After listening to what Sarah Palin says, I am inclined to agree. I also agree with Palin's seeming self-assessment that she can be more effective as an activist, although she didn't speak in the first person.
I am struck by who is not running in the Republican field, Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, and Sarah Palin. It seems that each of these potential candidates has a cache of highly enthusiastic supporters that none of the current crop, Ron Paul excepted seems to bring to the race. The good news is that Republican voters tend to be grown-ups about these choices and are less likely to fall in love with a candidate who is all show and no dough like the incumbent. The bad news is that this will leave the tea party movement split, whose energy will be needed to unseat Obama. Further, since the eventual nominee is unlikely to please the tea party to the extent that Palin might have, the movement may suffer a loss of enthusiasm for participation in the political process. The other bit of bad news is that Republicans have shown a certain trend over the last 20 years. Two Bushes, McCain, and Dole all have that "I'm a conservative, but maybe not one to limit government growth and interference in the markets when it suits my purposes" quality. Right now my low bar is the nominee who will:
- Beat Obama.
- Sign the Obamacare repeal.
- Deal with entitlements in a common sense manner.
- Keep a lid on other spending.
This is why I think it is wise of the SCTRC to not endorse candidates. By influencing the course of the debate, we can shape the process better than through a cult of personality. Further, we need to keep in mind that the assault on the constitution by the progressive movement has been going on for over 100 years. To think that two years of effort will result in a permanent roll back is naive, and something I would expect out of leftist rank and file. (They are apparently disenchanted with Obama, but you know how they will vote.) We probably need over a generation's worth of effort to make significant in roads. I am personally in this for my as yet to be born grandkids, (here that boys?), so please don't take the 2012 election as the end of the road, regardless of the outcome.
I would really challenge your assertion that GOP voters are more 'adult' judging by the surprising prominence of all-hat-and-no-cattle candidates in this election cycle. By that I mean Michelle Bachmann (record of achieving nothing but self-promotion combined with encyclopedic mental database of dubious statistics), Rick Perry (precious few accomplishments in his decade of power save 'college tuition for illegals') Donald Trump (I still think he was a troll), Chris Christie (being a loud half term governor does not count as 'cattle'). As for candidates that had 'cattle,' such as Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum, Garry Johnson, Jon Huntsman, or Newt Gingrich, they appear to have been of the wrong breed- the pro-central-power-for-my-favored-causes variety for the first two or the simple refusal of the last three to consistently follow the orthodox movement-conservative line.
ReplyDeleteWow, I meant that the eventual NOMINEE is usually an individual of accomplishment. We can't judge this cycle until its over. While I didn't like the previous nominees, one couldn't deny they possessed a certain demonstrated capability when they received the GOP nomination. I won't argue about the specifics of the field, right now. Well maybe one, see this about Gary Johnson. You really out to check out Gary Johnson, he is not cut from the same cloth as Perry and Romney.
ReplyDeleteI have checked out Gary Johnson, and I have a soft spot for his non-flaky libertarianism, and I wish him well. I would potentially even vote for him and his non pandering, honestly pro-liberty ways, if he could be divorced from the broader republican coalition's anti-liberal side. I included him in the 'cattle' category, but of the wrong type for the culture-warriors.
ReplyDelete