up right behind homosexuals at the beheading blocks because blind abeyance to any one issue would not let us see that one party is against surrender to the threat of radical Islam while the other party, or at least the leaders of said party, would rather ignore the threat and instead use their power and our money to increase dependence on government to buy votes. Single issue voting, even on such an important issue as killing unborn babies, could cost much more than an election, I fear.
Ross Perot gave us Bill Clinton. Twice.
James Dobson doesn’t speak for Christians. He speaks for himself. There was no “Christian election” where he was nominated and elected to represent Christians. Other than in his own mind, and like-minded power seekers, at most he represents his own congregation.
There ARE people who are single issue voters, and they ARE going to vote that single issue, no matter what. So — a candidate has to decide whether they are of value — or not?
Flip the issue — there are hard core homosexual “rights” activities that will vote based on that issue, and that issue alone. They probably are equal in numbers to the hard core anti-abortion crowd who will vote on that issue alone. And the gay rights crowd also alienates a majority.
Thing is about single issue voters — often they are single issue voters because a majority has already spoken, and they don’t like it. But the reality is — catering to any single issue crowd is likely to alienate an even bigger crowd.
Most Christians are, I think, anti-abortion — but only a minority consider that the only issue in a Presidential election.
As someone who is pro-life, in actions and money, and someone who listens to Dr. Dobson just about every day, I think he and the coalition he is a part of are way out of line.
There is no rationalization that puts Hillary or someone as radical as her, in the WH that is consistent with Conservative or Christian values.
Campaigns are not about the abdication of responsibility. Yet that is what the leadership of the Christian right is apparently calling for. I find that a particularly annoying demonstration of weak faith. Even if – and it is a big if at this stage- Rudy ges the nomination, he is still the better choice for people of faith than Hillary.
He is better than her on any number of issues. He is more flexible than her on abortion.
As to the argument that he is personally for abortion, so what? Reagan, as Governor of CA., helped to open up the pandoras box of unregulated abortion in America.
The obligation we have in a Democratcic Republic is to vote – not to abdicate power to those we know will do us harm. The threat that Dr. D and others are making is so rash, so wrong, so against common sense, that it makes me question their judgement in other areas. There is no rationalization available that simply has people who will be harmed, and causes that will be wrecked for a generation or more, in simply letting an extreme leftist like Hillary or Obama in by default.
Sorry Ed, but only a thorough fisking will suffice.
It shows a lack of understanding not just of the primary process but also in how to build the necessary political coalitions that result in agendas getting addressed.
But, it is precisely our battle-tested agenda that is the price of collusion here.
It’s a good process. If someone cannot win primaries among political allies, they’re certain to lose general elections against political opponents.
Obviously I can’t name a guy who lost a party primary but won the general election…but half the nominees end up losers.
It allows the major political parties to produce the most successful candidate so that the entire alliance has a good chance to affect public policy.
It is precisely because we do not want all our “allies” to affect public policy that we’re dancing in the harness. Arlen Specter, Susan Collins, John Warner and John Sununu have done enough to suit me for life.
However, it relies on all of the members of that alliance to act responsibly, both during and after the primary process. Those groups that want a certain kind of candidate to win the primary election need to find that candidate and support them in the primaries. They need to make the case to the party that their candidate makes the best national case for election.
And thus we destroy effective, creative Republicans for the safe muddlers who won’t make waves. You totally ignore the interdependence of the state primaries. Giuliani is not running in New York as the voice of New Yorkers, and California as the voice of Californians, and New Jersey as their voice–he is presenting himself as the Federal “Voice”, the Chosen One, the Dragonslayer, and far from affirming the local concern, Rudy is calling on all America to “hold its nose and do a cost/benefit analysis”. The primaries are declared a time to destroy and subvert localism.
It also allows the establishment machine to destroy any hope of real leadership, inspiration, and renewal. Any prediction of who “can’t” win in November 2008 is at best a calculated guess, not a physical law to be thrown at recalcitrants.
If they can’t do that, or if their candidate does not succeed, then they need to honor their alliance and go with the candidate which does succeed — because to do otherwise makes them unreliable partners on whom the party should never rely.
This is where your blind partisanship has led you– I am unreliable, precisely because I advocate the same political agenda for twenty years. I can’t be counted on! Why, the twists of fortune might lead all pragmatic, mature Republicans to denounce conservatism, and I won’t veer left!
The RNC, the President, and members of Congress do not select the party’s nominee. The Republican voters in each state do that.
Riiiight, they’re out of it. Guys like frmr gov. Pete Wilson just wander out into a Giuliani press conference like a loose cow. Nobody is sharing donor lists. There’s a total firewall there.
And I have a bridge under the Mississippi to sell you.
It’s a form of extortion; select a candidate despite the voters’ own preferences, or they walk out of the party.
How can I possibly extort from you, something that does not belong to you? It’s MY vote.
If the party nominates someone who cannot win a majority among their own voters without the threat of extortion, what chance do they have in the general election? None.
Tell that to everybody foretelling the Second Coming of the Hildabeest. O surely, surely you do not want the Hildabeest to come back?
What lesson — that its allies are completely unreliable? That those who claim to speak for a majority would rather marginalize themselves and the rest of the agenda on the Right rather than accept the conclusion of the party’s own voters in the primaries?
And when the Party machine decides there IS no agenda?
That’s not democracy, it’s petulance.
Let’s see, I’m not to attack other Republicans in the primary, because it gives ammo to Democrats. I’m not to bitch during the nominating Convention, because that sort of division can only benefit Democrats. I’m not to whine during the summer of 2008, because the Party made its decision at the Convention and I owe it support. I’m to vote for the lesser evil. And if we win, I need to snap out of myself and realize that its everybody besides the base that wins elections.
At what point does the Party apparatus weigh our just complaints about its performance?
All elections are cost-benefit choices, at all levels. If people can’t understand that much, they have no business leading any kind of political movement.
Print that and tape it on your desk calendar for Nov. 5, 2008, so you can read it as you resolve to rebuild from the ashes of a liberal Republican defeat.
Support your primary candidate passionately and with positive assertions of their policy stands. Once the primaries are over, do some intelligent and mature cost-benefit analysis instead of indulging in hurt feelings and childishness.
I have, and it is better to endure 2 years of institutional shutout, and purge the outfit of deadwood, than spend 8-12 years rallying behind liberalism because it’s “our gang”.
Thank God for our first-past-the-post pragmatic party system.
Still, you are too much the purist. Single-issue politics, though it ain’t my bag, is still it’s own game. And part of playing it is just what you describe… threatening to take your marbles and go home if you don’t get your way.
Here is my long term fear on this issue. If the Christian right does what it is threatening to do, then Hillary walks into the White House. Subsequently, the left will also realize that since that voting block has left Conservatives, then can accelerate their leftward move knowing they can still win elections. Conservatives, looking to fill the hole left by this Religious group will only be able to cull voters from Independents, which means they will have to move a bit to the left. Soon, no political party of any substance will even bother representing Christians.
That will be a sad day.
The anti-abortion crowd should be careful about flexing its muscle. I’m not sure which would be the worse result for them; sitting this one out and having a liberal Democrat win or sitting this one out and having the GOP candidate win without them.
Either way, they are marginalized and maybe that’s what they really want. It is hard to be part of the political process, which by definition involves compromise and accommodation. You have to give to get, you have to accept that nothing in politics is exactly the way you want it to be, there are just too many competing agendas.
So maybe all the threats and demands are just a way to drop out and make it look like a matter of principle while the truth is, they’ve never had a comfortable seat in the political arena to begin with. Absolutist ideology and practical politics has never mixed well.
That’s not democracy, it’s petulance.
Danged right, it’s petulance. It’s self-serving, narcissistic, gestural, look-at-me! politics, and we find it disgusting.
And we said so last week, in our article November 5th, 2008: Christian Conservatives Provide Clinton Margin of Victory.
Before Roe vs Wade abortion was a state issue just as murder is today was. I believe it was outlawed in all states; certainly, it was outlawed in the overwhelming majority. Leading up to Roe we had decades of Democrats picking liberal justices for SCUS. A result of this packing of SCUS is that many functions of government including the right, or wrong, of abortion is now guaranteed by the federal government in spite of it being contrary to the US constitution which limits the feds to a very narrow, limited purview.
I believe the Justices we have now would not have passed Roe at the time of Roe. They are not rushing to overturn Roe because of judicial restraint to not retry all prior cases every time a new Justice is confirmed or O’Connor gets out of the other side of the bed. This is a correct way to function. I believe Roe is likely to be overturned in the future if we get more Justices like Alito and Roberts and fewer like Breyer and Ginsburg, the four newest members of USSC. I would judge there is no chance of reversing Roe if we get more Breyers and Ginsburgs.
I am not a big admirer of Bush or of any of his clan. One of the things about Bush I do admire very much is that he nominated several conservative federal judges and justices including Alito and Roberts. Clinton nominated Breyer and Ginsburg. We can expect more Breyers and Ginsburgs from the next Democratic President.
My observation of the group of people who now call themselves “the Christian Right” is that it is made up in large part by people who in an earlier time would have been Southern Democrats or non voters. They weren’t loyal to the Democrats and I don’t expect them to be loyal to Republicans.
My thinking is that the people who will not vote for pro abortion candidates feel that they have a higher authority to answer to. They have to answer to God, not Government. They are only going to be on earth a few years. They hope to be in heaven forever. An analogy might be to the conscientous objectors of WWII who would not kill the enemy.
Well said, Captain; it is THE ISSUE of our time. Whether it is better to stand firmly on a single principle and lose all, or to stand firmly on the broader proposition that 80% or half of a loaf is better than none, and win, that is the question.
Put another way, how can you possibly, through inaction, allow MORE damage to be done to your issue, and to all others? I don’t know what dream world some of these people inhabit, that believe there is some choice, in Novermber, OTHER than a Republican or Democrat, one of which is not hostile to your issue and shares your view on many others, and one of which is adamantly hostile to everything you hold dear. To not decide rightly is to decide wrongly. I’m not willing to live with 4 years of Hillarycare, under whom abortion will become a sacrament, just to “teach Republicans a lesson.” That price is just too incredibly high. If Rudy is the nominee, he’ll get my vote, my cash, and my effort, even though he’s not my first (or second) choice.
I don’t care how hard you have to hold your nose, it’s better than losing your head.
I’ve responded similarly elsewhere, and I think it’s worth repeating:
It’s a very long time until election day in 2008, but…
But if I had to choose today between a pro-life candidate who would fracture the GOP and lose the White House, just for the sake of principles, or Rudy Giuliani (or any Conservative candidate who is not solidly pro-life) I’d have to choose Rudy Giuliani, regardless of the abortion issue.
You see, there are barbaric, destructive anti-Western civilization forces in this world. And until we find a better way to deal with those destructive forces, and achieve a lasting worldwide peace, then our first line of defense against those destructive forces is our military.
The Democratic Party is overtly anti-military. Hillary Clinton is as Democratic Party as they get, with heavy emphasis on socialism and tax burdens to cover such socialistic programs, to the detriment of our first line of defense: the military. As “co-Presidents” she and Bill Clinton were obsessed with deconstructing our military.
A vote for a third party pro-life Conservative would guarantee a win for Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party in the general election.
Rudy Giuliani supports the military and the War on Terror, translated: war against destructive factions following a mandate to destroy the United States of America, and all other peace-loving democracies which disagree with their archaic totalitarian religious regimes.
Bottom line: I’d choose Rudy Giuliani any day over any third party candidate guaranteed to lose the White House, because if we don’t protect our country for the future generations, then abortion as an issue will frankly be irrelevant.
Right now, pragmatically, it boils down to priorities. Once the forces of evil are on the run and/or stopped from advancing, then we can start addressing other important issues because we will have preserved our country’s foundations which make it possible to address those issues in a more civilized fashion than the terrorists would ever allow.
Rudy can win the primary without social conservatives, but he cannot win the general without social conservatives.
Ergo, Dump Rudy.
For all those whining that the Christian right is about to hand Hillary a victory, the complete opposite is true. We are simply saying, nominate anyone else, anyone who is pro-life AND also will vigorously prosecute the war on terrorism – meaning any other GOP candidate than Ron Paul – and we’ll happily support that candidate. If any group is guaranteeing a Clinton presidency, it is those backing Giualiani. So if you want to play the Hillary monster card, I’ll turn in right back on you. You want to avoid another Clinton presidency, don’t vote for Rudy in the primaries.
Aaron Converse in his second post has it exactly right. Rudy’s entire campaign is based on two issues: his leadership in NYC after 9/11, and his “electability” (the only one who can defeat Hillary, etc).
While there’s a bit of nuance among the non-Ron-Paul candidates in their respective positions on the WoT, they all basically adhere to the Reagan Cold War philosophy: “We win, they lose”. So Rudy’s real “distinction” is #2, the man-on-the-white-horse who will save us from Hillary.
In that environment, it’s a perfectly legitimate primary tactic to attempt to demonstrate to primary voters that Rudy is /not/ all that “electable” come general election time.
IMO, Rudy’s biggest drawback among values voters is not his stance on abortion/gay privilege/gun control — although those ARE biggies — but his personal life and character. In the Clinton years we all said “Character Counts” — if his wife can’t trust him, why should we?. With Rudy, he can’t make that argument. It’s one thing, to values voters like me, to have a failed marriage and divorce. It’s quite another to move your mistress into Gracy Mansion, tell the press you are divorcing your wife /before you tell her/, and notify her after the fact via facsimile. If that behavior repulses me, a guy, how are middle america’s soccor moms going to react once the Hillary spin machine gets going?
I think Dobson and co, as asinine as their tone and tactics have been to date, are right to point out that Emperor Rudy “The Electable One” Guiliani has no clothes.
To those of you unwilling to vote for a Pro-Choice Republican in the general election:
If you are unwilling to be involved in the election are you going to sit quietly if President Clinton nominates Supreme Court justices who will solidify the standing of Roe v. Wade?
Personally I will be happy once the Republican party jettisons single issue Religious Right voters like this.
There’s a lot more to it that people here need to know (besides how the primaries and caucuses help weed out the weaker candidates) – and about the dangers of handing the policies of this nation over to outright hardcore socialists.
The primaries winnow the candidates and set the tone for the conventions – but conventions often nominate unexpected candidates, as delegates over-rule false expectations that media create from the primary process.
People need to know that they can have great effect on the political process. They need to understand how the process works, and where real power they can wield lies. (Clue, it isn’t in D.C. – it isn’t in the RNC – it definitely is not in Congress.) It is in their own back yards (figuratively) – usually less than 15 minutes away from their front door.
Every political district in every state has elected party representatives (aldermen, committeemen, etc.) – they are elected but are usually unpaid. They conduct party business in the district, and in the state. They attend conventions to conduct party business – and some few of them from each state will attend and vote at the nominating convention.
It behooves those who want to have great effect on the political process to know who these people are, what kind of people they are and what they believe in – after all you vote for them, right?
Those who feel strongly about issues need to get involved – enter the real political arena – go to the monthly meetings every month, and find out how it works. (You damned sure aren’t going to learn about this in public schools, from the boob-tube, major media – your club, church or business association.)
I’m a religious conservative. I think that James Dobson and Donald Wildmon are well meaning leaders of the Christian Right. But, it is painfully clear that they and many others that comment here, fail to understand and work within the political process locally – and then believe that through statements that they can threaten their way toward what they would like to see happen. I’m sorry – but that avails nothing but ever more pain for them – and reveals imbarassing naivete.
It would not be so sad if they (and most of those they ‘lead’) always darkened the doors of the political process in their own back yard… and fought the daily local and state fight, month after month – and became convention delegates themselves. If they did that, and taught political leadership, they and their absent supporters would have credibility. Without it, they look needlessly petulant – and frankly, puerile.
It’s too little late for the novice to greatly effect this election cycle – but, it’s never too late to join the real war – and do your civic duty, if you feel so strongly about political issues. Find your county political party offices, go in and ask them what political districts your home is in, and who the elected party members in your district are, and where and when they meet. Then, show up at the door of the meeting – they’ll most likely be very glad you came… and you could become a voting alternate member, just for the asking.
If you do this, you’ll eventually find yourself in state conventions – actually helping to set party policy – perhaps helping to write the state-party platform – perhaps even helping to write national party policy and platform and voting to nominate the party’s presidential candidate.
Yes – it’s work, a lot of it – it costs a lot of money (your way isn’t always paid) and there is much to learn – but, you’ll know that you have fought the good fight and did the best you could for the things you believe in. Bottom line, you get to vote monthly – sometimes several times on important issues. You contribute far more to the political process than those who don’t know how it really works.
“IMO, Rudy’s biggest drawback among values voters is not his stance on abortion/gay privilege/gun control — although those ARE biggies — but his personal life and character.”
His personal life and character, as compared to which other GOP candidate? Perhaps it would help if someone would define what is meant by “character”.
I certainly don’t see how mistakes and bad choices in his personal life are going to be held against Guiliani by Christians, as presumably they above all others understand who gets to throw the first stone here.
For me, this is (at least on one front) an excellent post because it raises a couple of very important questions, but many of us may differ on the road taken as a conclusion. One big mistake we could make in this discussion is to mistake this as a discussion specific to the anti-abortion factions trying to dictate the nominee and whether or not they should “support the process” by working as hard as they can for their candidate and then support the eventual nominee.
Imagine for a moment that the hypothetical current leader for the Democratic nomination was a moderate on the abortion issue. (There are some of us, by the way.) A candidate who supported a woman’s right to choose abortion as an option, but who also felt that certain sensible restrictions were not only permissable but desirable. (Things such as laws regulating how far into the pregnancy an abortion can be requested absent a medical danger to the mother, parental and/or spousal notification laws, etc.) Let’s face it… the most hard core left sections of the feminists would be up in arms and threatening a similar “walkout” on the candidate. (This is why my “male feminist” membership card was figuratively taken away and burned even though I consider myself pro-choice and opposed George W. Bush in the 2004 elections.) The Captain may feel free to correct me, but I find it hard to imagine him bemoaning that situation and chastising the Democrats, as such a schism would surely herald a landslide victory for the GOP in the 2008 White House race.
The real question here is whether or not the primary (and to some extent, caucus) process is the “right” thing to do and anyone who strays outside of that process is somehow doing something “wrong.” The answer to that question seems obvious if you base your answer on the premise that the two party system is the neccesary heart and soul basis of our political system. In that case, it implies that you *must* view all politics as an “us vs. them”, winner take all, blood sport where getting “our guy” to win is the be all and end all. What it fails to do is address the fundamental question of whether that makes it acceptable for us to vote for a candidate who betrays our own fundamental principles just to make sure that somebody with either an (R) or (D) after their name wins. I say no.
The root of the evil here, as usual, is money. Since we have crafted a system where it is very nearly, if not completely impossible to win a national election without the money and PR muscle of the two parties, looking for another alternative is difficult at best. Even trying to create a viable third party has left a lot of people looking extremely silly, bankrupt, or both.
But I find it rather insulting for pundits to tell voters that they are somehow “wrong” or “childish” or whatever to seek such a third way, even if it means a loss for “the team.” I am still pushed far enough away from the GOP’s current positions that I don’t want to see a Republican win in ’08. (Unless it was somehow Ron Paul or Rudy, but frankly, I don’t see either of them having a chance at the nomination.) So does this mean that I will be voting for the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is? Hardly. I’m a lot more choosy than that. Recently, several of the frontrunners have shown themselves to be spineless, unprincipled and disingenuous on the subject of Iraq. I was never going to vote for Hillary Clinton, but I’ve now also written off Edwards and Obama. None of them will be getting my vote even if they get the nomination. Kucinich is, to my view, a dangerously fringe loon and I wouldn’t vote for him if he made the entire basis of his campaign to buy me my own pacific island.
So it looks like I will be endorsing and voting for somebody not on the ballot for the two major parties. And whatever the cost in terms of who gets the office and what they do with it, I know I’ll be sleeping better at night. If the pro-life movement walks out and promotes their own “third way” candidate, and/or if those opposed to the Iraq war actually grew a spine and walked off to support one of their own, I would salute them and think that a four way race for the White House would be the best thing to happen to American politics in several generations.
So in conclusion… no. I don’t think the Primaries are the only answer nor are they some inviolate rule. And if people on either side choose to reject the results of the primary process, I think they are exerting the independent spirit that is the best our country has to offer. I don’t want a Republican to win, or a Democrat to win. I want somebody I can support to win.
Would I rather have “half a fig” than none? Depends on how objectionable the rest of the fig is.
Look at what issues tend to define Republicans:
1. Fiscal conservative(less spending)–Rudy is one
2. Law and Order — Rudy epitomizes this.
3. Strong Defense — Rudy epitomizes this
4. Free Trade — Rudy endorses
5. Less anti business Regulation — Rudy is there
6. Lower Taxes– Rudy is a tax cutter
7. Pro Death Penalty and Anti Abortion — Rudy is against abortion restrictions. (But then so are over 1/3rd of registered republicans)
8. Opposed to outlawing firearms — Rudy wants to keep handguns from crimianls and mental cases by requiring strict licensing of handguns; he does not want to ban them outright. (Many law and order Republicans hold the same position.)
Anyone who expects that a national candidate will agree with him on all these issues is unrealistic. Reagan said anyone who is with you 80% of the time is a friend and ally not a 20% traitor. It looks to me like Rudy is a friend and an ally rather than a traitor. Now see where Hillary would stand on the above issue list.
Primaries serve their purpose, and the process is flawed throughout, nonetheless.
One solution would mandate that the presidential Election process not begin until January [perhaps one year prior to the inauguration?] of the year the election is held. Gets us away from a good deal of the overly expensive, mind-boggling endless rhetoric and tripe that poses as political intellect.
This drawn out and very expensive process drains not only the coffers of legitimate citizens who are limited by law in what they as individuals can give, but allows for political action committees those pesky 527’s and other fig leaf groups to buy candidates at will long long before the real Presidential campaign even begins, leaving most Americans out of the process before it even begins.
Recommended solutions:
Limit the campaign to no more than one full year prior to the Inauguration;
Remove the limits a private citizen can donate;
Require full disclosure of ALL donations in a publicly available forum within 24 hours of the donation being made;
Hold the candidate legally liable for acceptance of tainted donations;
Require full disclosure of ALL paid campaign workers;
Require full disclosure of all non-paid campaign managers, advisors and shadow consultants.
A bit of sunlight into the overall process can do a lot of good to the overall process.
I am first a Christian and because of that I am conservative. Finally, since the Republican Party generally is more conservative than the Democratic party so I generally vote Republican. When the party becomes liberal-lite, I will vote for a third party candidate who represents what I believe.
I and my fellow Christians are first members of a greater Kingdom that extends into eternity. Thus, I will not think short term pragmatic but long term. Finally this earthly nation I live in will not stand or fall on force of arms, but on the sovereign will of God. If the Islamists overrun and take over this country it will be by the will of God.
I will not vote for Rudy on a single issue but based on his entire character. The question I must answer about all candidates, is have they demonstrated a fear of God. If they have not demonstrated a fear of God, then they can easily become tyrants because they believe they have nobody else higher to answer too. Rudy does not have that fear, those rights given to us by the Creator declared in the Bill of Rights he does not recognize. Nor does he recognize the laws laid out by God in the Bible. He sees nothing higher than the government, which he will head.
Finally, I will not vote out of fear. Whom do I have to fear but God alone, I am first a member of His Kingdom? Judea in the OT had its pragmatic kings who were less evil than some other potentials kings, but God declares them all evil. Evil is Evil.
Some Christians might disagree with my non-pragmatic idealistic approach and that is fine. If their conscious is not bothered then they should vote on how they see the matter, but my conscious will not allow me to vote for somebody who I feel does not fear God.
coldwarrior415 makes some excellent points about the rotting nature of the primary system and the bloodsport of politics in general, but suggests some solutions that seem dismaying at best.
Recommended solutions:
Limit the campaign to no more than one full year prior to the Inauguration;
Right off the bat this one sounds obscene. For those who follow George Will’s school of thought, being that limiting campaign contributions constitutes limitations on political speech, this is even worse. Are we to put muzzles on all potential candidates and every voter with an opinion until Jan. of election year and imprison them if they speak up? Let’s face it, the election now begins the day after the last election, well before the winners are even sworn in. I may not like it, but I don’t see any way of stopping it that doesn’t walk all over free speech. Besides, what would the Captain write about for three years? 🙂
Remove the limits a private citizen can donate;
And remove the voice of those who are not billionaires. I find these campaign donation limitations unsettling, but I can also see the purpose they try to serve.
Require full disclosure of ALL donations in a publicly available forum within 24 hours of the donation being made;
Technilogically challenging, but I’d be up for it if it could be implemented.
Hold the candidate legally liable for acceptance of tainted donations;
Impossible to enforce. This would require everyone to do a massive background check on every single potential voter who sent in a check. What if you get fifty bucks in the mail from some guy in Topeka who turns out to be a counterfitter who has not only not been caught yet, but not even accused or suspected? How are you to be held liable?
Require full disclosure of ALL paid campaign workers;
I’m all for that.
Require full disclosure of all non-paid campaign managers, advisors and shadow consultants.
Defining these people would likely prove impossible. I could give a million examples, but I don’t think it’s needed.
A bit of sunlight into the overall process can do a lot of good to the overall process.
Can’t argue with that.
The NRCC has been sending out a series of messages recently entitled ‘Rediscovering your Party’. They are an attempt to get people to re-associate with Republicans things that had been traditionally the Republican message. But these messages are misdirected. It’s not the Republican base who has forgotten what the party traditionally stood for. It’s the Republican “leadership”. The mere existence of these newsletters is evidence that they’ve lost their way. If they had actually been standing for all these things there would be no reason to have to rediscover anything.
“That, frankly, is absurd. The RNC, the President, and members of Congress do not select the party’s nominee.”
Nothing in the slightest is absurd about it – who do you think directs the money machine that the nominee depends on? The power brokers at the top of the party are force multipliers, and they can definitely affect the outcome. All they care about is winning, so threatening a loss to them is the only message they’ll pay attention to. But the problem with threats is that sometimes you have to follow through.
I cannot agree with the Cap’s post. Since those that fall under the Christian right are not lap dogs of the Republican party, why should they go rah-rah when they have a candidate like Rudy whose’s social views are nearly identical to the Mrs. Bill Clinton? Heck, why stay loyal to one party? Just flip over to the Dems, if the ideas that matter most to people are not being reflected in the front runners?
Simply pulling the switch for a candidate because they some people historically fall under that party is pretty inane. I am glad leaders in the Christian right are giving the republicans a hard time and even threatening to go 3rd party or the social issues. Helps to keep whomever is going to be the main candidate on their toes.
Evidently, the Christian right does not want to be the republican equivalent of the Black vote in the dem party.
That said, I will ONLY back Hillary Clinton if Ron Paul gets the nomination. At least with Rudy, he can be convinced. It is just that I do not blame fellow Christian righters if they are not thrilled with his prospect of becoming president.
It shows a lack of understanding not just of the primary process but also in how to build the necessary political coalitions that result in agendas getting addressed.
Trouble is, Ed, is that there are too many people (in both parties) to whom ideological purity is more important than winning. Compromise would sully their ideals, so they’d rather be out of power. It’s an argument I’ve had before with “hard Right” friends who can’t accept that a) portions of their agenda are not acceptable to the broad middle of the nation and b) the Republican Party has to have a “big tent” strategy if it’s to regain parity with the Democrats and become the majority party of what is, essentially, a Center-Right nation.
I think it was Ronald Reagan who once asked “Would you rather have 50% of what you want, or 100% of nothing?” People threatening to go for a third party would do well to think about that.
I think whereswaldo’s comment demonstrates best the uneasy fit between religious thought and practical politics.
It also shows the difficulty one faces in applying the standards appropriate to the selection of a church elder or a new pastor to the choices we face when participating in secular politics.
KW64 #8: Back the truck up. If you look on Youtube, I think you’ll easily find a video of Giuliani announcing a lawsuit against gun manufacturers. I won’t regurgitate the entire announcement for you as you can do your own homework, but suffice it to say, he wants guns out of citizens’ hands whether you’re law abiding or not. His spin on the issue which you spout here is nothing more than a Romney-esque two-step designed to win him the primary.
As for your 80/20 conclusion, my issue with Giuliani is not the 80 or the 20, it’s the dishonesty. I’ll take an honest liberal (granted, in today’s political climate, “honest politician” is an oxymoron) over a dishonest conservative any day of the week.
With regards to this particular post, I think Ed’s assertion that Dobson et. al. fail to understand the political process is naive. They do understand the process, and the process these days is getting your message out to as many people as possible. Guess what…the 24 hour news channels are covering it…mission accomplished.
Jazz,
Limiting the campaign to one year before inaguration does not limit a potential candidates ability to speak out on issues, any issue. As a private citizen such is our Right. Building a constituency on performance and public debate alone, without the cash, enables EVERY citizen the opportunity to present themselves to the public daily, every day, any day, prior to the electoral process legally beginning. If the private citizen has made his/her views known prior to the actual primary and electoral campaign, it affords all of us to be able to look at the record, and develop our leanings toward or away from that private citizen long long before any campaign begins. The actual campaign would be designed to juxtapose a candidate’s views or philosophy, and experience and performance, with those of the other candidates, for the record, in front of the public, subject to immediate public oversight and insight, enabling a voter to make a decision based on the record, and with a clear concience.
Removal of the donations limits a private citizen can make allows us to be more in line with our First Amendment guarantees, and is a quantum leap forward from the travesty of McCain-Feingold. This removal of limits, combined directly with full public disclosure of donations, allows the public to see, research and make determinations as to who a candidate is beholden, and how many individuals actually support the candidate. If you like what you see, move to the next step with confidence. If you do not like what you see, vis-a-vis who is donating and how much, likewise move to the next step with confidence.
If my bank can give me details as to amount, location, time and date, of my next gas purchase within no more than 12 hours of that purchase, the technology already exists. If I make a purchase on my card in Toledo, or in Munich, my bank somehow through some sort of magic is able to provide me, online, an accurate receipt for that purchase within 12 hours. Not at all unfeasable from a technology standpoint.
Being held legally libale for tainted donations, why not? I am not talking about the $25 and $100 donations, but those of the Hsu-class, and other high rollers. Presently, a candidate can accept such large tainted donations and absolve themselves by saying “oops” and promising to return the money. If they weren’t caught, the tainted funds would be quietly combined into the campaign chest. If I am a candidate and Stan Smith donates $5000 or $50,000 to my campaign, it would rest with me, the candidate, to make sure that sizable donation is clean. A National Agency Check, a modicum of research, really, can disclose a lot readily and easily. It is an incumberance on the candidate, but that is their price of being a declared candidate. Taken in light of the previously stated full 24-hour disclosure rule, such would make it harder to hide funds, apply the full power of the people to bring to light in open forum questionable donations and place the candidate in the position of having to state for the record in public forum the reason they chose to accept a questionable or tainted donation.
If a present or former member of government, Fortune 500 CEO or other mmajor figure is traveling with the candidate, is part of the campaign team, and is advising the canddidate, what is the purpose of not being required to publicly disclose that affiliation? This is what responsible citizenship is about. If you want to back a candidate, support a candidate, work for the election of a candidate, then why is it some sort of difficulty to make such a matter of public record? If there is nothing to hide, what is the problem? If there is something to hide, then why should the public be denied to opportunity to question the affiliation?
One of the more recent phenomena of the recent past is the rise in power of political and media consultants, especially those who have current ties to major media outlets or other entitites where a conflict of interest, such as being a news reporter or news producer charged with presenting to the public the events of the day. If one such person is also a media consultant to a candidate, then their objectivity must be questioned, in public, otherwise their media presentation in their other hat is no more than unpaid political advertisements for their candidate.
Just a few recommendations I have been mulling on for a bit of time now, and just a starting point for discussion and possible enactment. I am just a private citizen.
As a private citizen I hold that a candidate, any candidate, for the most powerful political position in the world has a duty to operate in sunlight in their campaign and be subject to the strongest dose of sunlight that all citizens should demand, and demand again and again until the message is received by those who chose to enter the arena.
Capt. Ed – At first I thought your post was well-reasoned and made a good deal of sense. But after pondering the subject for a bit I’ve come to think differently.
In the first place, the primary process is not the definition of democracy, it is one of the many systems within a democracy to select a single leader from one party. Third party candadicies are also one system within the whole of democracy.
Ironically, the Republican Party exists because it was once a protest party. That is, concerned citizens bolted the Whig Party over Abolition and voted Republican. The action WAS self-defeating for the Whig platform but it did effectively end slavery (by accelerating the onset of the Civil War). Back then many citizens of the Republiuc such as Horace Greeley threatened to vote for a third party if the Whigs didn’t nominate an anti-slavery ticket. That’s how the Republican Party was born.
Many people (me included) believe the abortion issue is at least as important to the nation and general morality as was the slavery issue in times past. Our nation is simply not the moral nation it once was and the lack of regard for life in the womb has a lot to do with today’s problems. In short we need to find a path back to celebrating and honoring life as God intended.
Personally I believe the Republican Party is capable of nominating a candidate that believes in eliminating abortion. If not, I also believe the issue is of such importance that a new coalition may be in order. This isn’t an act of taking the football and going home its more akin to building a new team after your old one joined the people on the other side.
“Personally I believe the Republican Party is capable of nominating a candidate that believes in eliminating abortion.”
This is without question. The issue, however, is can the Republican Party win with a candidate that believes in “eliminating abortion”?
The current President is pro-life. This only means, however, that he hasn’t moved to liberalize current restrictions on abortion and has nominated judges who have a more text-based approach to constitutional analysis and a more restrictive view of the judicial role. The hope is that such judges, while not necessarily likely to overturn Roe v. Wade, are also not necessarily likely to expand it much.
Other than that, Bush has done nothing to eliminate abortion, which of course he couldn’t do that anyway since a woman’s right to choose is the law of the land.
The question then is: can a GOP candidate win the election if he (1) accepts that a woman’s right to choose is constitionally protected but (2) doesn’t intend to expand that right or would otherwise act just as a pro-life candidate would, a la George W. Bush?
THANK YOU CAPTAIN !
well done and extremely well composed.
——-
Posted by Ray ?
Sorry Ray, but more Ginsbergs placed on the Supreme Court will make it far more difficult for you to address your conviction for the pro-life endeavor.
Empowering the Democrat Liberal Folly is a huge mistake.
There might not be much of a Country left to advocate a pro-life agenda within, if you trust our defense to those who appease monsters like Arafat and create Gorelick Walls.
Having the Democrat Partisans raise your taxes will only reduce your ability to advocate to end abortion as well, leaving you with far less capital, giving more power to the State with the fools who want to grow abortion rights.
You should step back, for you might be empowering the exact opposite of your desires.
Bennet and Brooklyn both make great points but that’s the dilemma we face these days. To face this question head on and possibly empower the Left to take us further into mass murder or find an electable candidate who at least doesn’t let the tide run further memorialize a so-called right to choose?
To Bennet: I meant to say that we can nominate a right to life candidate that can also win the general election. Currently that’s Thompson and possibly McCain. I know the polls don’t show them beating Shrillary at present but that will surely change as a single viable alternative emerges and the electorate starts paying attention to the possibility of the Great She getting elected.
I do take some exception to the idea that factions can’t voice strong dissaproval of a certain type of candidate during the primaries and swear never to vote for such a candidate in the general election. After all, what other leverage do they have at this point? Do we truly want the party to lurch to the Left more than it has already? When in fact DO we stand on principle instead of party affiliation?
Just exactly when is it a “good time” (in the political process) for Christain Conservatives to have their opinions and concerns known to those who aspire to be our ultimate representative?
The Iowa caucus is still three months away and that will be the beginning of the vetting process.
Should I wait until then to let my concerns be heard? I THINK NOT!
Rudy, Fred, Mitt, and company have been notified that it may be THEM that may have to work hard to get my vote.
Bart (from Kansas) said:
Bart’s argument, (though he’s way off attempting to marginalize a pro-life faction, 3%????, Did ya pull that one out of your hat Bart?) has merit in that he does understand that the “ranting and raving” pro-lifers can do damage. What Bart and others may fail to understand is that the Conservative Christain Block of the republican party has never waivered from their principals or moral values to accomodate a “lesser of two evils” meantality. Perhaps those who are running for President may have to show they’re willing to change their perspectives and NOT the other way around. They have three months to convince me.
“To Bennet: I meant to say that we can nominate a right to life candidate that can also win the general election. Currently that’s Thompson and possibly McCain.”
And to this I would say that even a nominally “pro life” GOP candidate is not going to advance an activist agenda when it comes to abortion.
I see no real difference between a pro-life candidate like McCain or a pro choice candidate like Guiliani on this issue, as to the practicalities of what they might actually do or not do once in office.
“And to this I would say that even a nominally “pro life” GOP candidate is not going to advance an activist agenda when it comes to abortion.
I see no real difference between a pro-life candidate like McCain or a pro choice candidate like Guiliani on this issue, as to the practicalities of what they might actually do or not do once in office.”
Bennet I truly hope you are wrong in your cynicism. Although Bush hasn’t been an ‘activist’ on the pro-life issue he has certainly placed two pro-life justices on the Supreme Court both of whom probably would overturn Roe v. Wade as wrongly decided.
Although we are fairly certain no Democrat will place a pro-lifer on the court can we be at all comfortable that Giuliani would? How about Romney? Not really, political considerations might carry the day for them over a Conservative/Republican principle.
At present the Life issue doesn’t seem like something the country would go to war over. Then again, before Lincoln and the Republicans it didn’t seem as if slavery would drive us to war either.
The real question is then, are there any issues sacred enough to stand on principle?
“…he has certainly placed two pro-life justices on the Supreme Court both of whom probably would overturn Roe v. Wade as wrongly decided.”
There is zero evidence that either Roberts or Alito is “pro-life” nor is there any evidence that they would overturn Roe v Wade. If anything the evidence, based on my understanding of their judicial philosophies, would be that they would respect the decision as established precedent and would be reluctant to overturn it.
What Bush pledged to do was nominate judges who wouldn’t try and legislate from the bench. If people understood that to mean he was going to nominate judges who would overturn Roe v Wade, then you all heard something that was never said.
There are plenty of issues sacred enough to stand on principle. There just aren’t too many worth losing elections over if the plan is to be in a position to have a say on those very same issues.
I think it was Ronald Reagan who once asked “Would you rather have 50% of what you want, or 100% of nothing?” People threatening to go for a third party would do well to think about that.
That’s a false dichotomy, though. Look at the issues that are important to the religious right: (1) No abortions or stem cell research. (2) No gay people, especially not married ones. (3) Mandatory Christian prayer in schools; Creationism in Biology class; abstinence-based Sex Ed only. (4) Policy in the Middle-East should be geared towards fulfilling the prophecies in the Book of Revelation.
So the question becomes, “Do you want to vote for Guiliani and get 3% of what you want, or vote for Clinton and get 2% of what you want?” (Neither of the candidates wants to make abortion or homosexuality mandatory, so they get a couple of points for that. Guiliani wants to maintain the current level of bloody chaos in the Middle East, but it’s not clear that he wants to turn it into the sort of apocalyptic nightmare that people are praying for, so that’s only worth about one point.)
With those choices, it seems like it would be better to cast a protest vote for a third party this time around, in hopes of getting offered 10% or even 15% next time.
George Bush is prolife and there were still people on the right who turned on him. It is always something with extremists.
Captain makes a good point, the guy who gets the nmost votes in the primaries will be the one who wins the nomination. If Giulliani wins what is the GOP supposed to do, invalidate it just to appease a fringe group who can not even muster enough voters to win the honest way?
I consider myself a Christian and while I do think there are certain circumstances where abortions should be allowed I am not a believer in abortion on demand. However, I do not think I have the right to tell everyone else how to vote. I think Giulliani will be a better president than Hillary.
How I vote in the primary or general election is my business and I do not like being blackmailed. I doubt that other people do either. And that is what the Christian Coalition is doing, they are trying to tell everyone else who to vote for.
The problem with ultimatums is that you can not take them back. If the social conservatives really want to play this game then I think the intelligent thing for other Republican voters to do would be to try and find stronger allies for the coalition and just let these folks throw their hissy fit alone.
There is also the war on Terror to consider. I suppose in some ways I am a one issue voter and that it is it. If these people go out of their way to put another Democrat in the White House just because they did not get their way, then why should I care about what they want or think? After all, they have made it perfectly clear that my opinion means nothing to them.
And if I don’t get what I want, then why should I suppor their guy? After all Huckabee is a strong social conservative, but he is not that strong on the war. If he wins the nomination, should I stay home or root for a third party candidate?
Millions of men and women died in the service of our country, so that what – people can sit at home with their panties in a bunch, because they aren’t able to vote for a candidate who mirrors their beliefs?
Hogwash. If you sit at home on election day in your little snit, you are a whiny child who doesn’t deserve to vote.
Politics is supposed to be about determining the course of government policy. I would like lower taxes, less regulation, curtailment of entitlements, fiscal prudence, judicial restraint, respect for the Bill of Rights in its entirety, a stronger military, and an active and progressive foriegn policy.
Why should I stop calling for those things just because some sympathetic politician is not immediately available? Why should my political activity be restrained to what is convenient for the available politicians?
Isn’t that agenda right for America? If it isn’t, shouldn’t we be thrashing out what is right for America? Shouldn’t we be urging our fellow Americans to share in doing what’s right for America?
In what way is the elected winner a “representative of the People” if the People are supposed to gravitate towards the Will of the Candidate? when the consensus of the candidates legitimates the policy views of the electorate, and not the other way around?
That’s the message I’m hearing, that it’s wrong–meanspirited, spiteful, juvenile– for me to push Truth that isn’t Useful to the Party, or judge the Party by how far it serves Truth. We already know, from the experiences of 2005 and 2006, that the Party would be happy to govern badly, so long as it governs. Is that going to be tolerated for the life of the incumbents?
Election Day is not the wonderful day when I’m permitted to serve my betters with my vote.
“Politics is supposed to be about determining the course of government policy. I would like lower taxes, less regulation, curtailment of entitlements, fiscal prudence, judicial restraint, respect for the Bill of Rights in its entirety, a stronger military, and an active and progressive foriegn policy.”
And if you can’t get all of that in one candidate what do you do?
I have no idea if Guiliani is going to come out of the primaries as a winner. He’s got his chance just like all the other candidates (most of them anyway). I think the point is if he does emerge as THE candidate should those who disagree with him on this or that issue not vote for him in the general election?
Pro-Death Candidates
The meaning is for those Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats that voted
against the Webb amendment (To give our troops time off at home compared to
the amount of time they served in the war zone) The continued support to
keep our troops in Iraq’s civil war, Not to give healthcare coverage to the
children of the low and middleclass, those who voted to let big corporation
move there manufacturing base overseas and continue the tax break for those
corporations (This has devastated the middleclass and caused people to lose
their healthcare insurance and without their medication have increased the
likelihood of a premature death) those who have voted for the Medicare bill
that give the large pharmaceutical company the ability to fix prices on
drugs and will not let a open competitive process. Tho0se who supported the
war going into Iraq and forgot that it was Al-Queda in Afghanistan that blew
up the twin towers in New York. Those commentators who repudiated the ideas
of anyone who spoke the truth about these issue and called those who spoke
up Traitors, Anti-Americans, Phony Soldiers, Cut and Runners and worst of
all Terrorists. For those who are willing to spend 100 plus billion on war
in Iraq and won’t spend a few billion on our children, old folks, bridges,
crime, and national debt. It applies to those who wish to sell of parts of
America to countries in the Middle East, and China. For those who have cut
the budgets and power of the F.D.A. and E.P.A. Veteran Affairs. For those
who cut the budget on care of our soldiers returning from the war and the
conditions that they have to deal with I.E. (Walter Reed Hospital). For the
Congressperson That doesn’t know the name of the solider in her or his
district that has been killed, but will cite the party line against a ad in
the newspaper that tells the truth about the conditions our soldiers are
dealing with in Iraq. The name applies to those who lie to the American
people about the need to violate our right in the name of fighting
terrorism, since when does a talk between you and your family members need
to be listened upon by the government spies in the name of protecting this
nation. ( Big Brotherism) And those in congress that have the power to end
the war, but not the BACKBONE to stand up for the American MAJORITY.
It is (PRO_DEATH) that these and others are. If it sounds harsh then you are
correct, it is. It is a harsh reality that these condition exist and that
some in the United States Voted, aided, continued, faithfully, and
shamefully allows these to exist in our Democracy. When we cannot exist
peacefully with the rest of the world it is an PRO_DEATH stance, when we
cannot help the future of our society (The Children) it is a PRO_DEATH
stance, and when we give away our rights, jobs, and individual freedoms to
fanatical zealots that is a PRO_DEATH stance. Wake up and smell not the
roses but the smell of a decaying society. Until we act upon these rotten
corpses they will still try to make it (A PRO_DEATH POLICY.)
gary,
You’d make OBL and the Imam’s proud. Your solipsism is far from decaying.