Sunday, February 03, 2008

The Republican Soul

Has there ever been a major Presidential candidate more terminally constipated than Mitt Romney? If you answered Al Gore or John Kerry, you might be right, but do Republicans really want their own version of a poll-taking, script-reading, position-parsing, consultant-driven, image-building, hair-coloring, privileged-class pretzel of a candidate? Do Republicans really want a candidate who is capable of buying an election without ever demonstrating the willingness to fight for or finance any of the positions important to Republican voters? Apparently some Republican voters do, but so far, not most. Apparently almost all of talk radio does, but not me.

Character still matters to many Republican voters. We celebrate politicians who become life-protecting, tax-cutting, government-reducing, freedom-protecting, law-enforcing legislators, once they fight to reform government, not when they are trying to buy our vote in an election; especially a Presidential election.

The Republican Party is left with some very flawed candidates this Presidential election cycle. Our Party needs to be tweaked and our nominating process needs to be reformed before the next election cycle in 2012. This year we go to the general election with the candidate we’ve got. If Mitt Romney becomes the Republican nominee, the positions of the two major Parties will be different, but the soul of the two major Parties will be the same. Is that what we really want?

16 comments:

The Count said...

I'm not really sure what to make of you David. There's a tone of deep disappointment in your recent posts I have not seen before. I hear what your saying to a certain extent but when compared to the idea of a Obama or Clinton presidency there's no comparison.

Probably I haven't been paying close enough attention to the candidates. Or I'm just a cheap date.

Poll-driven politics are a conudrum. Politicians should in theory get elected to office by holding views in concert with the greatest number of people possible. The problem is we want them to have these positions "naturally". Perhaps that's so we feel like we can trust them more. Really though, as long as someone really delivers, it makes no difference whether it comes from false motives or not. I would expect you to be more sanguine about that fact. I guess you have a more developed idea than me about what kind of candidate you're looking for. My expectations are pretty low, so I'm realatively satisfied.

David M. Smith said...

Hi Count,

I don’t feel disappointed. I mostly try to convey sober thoughts in my posting with a little humor sprinkled in. Like we’ve both acknowledged before, my bias allows me to see events differently from others and my bias prevents me from seeing events the same as others. There are two sides to the “Contrarian” coin.

I do think the smaller and more limited our government, the less we need to worry about the changes prescribed in elections. Therefore, when candidates advocate more involvement by government, I am much more concerned than when candidates advocate limited government. This election has me upping my concern, but I know each election only results in marginal changes. This election, regardless of who is elected, will result in marginal changes in the wrong direction. If a Democrat is elected President, the changes will be slightly larger, but still marginal.

I feel like when I vote, I am not just voting for the issues that are important to me, but I am also voting for the type of leader who is important to me. There isn’t a clear line or an easy choice between a candidate who holds my political views insincerely, and a candidate who is honest, but holds political views different than my own. I can like a candidate like Obama or Giuliani, and never vote for either because their views are so different from my own. I suppose I could vote for a candidate I didn’t like as long as I had a sense of their trustworthiness, but I won’t vote for a candidate who I suspect will change positions depending on which way the wind is blowing.

Buz said...

As I have said before, the issues really are secondary to the person. In 2000, when GW was elected, we thought that the issues were the economy and the federal judges at stake. Who could have foreseen 9/11?

This election will be the same. We may elect a president for reasons of economy, security, healthcare, or what ever, but there will always be something that happens during the person's time in office which will make us realize that where a person truly stands comes from their character, not the latest polls. It is what's inside that counts.

Buz

Buz said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Buz said...

Well, I guess you won't have to worry now ... looks like Mitt is bowing out.

Buz

David M. Smith said...

Hi Buz,

Yea, it was just another flip-flop. Less than two days ago he said he would stay in the race until the convention. His campaign never was about anything other than his own ego. Romney and his supporters are one of the reasons McCain is going to get nominated by the Republicans. Romney’s personal fortune kept other good candidates from running.

There was a time, not so long ago, when we could laugh at the silliness of the Democratic Party. The Democrats almost look like the adults this cycle.

Anonymous said...

Hi, Im from Melbourne Australia.

I find that this reference sums up the Republican "soul" in very accurate terms.

www.psychohistory.com/reagan/rcontent.htm

Buz said...

I think Martians are purple, too ...

Anonymous said...

Indeed, what a convoluted, messed up system for nominating a candidate! I'm a very strict constructionist, especially when it comes to states' rights - states should be able to choose their method for electing representatives to both houses Congress, for example. But when it comes to selecting a Presidential candidate for a national election - with results that effect the nation as a whole -all of the states should have to submit to the same set of rules for candidate selection.

I can't help but feel that McCain has been forced down our throats by non-Republicans, RINOs, and the GOP elites.

On another, perhaps semi-positive note, I don't think the Clintons will "go gently into that good night". Their narcissism and lust for power may very well produce a Democrat Party meltdown. I know, I know, it's we Republicans who have all the problems, supposedly, but I there may be some chickens coming home to roost on the other side.

alohasteve said...

Great site you have here!

Would you like a Link Exchange with The Internet Radio Network?? At the IRN you can listen for free to over 70 of America's top Talk Shows via Free Streaming Audio...

http://netradionetwork.com

Buz said...

Well, David, you got your wish and Mitt is out of the race.

To quote my car-pool friend, "we are now left with three choices,
Hillary Clinton, Hillary Obama, or Hillary McCain."

To quote Rush, "We are so screwed."

Buz

David M. Smith said...

Hi Buz,

There is some truth and humor in your car pool friend’s statement, but at this point, I prefer to know who is doing the screwing and how we are getting screwed than to ever vote for another Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Mitt Romney needs to do something conservative before he will ever get my vote.

McCain is right about Iraq and the war on terror, right about taxes and government spending, and right about abortion. As long as he doesn’t go nuts on global climate change, we will only be screwed a little.

I’m starting to think McCain is going to win. What do you think?

Buz said...

McCain is right on abortion? Has this changed in the past six weeks? Last I heard he is all for "a woman's right to choose", a polite way of saying pro-abortion.

Buz

Buz said...

chew chew chew ... gulp

Swallowing a few words there ...

Went and checked. I guess McCain is not "pro-abortion". He is on the conservative side of the fence, although, not all the way to the right (surprise ... he seems to be on the fence or just on this side or that side of it for most issues).

The official position he has taken and consistantly voted for is against abortion UNLESS it is a case of incest or rape, or the life of the mother is at stake. This differs from the "true" prolife stance in that our belief is that IF life begins at conception, and neither rape nor incest is a capital crime, then why kill the baby ... and in many cases, the cry of the life of the mother being at stake is vastly over exaggerated (especially when babies who were born when the mother was only 4 or 5 months pregnant have a significan survival rate).

Having said that, I am willing to compromise in that area, since those cases make up less than 5% of all abortions. I am a practical person and I could support a 95% decrease in abortion vs. a 0% decrease.

He does support federal funding for stem cell research, and while I can understand where he is coming from (bad information), I don't think this would be enough to deter me from voting for him.

So, I guess I can proudly cast a vote against Obama and Clinton this fall, after all!

Buz

David M. Smith said...

Hi Buz,

We may end up meeting our Savior before we can proudly vote for any Presidential candidate again. In the meantime, we have plenty of candidates we can vote against.

Buz said...

No, I said that I can proudly cast a vote AGAINST Joe Isuzu and the Wicked Witch of the Left.

Buz