Goldilocks Republicans


Every election cycle, they come out of the woodwork, whining and complaining about every conceivable “flaw” of the current crop of Republican candidates. Mitt Romney is “too slick.” Ron Paul is “too old.” Rick Perry is “too Texan.” You likely have a few friends who claim to be conservatives, but “have a problem with Michelle Bachmann” – perhaps even parroting the media take that she is “too crazy” and thus “won’t get the moderate vote.”

They even dissect the “imperfections” of people who aren’t running – Chris Christie is “too fat” – Marco Rubio is “too inexperienced.” And if either of these two non-candidates does decide to run, rest assured that they too will be subjected to even more intense scrutiny and criticism, and not by Democrats, but by their own party.

The problem is that there is a certain segment of Republicans who cannot simply “man up” and get behind the candidate who best represents their views. Instead, they engage in endless agonizing over whether or not a candidate will be able to attract those “swing voters” – the so-called “moderates” or “independents” that have become the Holy Grail of the “strategists” who advise the establishment Republicans.

But do you ever see Democrats do any similar vetting of their candidates? Of course not. On the contrary, they run, and elect, far left wing loons like Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, and Maxine Waters (yes, the same Maxine Waters who ranted, on tape, that the “Tea Party can go straight to hell!”). And Democrats certainly had no hesitation in nominating Barak Obama, perhaps the most radical socialist in the history of the American presidency.

Democrats have no problems running candidates who cheat on their wives, use public money to pay for hookers, and don’t pay their taxes. And even after their perfidies are discovered, they don’t step down. They run. Again and again. Why not? If they should ever actually be forced from office, they can often get a cushy job at CNN or MSNBC.

After all, one reason Democrats can get away with all sorts or outrageous transgressions (Barney Frank’s “roommate” ran a gay brothel out of Frank’s condo) is the well documented left-wing bias of the American press. ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC (and their cable affiliate, MSNBC – the worst of the worst) have all but abandoned any pretext of objectivity. As a result, Democrat candidates know that they will never be subjected to the kind of withering attacks from mainstream journalists that any Republican would have to endure.

It is simply a fact that the most vile, even illegal actions by a Democrat will either be ignored altogether or relegated to the “back page” by their friends in the press. Meanwhile, the most innocuous childhood indiscretions of a Republican (or their spouse, and even their children) will immediately be put in the spotlight, and become the subject of endless “panel discussions” on the Sunday morning “news” shows.

You need look no further than the relentless attacks on Sarah Palin for an example. She’s no longer even in elected office, nor an announced candidate, but because there is the slightest chance that she might become one, the pack of jackals known as the press corps still hounds her on a daily basis. So obsessed are they with destroying Palin that a “journalist” has gone so far as to take up permanent residence in the house next door to the Palins in Alaska, no doubt hoping to obtain some sort of “gotcha” moment – that is downright creepy.

Unfair? Absolutely. But Republicans need to accept the fact that the press will never give them a fair shake – that’s just how it is in today’s world. Get over it. And, please stop trying to come up with a suitably bland candidate, in the vain hope that you will avoid “offending” those mythical moderate voters. Such thinking got us John McCain – and we all saw how that turned out.

Ronald Reagan was anything but bland. Yet he won. By a landslide. Twice. Gosh, how did he manage to get all those supposedly “moderate” voters? Simple. First, Reagan spoke out clearly, forcefully, and eloquently in support of unmistakably conservative principles. Second, America is a far more conservative nation than is portrayed in the press – only 19% of Americans describe themselves as “liberal” while more than 40% call themselves “conservative.” And third, “moderates” are more often aligned with conservative policies than the Republican elites believe.

Additionally, many of those who engage in “paralysis by analysis” are simply the kind of people who are unable to make a decision. But the country is in crisis. People are out of work. Businesses are hunkering down and not hiring, fearful of what new onerous regulation or taxation will be next. The Obama Administration has run up the national debt to stratospheric levels, and is considering yet another massive “stimulus” plan, while nudging the Fed to print money by the boatload, which will drive inflation even higher in the very near future.

So it is long past the time for all of you hand-wringing “Goldilocks Republicans” to stop agonizing over which candidate is neither too hot, nor too cold, but “just right” to appeal to those “moderate” voters. Instead, ask yourself who best represents the solid, fiscally responsible, conservative policies you would like to see implemented. Then “Butch Up” and support that candidate with your time, your money, and most of all, your commitment.

Because if you don’t, you will condemn all of us to four more years of Barak Obama.

And that the nation simply cannot afford.



RSS feed

2 Comments Leave a comment

Excellent post cmdr45

fpete13527 (Diary) Wednesday, August 24th at 12:56PM EDT (link)

You nailed it perfectly

 

Exactly right

Archer (Diary) Thursday, February 16th at 12:46PM EDT (link)

I might have said it better myself but I didn’t think to (that’s humor, folks). Kudos.

Every candidate there is either has real flaws, imagined flaws, or Romney will make up lies to create flaws in the public’s mind about him (that’d be humorous if it didn’t reflect reality so well).

There’s no reason to get over-wrought about flaws. Either opposing candidates or the media are eventually going to point out every possible flaw in anyone the republicans put up. Even McCain who was a media darling for being a “maverick” was brutally racked over the coals by the same people who fawned over him before he became the nominee. (Ever notice how being a maverick never moved McCain to be more conservative on any issue? No wonder the media loved him both before and after his presidential run.)

Don’t just listen to a candidate’s speeches: read the transcript. See if there’s content and real conservative stances on issues after you strip away the candidate’s style and smiles.

Don’t just read the transcripts of speeches, Go to the candidate’s website. See if it puts forth a specific policy which the candidate will implement when elected to deal with each of the various issues.

Think about whether the specific policy, if that specific policy exists, will actually solve the problem its supposed to address. If it doesn’t solve the problem, why is he for that policy and why would you be for him getting elected?

Does the candidate have a track record of being able to get what he claims to want 1) enacted into law, 2) to become the stance of his party, or 3) at least influence a large number of other republicans to come to his side of an issue? If he can never get support in the present, what would make you suspect he would get support in the future?

Then go to other candidate’s websites and evaluate them in the same way.

Next compare the specific policies from one candidate to the specific policies of the other candidates. Whose plan is best? Whose plan CAN be implemented fastest? Whose plan WILL be implemented fastest? If you are for major tax reform or for major social security reform or any other change in the way Washington works, does the candidate’s plan on the issue meet your expectations of what needs to happen and will the candidate if elected make it happen before you die of old age or he’s out of office? Four or even eight years isn’t a long time when you are talking about pushing through major policy issues. If the candidate isn’t willing to hit the ground running on an issue you care about when he has the momentum from being newly elected, when is he going to start working on your issue and how is he planning on getting enough momentum to get it enacted into law?

Now choose your candidate based on the information you gathered.

That’s what I did and settled on either Perry or Newt based on how aggressively their plans addressed national problems like tax reform, jobs, social security already being in the red last year when it wasn’t supposed to get that bad til 2018, etc.

Then Perry came up with his plan to send the House and Senate home for the vast majority of the time which would let the bureaucracy run wild without the threat of legislators having the power to stop them, and let unscrupulous presidents like Obama make all the recess appointment he wants since the Senate would be in recess 76% of the time.

So now I support Gingrich.

I’d urge everyone to inform themselves then support Gingrich. If you inform yourself then don’t endorse Gingrich, that’s fine. I might wonder what you are smoking, but that’s fine (that’s humor, folks).

Just make your choice based on policy and information, not fears.

What the polls show today is completely irrelevant. Whichever candidate the republicans nominate will raise a lot of money, campaign to point out all of Obama’s enormously unpopular policy positions, and in general invalidate polls today which measure the opinions of the vast majority of Americans who haven’t started paying attention yet.

Go to man-on-the -street interviews and ask people if they can name the four republican presidential candidates. Not many can. and very, very few of those have any idea what policies the candidate is going to pursue when elected.

Ordinary people who aren’t politics or news junkies start paying attention to politics once every four years just before or after the republican and democrat political conventions to nominate a presidential candidate. That’s late August going into September this year. February polls about the matchup vs Obama are meaningless other than to give us political junkies and 24-hour news networks something to cheer, moan, or talk about. So why consider today’s poll when choosing your candidate?