Redstate

By Mediahawk Posted in Elections — Comments (23) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Five months to the GOP presidential primaries, social conservatives are still shopping for a candidate. The lack of a candidate of satisfactory conservative credentials and stature continues to be keenly felt in the party. This situation was reflected in a news report about the Iowa GOP presidential debate held Sunday morning.

As the Republican presidential candidates gather this morning in Des Moines for their fourth debate, Iowa GOP voters are expressing limited enthusiasm for the field of current and potential aspirants, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. Their views appear to be a microcosm of GOP sentiment across the country and point to a wide open battle for the nomination.
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has emerged as the early leader in the campaign for Iowa. But his support is both soft and shallow, suggesting that the Republican race in the state, as nationally, remains extremely fluid.

Just 19 percent of likely GOP caucus attendees said they were "very satisfied" with the field of candidates -- far below satisfaction levels among Iowa Democrats -- and poll respondents were badly fractured when asked to rate the candidates on political and personal attributes.

The top four candidates --- Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain and Mitt Romney --- are suspect in many regards to many conservatives. Giuliani despite his Republican Party affiliation and strong leadership credentials in national security matters is a dyed-in-the-wool social liberal. Social conservative he most certainly is not, and we can dare predict, may never be. Obviously trying to redeem himself before social conservatives, he has vowed that he will appoint "strict constructionist" judges in the mold of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. But pray, if he did not as mayor of New York appoint lower-court equivalents of Scalia and Thomas, how in the world would he as a president do so? This is what Giuliani is reported to have told South Carolina Republicans in February.

"I would want judges who are strict constructionists because I am," he told South Carolina Republicans last month. "Those are the kinds of justices I would appoint -- Scalia, Alito and Roberts."

However an educative piece of investigative journalism done by the Politico clearly reveals that in terms of appointment of judges, Giuliani is an out and out pro-gay, pro-abortion liberal. For anyone who is not bent on denying the obvious, that politico story and a wealth of other evidence are enough to shatter the myth that as president Giuliani would appoint "strict constructionist" judges and be a defender of conservative values.

A Politico review of the 75 judges Giuliani appointed to three of New York state's lower courts found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans by more than 8 to 1. One of his appointments was an officer of the International Association of Lesbian and Gay Judges. Another ruled that the state law banning liquor sales on Sundays was unconstitutional because it was insufficiently secular.
A third, an abortion-rights supporter, later made it to the federal bench in part because New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a liberal Democrat, said he liked her ideology.

Cumulatively, Giuilani's record was enough to win applause from people like Kelli Conlin, the head of NARAL Pro-Choice New York, the state's leading abortion-rights group.

For as every one who has served in that office must know, there's an almost unbearable pressure on a president when it comes to the matter of nominating judges and justices. Judges and particularly Supreme Court justices are the final arbiters of national culture and destiny. Every ideological bloc is aware of this and this is why ideological camps subject presidents to extreme levels of pressure, blackmail, threats and what have you whenever a Supreme Court vacancy opens up. In recent decades there's been only a few presidents who had conservative values and personal character strong enough to withstand that intense barrage of pressure and make a choice consistent with their conscience and values -- presidents such as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Previous other presidents, including Bush's own father who touted themselves as social conservatives and who certainly were no cross-dressers and supporters of gay rights found it difficult enough to nominate nominally conservative justices - some of whom, incidentally, turned out to be false conservatives and true liberals. Bush's father who can lay claim to stronger conservative values than Giuliani nominated two justices (Clarence Thomas and David Souter). Thomas proved to be a true constructionist judge while Souter turned out to be a dud.

Even the man touted to be the archetypical social conservative President Ronald Reagan did not have a particularly brilliant record in terms of nominating true conservative justices. Reagan nominated three justices:Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy; William Rehnquist was nominated as associate justice by President Richard Nixon but he was confirmed as Chief Justice under Reagan. Of those three nominated as associate justices by Reagan only Antonin Scalia has proved himself to be a true strict constructionist. O'Connor and Souter were part of the 5-4 majority that defeated a challenge to overturn Roe vs. Wade in 1992. If a true social conservative like Reagan had all the trouble in the world to nominate justices who could prove to be true constructionists how much more ideologically and politically difficult would it be for a dyed-in-the wool liberal like Giuliani to nominate justices who would be true defenders of conservative social values? The point we are trying to make is that it takes a true conservative president true to his values to nominate true strict constructionist Supreme Court justices. Just as a lemon tree normally does not produce oranges so also do not openly liberal pro-choice presidents nominate true and strict constructionist judges. Believing otherwise is an exercise in self-delusion. That President George W. Bush was able to nominate two justices who hitherto have proved themselves to be true defenders of conservative national values is a testament to his true social conservatism. A less staunchly conservative Republican president would not have been able to do it. It takes true, deep-rooted conviction, moral soundness and courage to do it. Everything reproduces of itself, of its kind and of its quality. That's a law of life.

As for Romney, he touts himself and is touted by others as a strong social conservative. On the face of it, he seems to have many qualities that mark him out as a social conservative. Of all the top four candidates he's the only one to have married and stayed married to one woman. His children, generally, are said to be wholesome and well-behaved. He's a self-confessed pro-lifer. And he's also professedly against the legalization of homosexual marriage. But remember we said on the face of it. For when you dig deeper beneath that attractive, smooth and dazzling conservative image what you hit is a deep vein of obsfucation as to what he's really for and who he really is. In fact if you are the persistent kind and you keep digging deeper don't be surprised if you hit a rich lode of social liberalism trackrecord. He has flip-flopped so much on issues of deep concern to conservatives - notably, abortion - that one gets dizzy trying to keep up with his smoothly, frequently executed twists and turns.

As hard as that is to achieve, Romney makes John Kerry look clumsy and inexperienced in the game of twists, turns and backtracking. Very conveniently these changes of position often happen when he's gunning for a public position. We dare not call him feckless, shallow and calculating. But we can say he's amazingly good at reading the wind and going smoothly with the flow of it. Romney indeed seems to be a man who values traditional values such as family and marriage. The problem, however is that, one, those values may not be deep and strong enough and may have been constructed more to serve ambition than conscience. Second, he's an enormously ambitious and driven man, and his values and ambition are in perpetual warfare. This tension between his values and his ambition is one of the weakest links in his political character. For quite often in this inner war, naked ambition pulverizes values. And that is a most dangerous thing to have in a man who would be governing the affairs of millions and directing the destiny of an entire nation. For it's safer for a nation when the values and ambitions of a man who aspires to public office are allies rather than sworn enemies. If a man's values are not deep and strong enough, once he's in office don't expect values to be the driver of his policies. Ambition and cold, calculating pragmatism usually will be the driving forces. And it's just never good in the long term for a nation when mere naked ambition is the locomotive of a man's ride to power. Values, strongly and consistently and courageously held values is the best driver in this regard. A nation's interests are best served when its leader's ambitions are served, molded, influenced and driven by his values, not the other way round.

What about Fred Thompson? The darling-of-the-moment candidate is just as suspect in the eyes of true conservatives. As reported in an earlier write up the media have laid bare the falsity of his claims of being a consistent social conservative. If a man who lobbied on behalf of a pro-choice organization is a consistent social conservative, well then Thompson is indeed one. As for McCain, his long-running fire fights with conservatives on issues ranging from the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act to his bashing of Christian leaders like the late Jerry Falwell to his support for the aborted comprehensive immigration reforms, have worked to sap him of much of the reserve of good will and actual support he once had in the party. That he's arguably the most courageous and honest of the bunch, and potentially the best presidential material, do not seem to cut much ice with disenchanted social conservatives. The divorce indeed seems definitive. A big shame.

The two candidates that social conservative may truly call their own --- former Arkansas governor, Mike Huckabee and the senior Senator for Kansas, Sam Brownback --- have, for multiple reasons, failed to win the backing of the conservative base mainly because up to now they are yet to demonstrate their electability at the national level. Social conservatives want candidates who have proven policy and rhetorical track records on conservative issues --- as have Huckabee and Brownback. But they want them to have the image of toughness and electability as do the liberal candidate, Giuliani. Unhappily for conservatives these two men are yet to project that image of strength in depth. They certainly have the goods, true social conservative values. But for some inexplicable reasons they do not seem to know the first thing about how to sell them whereas Giuliani and Romney who don't have proven themselves skillful at marketiing that which they do not possess. But then isn't this politics, the game where you sell what you have not.

This has led to a situation where with only five months to the primaries, the GOP conservative base is yet to find a candidate that can inspire them and who they can support and cast their votes for without having to pinch hard their noses. So conservatives continue to shop. Problem being that pretty soon the shop will announce that it's time to close up and that shoppers must have to leave. And if the shoppers leave the shop with goods picked and paid for not out of true desire but just to leave with something then it becomes likely that after unwrapping the goods a case of shopper's remorse must follow. Social conservatives better browse hard and fast before the shop calls it a day and make sure they pick goods they will not regret buying.