Just a quick thought about Sen. Specter's party-switch.
I think people should follow their convictions BUT ... if someone voted for Mr. Specter when he ran as a Republican, were they voting for the man, the party or a combination of both? It is likely all three in many cases. But is it fair for someone to switch in mid-stream after making certain promises, pledges etc.?
I guess my question is this: Should there be an election for Mr. Specter to run again for the same office? Give people another chance to vote for (or against) him as a Democrat rather than a Republican? What about those in the Democratic party in his state who have been working and planning for the next election? Does this have their blessing too?
The whole idea of switching parties at that level seems odd. Like OK to do but then why should you get to keep everything you won or got elected to if you have changed?
Showing posts with label GOP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GOP. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
We will survive
I remember in 1992 when Clinton beat Bush 41 and the thinking was, "It's over." I'm not saying it was good but we muddled through Monica and a couple of "-gates".
It is not so apparent to everyone but the 1992 election also brought us the 1994 "Contract with America" which allowed the GOP to take control of the House and keep Clinton on the defensive for some time. It was far from perfect but it helped the GOP come together on a national level. Maybe after everybody licks there wounds ...
Now that it is over, (OK officially it isn't - the fat lady hasn't sung yet but she is in the wings and ready to come on stage) the GOP needs to takes lessons learned from watching Obama's success at getting out the vote, energizing people, getting them excited. When was the last time anyone was excited about a Republican nominee for President? Try 1988 and Ronald Reagan. Look back at the years, Bush, Dole, another Bush, then McCain. I'll give McCain lots of credit for a good game but nobody in that list was exciting.
We shouldn't elect a President based on that factor any more than we should based on how much money a candidate raises. But it is a modern fact-of-life that those things matter to some (OK lots of) people. The GOP needs to start grooming younger candidates, they need a farm club equivalent for young Republicans. Someplace they can go and learn the ropes, how to run campaigns, start to win state-level races and work their way up through the ranks.
Or maybe if enough young people have not found a home in the GOP, they will have enough critical mass to start an effective 3rd party. The mainstream media keep talking about the huge number of independents. I heard CNN use a figure as high as 30%. I don't believe that but I guess the number is growing.
A final thought. I won't be good at this but I shared with a group of friends on Monday that what we can do Wednesday morning is pray. The Bible says (first Timothy 2:2) to pray for our leaders (OK it really says "those in authority".) William Bennett said tonight on CNN that he would pray for Obama. If we believe what we say we believe, we should too.
I just went outside a little while ago to look at the stars - they are just really something in the cool fall night air, but while outside I did pray for Obama and confessed in my prayer that I would not do this well but I think it is what we are supposed to do. And when we consider the vastness of the stars, and who made them, our little troubles here on earth seem pretty tiny.
It is not so apparent to everyone but the 1992 election also brought us the 1994 "Contract with America" which allowed the GOP to take control of the House and keep Clinton on the defensive for some time. It was far from perfect but it helped the GOP come together on a national level. Maybe after everybody licks there wounds ...
Now that it is over, (OK officially it isn't - the fat lady hasn't sung yet but she is in the wings and ready to come on stage) the GOP needs to takes lessons learned from watching Obama's success at getting out the vote, energizing people, getting them excited. When was the last time anyone was excited about a Republican nominee for President? Try 1988 and Ronald Reagan. Look back at the years, Bush, Dole, another Bush, then McCain. I'll give McCain lots of credit for a good game but nobody in that list was exciting.
We shouldn't elect a President based on that factor any more than we should based on how much money a candidate raises. But it is a modern fact-of-life that those things matter to some (OK lots of) people. The GOP needs to start grooming younger candidates, they need a farm club equivalent for young Republicans. Someplace they can go and learn the ropes, how to run campaigns, start to win state-level races and work their way up through the ranks.
Or maybe if enough young people have not found a home in the GOP, they will have enough critical mass to start an effective 3rd party. The mainstream media keep talking about the huge number of independents. I heard CNN use a figure as high as 30%. I don't believe that but I guess the number is growing.
A final thought. I won't be good at this but I shared with a group of friends on Monday that what we can do Wednesday morning is pray. The Bible says (first Timothy 2:2) to pray for our leaders (OK it really says "those in authority".) William Bennett said tonight on CNN that he would pray for Obama. If we believe what we say we believe, we should too.
I just went outside a little while ago to look at the stars - they are just really something in the cool fall night air, but while outside I did pray for Obama and confessed in my prayer that I would not do this well but I think it is what we are supposed to do. And when we consider the vastness of the stars, and who made them, our little troubles here on earth seem pretty tiny.
Last words on the election
The voting is about half-over and I'd like to get some things out before the results are in.
I still think we are in for a landslide for Obama.
Months ago I suggested McCain agree to run only for one term. Today I heard Paul Begala say that if McCain had done that, the outcome might be different. Remember where you heard that first!
Palin - while I was happy with the choice on some levels, she has not helped. She only kept some folks in the GOP camp who were unhappy with McCain. I don't think she brought new people in. She just gave the existing "choir" something new to sing about. If Hillary was the opponent, then Palin would have helped more. Against Obama, she has not helped and this may be more the fault of the party people who told McCain how to run his campaign. I think when this is all over, people will say Palin cost McCain a chance but I think those who managed her will be more at fault than her own lack of experience and verbal stumbles along the way.
I hope that before we do this again, things change with the way we elect our President. If the founding fathers had known about negative ads, attack ads, direct mail, robo-calling (add your own favorite to this list), they'd have written things differently. It may have come from a Jim Carrey movie but I'd like a balloon to follow every candidate around and when they stray from the truth, it lights up and says "Liar, liar!" Same for the media - if they twist a position to make a point about their favorite, the same balloon should light up.
People criticize Obama for using so much money (I heard $700 million) to run. McCain on the other hand took a bunch of our money using Federal matching dollars or however that system works. I think the funding issue needs to be looked at again. I don't see why we should pay in one way or another for somebody to run for office. But I also don't think one single euro or piaster or drachma should be allowed to make into the coffers of any candidate. I think some of the campaign finance laws are stupid. But there should be plenty of ways to prohibit foreign money from getting into the mix. If we can track bad meat all the way back to a farm in some state through tagging etc. to keep our food supply safe, surely we can track money coming in to a political campaign. Plus I think $700 million is obscene.
Regardless of the final outcome, I'll be glad when it is over.
I still think we are in for a landslide for Obama.
Months ago I suggested McCain agree to run only for one term. Today I heard Paul Begala say that if McCain had done that, the outcome might be different. Remember where you heard that first!
Palin - while I was happy with the choice on some levels, she has not helped. She only kept some folks in the GOP camp who were unhappy with McCain. I don't think she brought new people in. She just gave the existing "choir" something new to sing about. If Hillary was the opponent, then Palin would have helped more. Against Obama, she has not helped and this may be more the fault of the party people who told McCain how to run his campaign. I think when this is all over, people will say Palin cost McCain a chance but I think those who managed her will be more at fault than her own lack of experience and verbal stumbles along the way.
I hope that before we do this again, things change with the way we elect our President. If the founding fathers had known about negative ads, attack ads, direct mail, robo-calling (add your own favorite to this list), they'd have written things differently. It may have come from a Jim Carrey movie but I'd like a balloon to follow every candidate around and when they stray from the truth, it lights up and says "Liar, liar!" Same for the media - if they twist a position to make a point about their favorite, the same balloon should light up.
People criticize Obama for using so much money (I heard $700 million) to run. McCain on the other hand took a bunch of our money using Federal matching dollars or however that system works. I think the funding issue needs to be looked at again. I don't see why we should pay in one way or another for somebody to run for office. But I also don't think one single euro or piaster or drachma should be allowed to make into the coffers of any candidate. I think some of the campaign finance laws are stupid. But there should be plenty of ways to prohibit foreign money from getting into the mix. If we can track bad meat all the way back to a farm in some state through tagging etc. to keep our food supply safe, surely we can track money coming in to a political campaign. Plus I think $700 million is obscene.
Regardless of the final outcome, I'll be glad when it is over.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
the Veep-stakes
Of course the news for the next few days will be dominated by Mrs. Palin's disclosure of her pregnant daughter. I'm not going to talk here about that and whether it does or should have made any difference in McCain's choice.
The main topic is the idea that the VP is one-heartbeat away from the Presidency.
Is she ready to take over the country? Of course not.
But listening to Imus interview Tom Friedman today I was struck by a couple of comments:
One had to do with Biden. If in one or more primary races for the Democratic nod in years past, he has never mustered enough votes to continue, should we take that into consideration as to what most people wanted - especially Democrats since they were the only ones voting? I mean if a majority of Democrats never felt like he should be President, should the rest of the country now accept or assume he will be OK?
Of course not - that's not how it works.
Biden brings a lot to the ticket and he fills in some blanks. Does America want him as their President too? I doubt it. (At least 18 million of them wanted - and may STILL want Hillary!) This is all political.
The second comment was about Presidential decision making. The main thing we want in a President is for him/her to be surrounded by people who are very smart and wise and experienced. The test, according to Mr. Friedman, is what does the President do when those experts disagree.
I honestly don't know much about Palin yet - I know more about her teenage daughter so what does that say about the media's infatuation with scandal?
I still take Palin for exactly what she is and what the decision was. McCain desperately needed a nudge that Ridge, Pawlenty or no one else was going to give. Lieberman would have alienated too many party faithful. He could have gone with Carla Fiorina, former HP chair if he wanted to shake things up too but they would have really torn her up over her tenure at HP!
Is Palin the absolute best person for this job? Probably not. But is she good enough and does she bring something to the campaign? Of course.
This stage is about winning an election - not running the country. It's also about 2012. I have no doubts that should Obama lose, he will not run again. But I am certain Hillary will. And the GOP has to be looking at 2012 even if McCain won't promise to run for only one term.
The main topic is the idea that the VP is one-heartbeat away from the Presidency.
Is she ready to take over the country? Of course not.
But listening to Imus interview Tom Friedman today I was struck by a couple of comments:
One had to do with Biden. If in one or more primary races for the Democratic nod in years past, he has never mustered enough votes to continue, should we take that into consideration as to what most people wanted - especially Democrats since they were the only ones voting? I mean if a majority of Democrats never felt like he should be President, should the rest of the country now accept or assume he will be OK?
Of course not - that's not how it works.
Biden brings a lot to the ticket and he fills in some blanks. Does America want him as their President too? I doubt it. (At least 18 million of them wanted - and may STILL want Hillary!) This is all political.
The second comment was about Presidential decision making. The main thing we want in a President is for him/her to be surrounded by people who are very smart and wise and experienced. The test, according to Mr. Friedman, is what does the President do when those experts disagree.
I honestly don't know much about Palin yet - I know more about her teenage daughter so what does that say about the media's infatuation with scandal?
I still take Palin for exactly what she is and what the decision was. McCain desperately needed a nudge that Ridge, Pawlenty or no one else was going to give. Lieberman would have alienated too many party faithful. He could have gone with Carla Fiorina, former HP chair if he wanted to shake things up too but they would have really torn her up over her tenure at HP!
Is Palin the absolute best person for this job? Probably not. But is she good enough and does she bring something to the campaign? Of course.
This stage is about winning an election - not running the country. It's also about 2012. I have no doubts that should Obama lose, he will not run again. But I am certain Hillary will. And the GOP has to be looking at 2012 even if McCain won't promise to run for only one term.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Finally
More than a year ago in this lowly blog, I wrote that the GOP needed to pick a Veep that was a woman or minority in order to blunt what at first I thought would be a Clinton run then it became clear that Obama would be the choice.
Heck I wrote a letter to Karl Rove (still waiting on him to write back!) way back in 2004 suggesting that he pick somebody else other than Cheney for his 2nd term VP. But Karl never listened to anybody so ...
McCain may have done what nobody believed he could or would do.
I think this is a savvy political move and as long as she doesn't have something hidden in her closet (remember Ted Stevens is from Alaska!) and her husband is also squeeky clean, then I'd say this new team has a good shot at making something happen in November.
Maybe the only thing left for McCain to do is promise to run for only one term (something else I suggested long ago) which sets up Clinton vs. Palin in 2012. Imagine that!
Heck I wrote a letter to Karl Rove (still waiting on him to write back!) way back in 2004 suggesting that he pick somebody else other than Cheney for his 2nd term VP. But Karl never listened to anybody so ...
McCain may have done what nobody believed he could or would do.
I think this is a savvy political move and as long as she doesn't have something hidden in her closet (remember Ted Stevens is from Alaska!) and her husband is also squeeky clean, then I'd say this new team has a good shot at making something happen in November.
Maybe the only thing left for McCain to do is promise to run for only one term (something else I suggested long ago) which sets up Clinton vs. Palin in 2012. Imagine that!
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Darned if he does ...
Talking with a co-worker today about Conventions, the Donkeys and the GOP and decided I needed to write this down so everyone can either say how very smart I am (or stupid - only time will tell!)
OK, Obama made his choice and in typical fashion he covered a weak spot. Usually the VP comes from a state with a sizable amount of electoral votes. In this case he is trying to quell some of his critics.
McCain has it much tougher. Rumors about Lieberman. Here's my take on that: If he does it will go down in history as the most unusual pick for a VP ever. But it could be smart strategy on his part and here's why I think that. If he picks Lieberman he'll be saying to some Reagan Democrats and others who may not like Obama and are looking for a reason NOT to vote DEM - "Look, I can work with you people. Come back." He knows that right away he'd be vilified by the Christian right et al for this choice but in his mind he is hoping they'll forgive and forget by November and since few if any of them could ever vote for Obama or any other Democrat, he'll get most of them back anyway. But his losses of staunch rightees will be more than off-set by the democrats he convinces to come to the GOP side again.
The other option? He picks a more traditional person - I have no idea who this might be - but whoever it is is going to be right-of-center to placate and ensure the rightees show up and vote GOP.
A Hobson's choice of sorts. #1 is risky but given the climate might be his only chance of winning the election. #2 is not risky at all but won't win any elections.
Personally I don't like either of them but his people aren't listening to me and reading my earlier blogs about picking a minority for VP.
OK, Obama made his choice and in typical fashion he covered a weak spot. Usually the VP comes from a state with a sizable amount of electoral votes. In this case he is trying to quell some of his critics.
McCain has it much tougher. Rumors about Lieberman. Here's my take on that: If he does it will go down in history as the most unusual pick for a VP ever. But it could be smart strategy on his part and here's why I think that. If he picks Lieberman he'll be saying to some Reagan Democrats and others who may not like Obama and are looking for a reason NOT to vote DEM - "Look, I can work with you people. Come back." He knows that right away he'd be vilified by the Christian right et al for this choice but in his mind he is hoping they'll forgive and forget by November and since few if any of them could ever vote for Obama or any other Democrat, he'll get most of them back anyway. But his losses of staunch rightees will be more than off-set by the democrats he convinces to come to the GOP side again.
The other option? He picks a more traditional person - I have no idea who this might be - but whoever it is is going to be right-of-center to placate and ensure the rightees show up and vote GOP.
A Hobson's choice of sorts. #1 is risky but given the climate might be his only chance of winning the election. #2 is not risky at all but won't win any elections.
Personally I don't like either of them but his people aren't listening to me and reading my earlier blogs about picking a minority for VP.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Once more with feeling
Nothing new but a re-stating of an old idea.
I heard two people arguing back and forth about Obama and Clinton this a.m. on NPR and one thing they both said stood out: Either one of them represents a major change from the Bush 43 administration. So with that in mind I repeat some earlier advice and ideas for Sen. McCain:
1 - Lay low until the convention.
2 - Raise tons of money and horde it for the fall campaign.
3 - At the convention make the best speech of your life which will include:
a) a promise to not run again - to only serve one term no matter what and
b) announce that your choice for Veep is a woman, Hispanic or African-American. If you can find someone who gets two out of those three then all the better.
4 - Don't feel it is being disloyal to distance yourself from Bush. Make your case on Iraq and stick with it. At the end of the day, sticking with your own idea, opinion - even if not one shared by everybody, is better than doing a John Kerry ( I voted for the war but I was really against it so then I voted against it because I really was ...) I think people still respect strong opinions if you stick by your guns rather than flip-flopping all over the place.
If McCain had a Karl Rove-type person I'd send this to him/her but since I don't know that contact this will have to do.
I can almost guarantee if he manages to do #3, he wins in November.
If not, then it's going to be a close race or maybe not even close at all.
My thoughts on the GOP side of things.
I heard two people arguing back and forth about Obama and Clinton this a.m. on NPR and one thing they both said stood out: Either one of them represents a major change from the Bush 43 administration. So with that in mind I repeat some earlier advice and ideas for Sen. McCain:
1 - Lay low until the convention.
2 - Raise tons of money and horde it for the fall campaign.
3 - At the convention make the best speech of your life which will include:
a) a promise to not run again - to only serve one term no matter what and
b) announce that your choice for Veep is a woman, Hispanic or African-American. If you can find someone who gets two out of those three then all the better.
4 - Don't feel it is being disloyal to distance yourself from Bush. Make your case on Iraq and stick with it. At the end of the day, sticking with your own idea, opinion - even if not one shared by everybody, is better than doing a John Kerry ( I voted for the war but I was really against it so then I voted against it because I really was ...) I think people still respect strong opinions if you stick by your guns rather than flip-flopping all over the place.
If McCain had a Karl Rove-type person I'd send this to him/her but since I don't know that contact this will have to do.
I can almost guarantee if he manages to do #3, he wins in November.
If not, then it's going to be a close race or maybe not even close at all.
My thoughts on the GOP side of things.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
the Fat Lady hasn't sung (yet)
Millions of column inches and hours of airtime will be spent dissecting the various turning points as a result of the Florida primary yesterday (1/29).
Giuliani's 3rd place will probably overshadow McCain's win for a bit as people 2nd guess his 2nd guessing. No doubt his decision to put all his eggs in the one big basket so late (who'd have thunk late January would be considered late in a political campaign?) will be mulled over by many a pundit for days and weeks to come.
Huckabee is almost an afterthought now. While I'm sure they can't relate to him on any level, I still think it was more than just a slight that the NY Times on-line front-page mentions the GOP race being now down to two. Huckabee was just in Missouri yesterday talking about the importance of MO in his quest. Did he drop out sometime between 10 p.m. last night and this morning?
Here's my latest without any further on the events of yesterday.
I think in a head-to-head, McCain has a chance against Clinton. He's no Bob Dole if you remember that Clinton v. somebody election.
But in the event of a McCain v. Obama race (I know I'm getting ahead of myself here since Romney is still doing pretty well.) I think McCain does become Bob Dole and the election is over before it even starts. Unless ....
I've told a version of this story before but it was about Bush 43 and Karl Rove back near the end of his first term.
In my opinion, the only way, but a pretty sure-fire way for McCain to beat Obama, is to find and put a superb minority candidate on his ticket (and promise to only run and serve for one term.) I don't even know who this person is - a Hispanic? African-American? Woman? I'll bet if you can get two-out-of-three from this list it will be a landslide! This is not a racist statement - just an observation and hopefully good politics.
The GOP for too long has either ignored or taken for granted minorities. I'm still not seeing any grass-roots efforts to bring talented minorities up through the ranks. Why doesn't the RNC have a farm system and a program to recruit and train young minorities to be running for school boards, city councils etc.? I was just reading this week and was reminded of Bush 43's snub of the NAACP years ago. If I can still remember that, so can bunches of other folk.
So if McCain can keep up his momentum and not in a way that presumes anything, announce he'd like so-and-so to serve as his VP, and that so-n-so happens to be a minority, just imagine how galvanizing that would be. And while he is far from perfect the first name that pops into my head is Colin Powell. I know in many ways he's more like Giuliani, but he has so many other strengths.
Locally the rumors are that soon-to-be former Guv of MO, Matt Blunt is the likely choice for a VP if Romney gets the GOP nod. All I think of is that you have two pieces of white bread and no sandwich! I don't really know what that means but it sounded funny!
I've expressed some interest in McCain around my office and I am immediately greeted with the polite equivalent of hoots and hollers. But while he may not be my ideal person either, I think he has the Presidential stuff and just as important, I think he can win against either of the two Democratic possibilities. In the long and short term, that is hugely important.
I know I only have a few faithful readers but I'd really like to hear some minority names floated as possible VPs.
Giuliani's 3rd place will probably overshadow McCain's win for a bit as people 2nd guess his 2nd guessing. No doubt his decision to put all his eggs in the one big basket so late (who'd have thunk late January would be considered late in a political campaign?) will be mulled over by many a pundit for days and weeks to come.
Huckabee is almost an afterthought now. While I'm sure they can't relate to him on any level, I still think it was more than just a slight that the NY Times on-line front-page mentions the GOP race being now down to two. Huckabee was just in Missouri yesterday talking about the importance of MO in his quest. Did he drop out sometime between 10 p.m. last night and this morning?
Here's my latest without any further on the events of yesterday.
I think in a head-to-head, McCain has a chance against Clinton. He's no Bob Dole if you remember that Clinton v. somebody election.
But in the event of a McCain v. Obama race (I know I'm getting ahead of myself here since Romney is still doing pretty well.) I think McCain does become Bob Dole and the election is over before it even starts. Unless ....
I've told a version of this story before but it was about Bush 43 and Karl Rove back near the end of his first term.
In my opinion, the only way, but a pretty sure-fire way for McCain to beat Obama, is to find and put a superb minority candidate on his ticket (and promise to only run and serve for one term.) I don't even know who this person is - a Hispanic? African-American? Woman? I'll bet if you can get two-out-of-three from this list it will be a landslide! This is not a racist statement - just an observation and hopefully good politics.
The GOP for too long has either ignored or taken for granted minorities. I'm still not seeing any grass-roots efforts to bring talented minorities up through the ranks. Why doesn't the RNC have a farm system and a program to recruit and train young minorities to be running for school boards, city councils etc.? I was just reading this week and was reminded of Bush 43's snub of the NAACP years ago. If I can still remember that, so can bunches of other folk.
So if McCain can keep up his momentum and not in a way that presumes anything, announce he'd like so-and-so to serve as his VP, and that so-n-so happens to be a minority, just imagine how galvanizing that would be. And while he is far from perfect the first name that pops into my head is Colin Powell. I know in many ways he's more like Giuliani, but he has so many other strengths.
Locally the rumors are that soon-to-be former Guv of MO, Matt Blunt is the likely choice for a VP if Romney gets the GOP nod. All I think of is that you have two pieces of white bread and no sandwich! I don't really know what that means but it sounded funny!
I've expressed some interest in McCain around my office and I am immediately greeted with the polite equivalent of hoots and hollers. But while he may not be my ideal person either, I think he has the Presidential stuff and just as important, I think he can win against either of the two Democratic possibilities. In the long and short term, that is hugely important.
I know I only have a few faithful readers but I'd really like to hear some minority names floated as possible VPs.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
He’s gone and done it now.
I read with some surprise (or maybe I shouldn’t have been) that Pat Robertson has endorsed Rudy Giuliani in his bid for the Republican nomination. Remember we haven’t even had a primary or caucus yet!
He says (and I’m not quoting here) that he feels even though we disagree on social issues, Rudy’s the right man for this time – mostly because of our world-wide situation; as if that trumps everything domestic.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t be concerned about things in Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Myanmar, etc. but I don’t think we can set aside our major, and I mean really major differences.
If I’m going to do that, and I mean say that ‘OK for America, things like abortion don’t matter’, then I have no reason to stick with the Republican party.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think I could vote for Hillary if she came and had dinner with me and asked me to vote for her. But I also think some probably really good ideas get tossed just because they come from the Democratic side of the aisle.
All I’m saying is if we can (and I don’t think we should) dismiss so-called “social issues” as not being reasons to select or reject a candidate, then we have to be open to consider ALL the other reasons. And I don’t even know what they are at this point; I’m just making a general point.
This sort of goes back to my blog of last month or so about guessing that the final result of this will likely be a 3rd party run by a conservative candidate. I didn’t expect this to happen until AFTER the Jan/Feb run of primaries in 2008.
Now here’s another prediction: Rudy will start talking with Mike Huckabee to get him to be his running mate. He’ll use that to satiate those for whom Robertson’s endorsement isn’t enough. ‘See’, he’ll say, ‘I believe that conservatives should have a voice, so I’ll put one of your own in the VEEP slot’. This helps him in the south, helps in all the Red States and with the Christian Right so they can maybe stomach a vote for Rudy (given the alternative is either a vote for Hillary OR for a 3rd party person which might as well be another vote for Hillary).
I used to work for Mr. Robertson and always found him to be an extremely bright person even though I didn’t always agree with him. I have no idea what his agenda is in this endorsement but it is bound to have some far-reaching and perhaps unintended consequences.
He says (and I’m not quoting here) that he feels even though we disagree on social issues, Rudy’s the right man for this time – mostly because of our world-wide situation; as if that trumps everything domestic.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t be concerned about things in Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Myanmar, etc. but I don’t think we can set aside our major, and I mean really major differences.
If I’m going to do that, and I mean say that ‘OK for America, things like abortion don’t matter’, then I have no reason to stick with the Republican party.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think I could vote for Hillary if she came and had dinner with me and asked me to vote for her. But I also think some probably really good ideas get tossed just because they come from the Democratic side of the aisle.
All I’m saying is if we can (and I don’t think we should) dismiss so-called “social issues” as not being reasons to select or reject a candidate, then we have to be open to consider ALL the other reasons. And I don’t even know what they are at this point; I’m just making a general point.
This sort of goes back to my blog of last month or so about guessing that the final result of this will likely be a 3rd party run by a conservative candidate. I didn’t expect this to happen until AFTER the Jan/Feb run of primaries in 2008.
Now here’s another prediction: Rudy will start talking with Mike Huckabee to get him to be his running mate. He’ll use that to satiate those for whom Robertson’s endorsement isn’t enough. ‘See’, he’ll say, ‘I believe that conservatives should have a voice, so I’ll put one of your own in the VEEP slot’. This helps him in the south, helps in all the Red States and with the Christian Right so they can maybe stomach a vote for Rudy (given the alternative is either a vote for Hillary OR for a 3rd party person which might as well be another vote for Hillary).
I used to work for Mr. Robertson and always found him to be an extremely bright person even though I didn’t always agree with him. I have no idea what his agenda is in this endorsement but it is bound to have some far-reaching and perhaps unintended consequences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
