Good News, Bad News
Good news first: Senator Rick Santorum said Monday that he has "no intention" to run in 2008. Not exactly ironclad, but I'll take it and be happy about it. Of course I hope that Santorum won't even have the option to run for president because he'll be defeated in his bid for reelection next year, but I'm glad to hear him disavow his interest.
Now the bad news. Via PoliticalWire, as The Hill points out, another of this Republican's least favorite senators, Sam Brownback of Kansas (with whom I have disagreed often, on everything from nominations to stem cells) seems to be looking toward taking advantage of Santorum's 'departure' to promote himself. "Rick would’ve been a good candidate. He’d have been a very strong candidate in the Republican field." But now, said the Kansan, there are "not as many people lining up the same bloc of votes in a primary. It does open up a bloc of votes that would naturally have tended toward him." And boy would I like to have them, Brownback didn't add but might as well have.
While of course I would welcome the intra-party debate, Brownback should join Santorum in setting his presidential ambitions aside, permanently - the Republican party could hardly take a worse step than choosing one of these two as our standard-bearer in '08 or any election in the future.
Speaking of elections, the straw poll at Patrick Ruffini's site continues to roll onward, and if you haven't been there yet to cast your vote, stop by. And no, Santorum and Brownback are not among the choices.
posted by JBD @ 9:35 PM
7 comments
7 Comments:
The thing is, Charging, I'm not a RINO. I'm probably best described as an old-fashioned conservative, or maybe a neocon, or a libertarian, or some weird mix of all of those. Anyway, the point is, if the GOP nominates someone like Brownback, they're finished, as people like me will bolt. And there are lots of us.
The problem is, the current Republican Party came together 20 or 30 years ago with a few common goals, and now most of those goals have been accomplished. We got rid of Communism, we cut taxes, we saved capitalism, we ended the Nanny-State-Left's attempt to socialize and secularize our society, and we at least got people talking about privatizing government services.
In that sense, success has been our undoing. With our common goals accomplished, we Republicans have a lot less in common than we once did. The war on terror is a lot different than the struggle to end Communism, and we all disagree on how best to fight it. The coming Boomer retirements will bankrupt the social safety net, and we don't really know how to address it. The global economy demands a better education system, and instead GOP governors are cutting education. We're the richest country in the world and we can't even make sure everyone has health care or the highways are maintained. The debt keeps growing. And while we stopped the libs from imposing their values on us, we now have a fight in the party between those who want to impose conservative values on the nation and those who think government shouldn't impose any values on anyone.
The point of all that is, the GOP really has to step up to the plate if it wants to address the many problems before our nation today. I don't know if it will, and its saving grace is the fact that the Democrats are just sort of a token opposition these days. Eventually, there will be a better way. For now, let's just hope our party doesn't nominate Brownback.
not: What a fantastic comment! Thanks very much for posting it; I think you're absolutely spot on. I look forward to that better way right along with you.
What Not may be getting at is that the GOP is currently in the middle of a major struggle between the New Right and a coalition of old line conservatives and moderate Republicans. This is similar to the New Left-Old Left struggle that split the Democratic Party in the late 60’s and early 70’s. To see this division, compare the “right” and “left” camps of both parties' Presidential candidates. On one side of the Republican fight you have Frist, Allen, (possibly) Brownback/Santorum, and Huckabee and on the other side you have Pataki, Giuliani, Romney (password required), and McCain. For Democrats, you have Clinton, Obama, Bayh, Edwards, Kerry, Richardson, and Vilsack. The GOP is clearly in two distinct, and fairly hostile, camps. Other then the born-again populism of Vilsack and Edwards, the Democratic field is limited to a bunch of people associated with the DLC, or its ideas, and the guy who lost last time. From a substantial policy perspective, Vilsack and Edwards aren’t even outliers. It is not surprising the Republican coalition is starting to wane, none have lasted more then two generations. Normally at this point the opposition party would seize the initiative and steal the weak part of the dominant party. Unfortunately, for those of us who are Donkeys, we “belong to a party whose only true talent is writing exceedingly eloquent concession speeches.”
Not only do we not want these highly partisan and extreme conservatives to win the party nomination in 2008, a Frist, Allen, Santorum, or Brownback are going to have tough shot if Hillary is the candidate. Taking hard right positions on stem-cell research, the environment, and particular social issues, these guys will be particularly vulnerable against an "artificially moderate" Clinton and will alienate the moderate electorate. While I think Giuliani would be an excellent candidate, McCain has the more socially conservative views that will could possibly get him through the primary. I'll support McCain with the assumption that he runs.
Think of Brownback as the McGovern of the current Republican Party: the guy who, by winning the nomination, could usher in a decade or two of domination by the other party while moderates regroup and take back the control of our party.
All good points, and I'll address them in greater detail later.
For now, let me just add that the Brownback/McGovern comparison is spot-on, but that analogy is also why Brownback won't win the GOP nomination...yet. The Democrats didn't nominate McGovern until civil war had already broken out in their party. Remember, before 1972 came 1968, which was the year that the Democrats basically formed a circular firing squad at their convention. The proper analogy is that the GOP majority of today is similar to the mid-1960s Democrats. The various factions are starting to become uncomfortable with each other due to the absence of shared goals, as most of the shared goals are gone. But nobody's really pushing anyone else out just yet. It may take a couple of more elections before the pushing and the shoving begins. And then we'll have our 1968. I just hope, as a Republican, that we can put it off until, say, 1912 or 1916. Until then, if we can get a Giuliani through the GOP primaries and into the WH, I say go for it.
But I too await a better ideology and a better direction for our country. It will come in time.
Oops! Above, my post should read: "I just hope that we can put it off until 2012 or 2016!"
Post a Comment
<< Home