The right choice for conservatives in 2008
By helveticus Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
With conservatives not exactly in love with all of the top candidates thus far, I think it's important to point out that there is someone out here who I think would be ideal to run and would have a very good chance of getting the nomination and winning the general. In fact, this man could be considered a hero by many conservatives.
He is as well known nationally as just about anyone on the scene, and has served two terms as the governor of one of the nation's largest states. I don't think there's anyone who communicates and promotes the conservative message as well he does. On both domestic and foreign policy, he would be the conservative champion that so many of us yearn for.
Now, he does have a few things in his record that need to be addressed, but I think he can get over them:
1. As Governor, he advocated and signed into law the largest tax increase in the history of his state
2. As Governor, he supported and signed into law the most liberal and permissive abortion law in the history of the country
3. He helped scuttle a bill that would have prevented gay teachers from teaching in elementary schools
4. He seemed to be a little too eager to please the environmentalists
5. There's hints that as President, he might be willing to sign a massive amnesty bill into law
Nevertheless, I think Gov Reagan would be a fine choice and I hope he continues to gain support.
The point of this exercise is to ask a question. When did conservatism become soley defined by social issues such as abortion and gay marriage, or even illegal immmigration. If someone tried to run for the nomination today, with the record of having raised taxes, legalized abortion, been attentive to gay rights, been friendly with the environmentalists and a hint of being for amnesty, he would get slaughtered. Unfortunately, we would have rejected Reagan before he even had a chance.
If you go back to read A Time For Choosing, Reagan's campaign launch, his 1st and 2nd inaugurals, and his farewell address, you'll find that his key issues remeained constant. From the beginning, he spoke of less government, lower taxes, freer markets, more growth, less spending, a stronger military, and a more agressive posture towards the Soviet Union. If you read his farewell address, it's these achievements that he emphasizes. He doesn't really talk about any social issues.
Now, all that being said, by 2008 it will have been 20 years since reagan left town and 25 years since he last ran for office. A lot has changed and the party and the conservative movement is not the same as it once was. However, I'd just hope that as we go forward, we remember what the foundation was and not seek to conduct some ideological purification campaign that ends up marginalizing the party and the movement. It's true that no one can get the nomination or win the election without the support of socail conservatives, but it's also true that social conservatives can;t win the election by themselves without the support of the independents and the moderates.
We have to figure out a way to find the candidate that appeals to the most and alienates the least, That allows each group to feel that it has the best chance of achieving their goals. The 2008 election is too important to have a candidate that will fracture the party or spur a 3rd party run. We saw that movie in 1992 and I don't like how it ended.
The fact is that despite all the troubles now, no democrat has gotten 50% of the vote since Carter barely got past it in 1976, and he's the only one since LBJ in 1964. Truman didn't even 50% against Dewey . Think about it Since FDR in 1944, 60 years, all of 2 democrats have gotten 50% nationally. 2.
In that same period 7 Republicans have. No Republican candidate has lost the WH without a 3rd party drawing more than 5% since Ford in 1976. I don't know if the dems can without a 3rd party challenger from the right.
If conservatives and republicans can find a candidate that we can rally and unite around and support, he'll win.
I don;t know who that guy is right now, but I hope we can find him in the year ahead.
If someone tried to run for the nomination today, with the record of having raised taxes, legalized abortion, been attentive to gay rights, been friendly with the environmentalists and a hint of being for amnesty, he would get slaughtered.
The party is against all these things, and it should "slaughter" any nominee who is for them. Reagan ran against the things you mention.
I don't think any Republican candidate is running for those things, there's a dichotomy between someones past and what they are now running on.
Except maybe the Gilmore guy. I think he's for all those things.
....was not on the ballot in 1992...Clinton would have still won that election...and given the various surveys that show that Perot's presence on the ballot hurt Clinton as much as or more than it hurt Bush..he would have garnered more than 50% of the vote.
While it is true that only one Democrat has won more than 50% of the vote in a presidential election since 1964..there have been only three elections where a Democrat won the presidency since 1964.
And in the 1980 election...Reagan did not get much further beyond the 50% mark than Carter did in 1976 in the percentage of vote won..but Anderson took 6.6% of the votes cast in 1980..which would tend to make Reagan's victory stronger than it might appear to be..and the fact that Reagan received 90.9% of the electoral votes bears that out.
I doubt that any major party candidate would get to the 50% mark when there is a third party candidate on the ballot who receives as much as or more of the popular vote (percentage) than Anderson got in 1980.
And that is exactly what happened in 1992 and 1996 when Perot received 18.9% and 8.4% of the popular votes cast in those presidential elections.
.
Perot siphoned off much more of the Republican vote. Or, at least those independents and a few democrats who had voted for Reagan. They just did not trust Bush after "no new taxes" and a host of other ill conceived flip flops.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Yeah, yeah, yeah, liberals often claim some "study" or "poll" that says Perot drew from Dems equally but I never found any Dem that voted for Perot but know a ton of regretful Republicans who pulled the lever for H. Ross.
If you look at how Bush should have performed in some Republican states, Utah, I think, comes to mind, but didn't it becomes clear that he took the big hit.
I'm sure you can find some donkey Perot voters but I suspect they are scattered around and atomized wherein GOP Perot voters seem to have been concentrated in sizable and identifiable groups (e.g. people really pissed off about the breaking of the 'No new taxes' pledge).
In 1980 society was not being rewired as it is today.
Gays were not demanding a redefinition of marriage.
Illegal immigrants were a smaller percentage of the population.
Anti-abortion forces had not spent 30 or so years in unsuccessful efforts to merely have abortion law be subject to a popular vote.
Society in 1980 seemed to actually be rejecting the weirdness of the '60s and '70s. Today it seems like we are all having bad flashbacks to the days of liberalism's power.