Ideas Don't Run For President; People Do
A Timeless Truth. Repeat As Often As Needed.
By Dan McLaughlin Posted in 2008 | 2008 Presidential Campaign | conservatism | Fred Thompson | Libertarians | Ron Paul | Schism — Comments (54) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
With the failure of the Fred Thompson campaign, there has been predictable and understandable wailing and gnashing of teeth in conservative quarters about the state of the GOP and what this all means for the future of conservative ideas. Fred ran as a full-scale, across-the-board movement conservative, and he went nowhere. Among the four remaining major candidates, we have two who are genuine conservatives on some core issues but basically apostates on others (Rudy and Huck), a moderate who is generally if not as dramatically out of step on a large number of issues (McCain), and one candidate (Romney) whose positions have changed so much from his past positions and record that nobody really knows for certain how trustworthy he might be if he actually won the general election. Conservatives are asking: has our party abandoned us? Have GOP voters rejected our ideas?
No, it has not, and they have not. Remember Article II, Section 1 of our Constitution: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." President, singular, individual. Flesh-and-blood human. That's who holds the job, that's who gets elected to the job. No perfect vessel, no incarnation of ideas. And that fact must be repeated again and again until people understand that winning and losing elections and choosing leaders is about picking the right person from the available choices. Ideas don't run for president, people do.
We got the field we started with because these were the men who were willing to ask for the job and able to raise the minimum amount of money and signatures and staff to initiate a campaign. That limited our options to the people who had - or thought they had - the qualifications and the right political moment to run in 2008, not some other year. We got the field we have now because along the way, some of the contenders failed to promote themselves well, or made a bad impression, or ran out of money, or found better things to do with their time. That leaves the four men who remain, plus of course Ron Paul. We have no choice but to take each them as a whole - platform and record, experience and character, skills and resources. And it is just one of those remaining men, as a whole, with whom we will go forth to battle in November.
An awful lot of angst could be avoided by remembering this simple truth. And an awful lot can yet be spared if the folks who live in this big and querelous tent we call a political party - which we would all like and hope to see function as a majority party - would remind themselves of it: we have been asked to choose among men, not ideas. While our choices certainly reflect our view of the ideas each man champions, it is deeply mistaken to read the choice of one man over another as the final and definitive statement of what ideas we truly support. I, for one, as a Republican would like to know that the candidate we settle on - or settle for - has more people behind him than just the ones who agree with every one of his ideas.
Read On...
A lot of libertarians, for example, got burned because they forgot this, and started acting as if Ron Paul was a clear vessel containing nothing but the purest ideas, like that cipher John Galt. Instead, they had to deal with Dr. Paul himself. Old, shrill, slightly loopy-sounding on television, with an actual record (complete with earmarks for his district) and actual skeletons in his closet (photo-ops with crackpots and hatemongers, nasty racist newsletters published under his name). And more than a few of them ended up either distraught over his failure to make waves with the electorate or with egg on their faces for having signed themselves over lock, stock and barrel to this particular man. The mistake they made was in believing in Ron Paul the movement, Ron Paul the ideas, Ron Paul the platform, when the average voter was still going to ask whether the executive power should be vested in Ron Paul the man who is standing behind a podium waving his fingers.
Conservatives, being more worldly folk and by nature cynical about the perfectability of Man, ought to be able to absorb this lesson more easily. Fred and Sam Brownback and Duncan Hunter all had their flaws as campaigners and as potential presidents. It so happens that each man - the total package all wrapped together - failed to catch on with the voters. What does that mean? Personally, I don't think it means a full-scale, across-the-board movement conservative could not win the nomination and the general election. But it does mean something we ought to know by now: that a full-scale, across-the-board movement conservative can't win the nomination and the general election every four years.
Can a lefthanded pitcher win the Cy Young Award? Can a high-tech company's stock deliver better-than-the-market returns from an IPO? Can I win Monopoly if my opponent has all the railroads? Can a coin land heads-up? If you want to test a theory, you need to test it repeatedly to come up with results that have more explanatory power than random chance or the particular conditions of the moment. And Fred Thompson, big a fella as he is, is way too small a sample size to generalize about the conservative movement.
If anybody should be upset, it's the "progressive" movement, because they have a candidate who is aligned with the base and is genuinely charismatic and well-funded and apparently viable in the general election, and the nomination is drifting away from him. But even there: Obama isn't "progressive" ideas. He's a junior Senator from Illinois, with a limited resume and his feet planted in the mire of Chicago politics. And his opponent has her own personal advantages, from name recognition to money to her gender to her husband, who personally occupies a unique position in his party. If Obama loses, the "progressives" have a cause to be upset, but it's only in the context of the longer history of their movement within their party and the electorate as a whole that they should evaluate the viability of their agenda.
So too with the opposite conclusion: that the success of one candidate equals some sort of insult to other parts of the coalition. Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee represent opposite ends of the GOP spectrum, with little overlap among the issues on which they each do and don't appeal to conservatives. But like so many things, their role in the race says as much and more about themselves and the unique political moment of 2008 as it does about the GOP as a whole over time. If Rudy didn't have the record and personality he has, he would not have gotten as far as he did; same with Huckabee. Their successes and failures may owe a measure of influence to the particular positions they take, but there are so many other variables at work that nobody should take umbrage if they do or (as seems more likely for both) don't get the nomination.
The same goes for John McCain, and probably goes double because McCain is so many voters' second rather than first choice. Maybe 2008 is the right moment for a moderate Republican, and maybe it is not; but circumstances (including the specific characteristics of Mitt Romney, his strongest remaining opponent) will determine only whether it is the right moment for this particular moderate Republican.
We can whine and moan about the way the world works, or we can do the best we can with the time and the tools that are given to us. We were fortunate, once upon a time, to have a man named Reagan. We are not so fortunate every four years. We have been presented with quite a collection of men, each with his own particular virtues as a candidate (and each of what was once the "Big Five" has some significant virtues to offer). We should not take as a personal affront the inevitable process by which one of them is chosen. It was ever thus: ideas don't run for president. People do.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Someone please put out an APB. — Comments (23) »
Ideas Don't Run For President; People Do 54 Comments (0 topical, 54 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Had not seen that. I believe Romney is the candidate of economic growth in this primary, if we still believe in that concept as conservatives over "stimulus"; a.k.a., getting money into the hands of those "that need it", "will spend it immediately", are in a "credit crunch" and are in the "lower class" or "lower middle class", which is all I've heard about for the past week from Congress and the White House.
Romney is the guy that wouldn't settle for 2% GDP growth, and deliver on that expectation like he has everywhere he's ever lead. Whatever happened to the Jack Kemps and Pete DuPonts in our party? They'd probably get the same treatment Romney got in the first paragraph of this piece.
"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974
They've endorsed McCain, that's what. Kemp stumped for him all over South Carolina.
... have an account here.
Overall, it's a point worth remembering, and well-taken. However, though we do elect -men-, it is the ideas for which we elect them. Obama, for example, has seemed like a great guy. He's inspiring as an individual, and has a great story. He really is a pretty good candidate. Yet... I'm not voting for him.
It's not the man I'm not voting for -- it's his -ideas-. Why are you a Republican? Because you think the little (R) next to somebody's name is cuter than a little (D)? Of course not. You're a Republican because of the principles and ideals of the party.
So if a candidate (or group of candidates) leaves behind those principles, do you still vote for the man?
Fred Thompson, 2008
Why vote Republican if his ideas are similar to the Democrats (or worse).
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
Fred Thompson didn't have a perfectly conservative record either. Thompson was an early supporter of the McCain-Feingold legislation.
And if Thompson had really wanted the job of president as badly of some of his Republican opponents, he would have entered the race earlier. He would have raised money, collected endorsements and campaigned longer and harder.
If Thompson had been that kind of person, he never would have left the US Senate. Instead, he would have run for reelection in 2002.
But we should face up to the fact that the GOP primary electorate has never as conservative as we would like it to be. The reason why Bob Dole won the GOP nomination in 1996 instead of Steve Forbes or Phil Gramm is because name recognition is every bit as important as a conservative voting record in the Senate.
I know many Republicans who participate in the Republican primaries who are not conservative on very many issues. Some are conservative on abortion but moderate to liberal on all other issues.
If Thompson had been that kind of person, he never would have left the US Senate. Instead, he would have run for reelection in 2002.
It's called self-imposed term limits...it used to be a pretty conservative idea. His daughter also died during this time.
And if Thompson had really wanted the job of president as badly of some of his Republican opponents, he would have entered the race earlier.
That was one thing that I actually found refreshing...he hasn't dreamed about being president since he was a kid. He entered when he did b/c conservatives at the grassroots called on him to serve. And he got in when candidates historically get in.
The idea that he did not really want to become president was very refreshing - and very much a change - which I liked... Too bad that many took offense at that...geez...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
I appreciate the effort to try and put things in the best possible light, Dan. And you're absolutely right: ideas don't run for president, people do. Taken strictly as that sort of beauty-pageant-type analysis, Fredheads have nothing to complain about except that their chosen guy turned out to be a dud as a politician.
What you're not addressing, however, is that while people may run for office, it is ideas that animate a movement. Otherwise, if a movement is based on a person, it's a cult, not a political movement.
I can't speak for all Fredheads, but I never saw in Fred Thompson the Savior of the Republican Party!!!!11one!!11 or any such thing. I saw in him a man who represented all of the various elements of modern conservative movement, and was an effective -- if inflicted with gravitas and that Southern gentlemanly ways -- communicator. As a conservative then, he was the standard bearer.
So the fact that he lost and is out of the primaries in and of itself is no big deal, as a fan of Fred the man, or Fred the candidate.
But the fact that he lost to McCain and Huckabee, and by huge margins, is something else.
What you are suggesting is tantamount to the notion that ideas don't matter when it comes to elections. Okay... then why have a conservative slant to the GOP at all? Why bother with all this talk about what is and is not the right principle, or what is or is not the appropriate response to various issues, if at the end of the day, it's the messenger that matters and not the message?
You are surely right that the Republican party wants to rule, and rule as the majority party. I think that is where the conservative movement and the Republican party's interests start to diverge.
Conservatives really have no interest in seeing the Republican Party be the majority party, if it isn't going to act like a conservative party. Frankly, even if we get 70 GOP Senators and a GOP President in office this year, if those clowns are going to act like the last set of earmarking, pork-addicted, corrupt bastards, I don't know that it matters that much to me who is in the majority and who is not.
You want to win election after election, and make sure the Republicans are the majority party? It's really quite simple: bread and circuses. Make like a bear and pander. Out-pander the pandering Democrats, who can't tell the truth to the American people about their actual socialist agenda, and we'll be far more competitive. Employ the best pollsters, then blow with the wind -- we'll win a ton of elections then. It won't be the Republican Party as I know it, and it won't be a conservative party by any means, but it will be the majority party.
I know, I know -- ideological purity is nice and all, but probably has no place in a political party. The party, after all, exists to win elections -- nothing more, nothing less.
But to say there's no implication whatsoever of the Republican rejection of the ideas of conservatism-as-we-knew-it is to try and pour spilt milk back into the bottle. And to try and portray S.C. as anything but a rejection of the ideas as well as the people is really looking through rose-colored lenses.
-TS
"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt
But, thats really a crazy statment. Its like saying people who are named John Smith, live on Main street and prefer the Who to Led Zepplin are in the minoriy. The "pure" conservatives is just a series of several positions ona variety of issues with out any clear relation to them.
So you really shouldn't be surprised that some people agree with some of it, but most don't agree with all of it.
And the fact that many committed conservatives and progressives call each other evil, just disgusts the majority of people that are not either one.
The truth can only be found by those who seek it.
Of children. Supports programs that destroyed minority family life in this country. Finally supports foreign policies that leave our nation at the mercy of others.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
The truth can only be found by those who seek it.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
But there are a fair number of ideas and beliefs which would be named conservative. And if you want my support, I don't require that you hold all of them. But you do need to hold most of them, and be respectful of the ones you don't hold. So looking at the field that's left:
Romney - pretty much claims to hold all of them now, if you can believe him. But pretty much claimed to hold none of them to get elected in Massachusetts, so who knows?
Giuliani - doesn't hold many of them at all, but at least seems respectful for the ones he doesn't hold.
Huckabee - holds some of them, and who knows on the rest? At least doesn't seem to actively work against those he doesn't hold.
McCain - holds some of them, and holds the others in utter contempt and disdain, and holds those who believe differently in utter contempt and disdain.
So that's what we're left with. All four are likely to do great damage to the country, dragging it down. Romney due to lack of convictions, and the others due to actively seeking damaging things. So the choice is, if the country is going to Hell in an handbasket anyways, do you want a Republican at the helm being blamed, or a Democrat?
Romney - pretty much claims to hold all of them now, if you can believe him. But pretty much claimed to hold none of them to get elected in Massachusetts ...
Overstatement.
Giuliani - doesn't hold many of them at all, but at least seems respectful for the ones he doesn't hold.
Another overstatement. Social issues encompass more than just abortion and gays - Rudy is a solid B as an all-round Conservative.
Huckabee - holds some of them, and who knows on the rest? At least doesn't seem to actively work against those he doesn't hold.
Club for Greed?
Pretty much agree with you on McCain.
If You Liked George Bush's "New Tone™", You're Gonna LOOOOVE John McCain's "Bipartisanship™" ...
Defined as you do -- a series of several positions on a variety of issues without any clear relation between them -- then sure, no one is a conservative.
Defined as I do -- a set of policy preferences flowing from a core set of principles, such as federalism, individual responsibility and liberty, strong national defense, limited government, and family/civic values -- then I would argue that the majority of Americans are indeed conservative.
Either conservatism is rooted in common sense and rationality, or it is just a random set of policy preferences indistinguishable from our friends from across the aisle whose only organizing principle is Power At Any Cost.
And once again, that may be a reason to hold the Republican Party distinct from the conservative movement.
-TS
"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt
The truth can only be found by those who seek it.
and this is why we differ from the Democratic party. We, at least on the conservative do look at issues based on principle - Democrats as a party do not. Zell Miller was attacked because of his departure from the democratic status quo because he maintained the view of the old style Southern Democrats. A Southern Democrat that had conservative principles.
So regardless of the person, it is his or her ideas that frame their though processes and therefore define them. We vote for a person with ideas that meet our own otherwise there would be no Republican or Democrat parties.
--roxer
There are Republican and Democrat parties because their are differing options on subjects, *not* because one is always basing their opinions based upon principle and the other is not. There are crazy people in each party. And they both have people that act on principal. They just have different principals.
The truth can only be found by those who seek it.
*cough* Ron Paul *cough*
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report
gopplanet.blogspot.com
Evil Triumphs when good men stand idle by and do nothing, likewise a movement dies when me refuse to stand up and lead it.
The "New" GOP stand apart from the Regan revolution and it has dropped the torch. Thompson was the only one willing to hold the light to the fire and THE SO CALLED MOVEMENT FAILED THE ONE MAN WILLING TO LEAD IT! Don't ever tell me gibberish like that ever again DAN!
-Luke
gopplanet.blogspot.com
Sorry spelling We** not Me-
gopplanet.blogspot.com
Men** not we- not me- lol
It makes things flow so much better.
And all caps is considered very rude. You can make your point without doing so.
.jpg)
for President in 2008
There is truly no better cure than action. This is an axiom that I learn in a lot of my sales meetings. I think the same can be said of candidates. No one buys just the talking points...sometimes they look at how the message is delivered.
Brings to mind another axiom that we learn:
Enthusiasm sells it.
Emotions buys it.
Logic keeps it.
If voters don't see enthusiasm from their candidates, then they will never be moved to support them. If there is no substance there, then voters will easily move away.
for President in 2008
Unfortunately, that is so very wrong... Just what is anything worth anyway if not for articles of the heart. If we really have to settle for the best of those running, why bother, the most popular (or most ruthless or most likely, the most money) will win anyway. Has the election process become so bad that we should try to change it (yes!)... Should we give up, NO! And nooo...I will NOT support the Republican nominee just because he outlasted the rest...
Either the Republican has the requisite qualifications or he/she doesn't and does NOT deserve my vote! I come from a different perspective I suppose....
F.ormally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
I agree that ideas are important and must be fought for, continually. All I am saying is, we don't get a list of ideas on the ballot, we get human beings. If you think that we have given up on ideas because we end up nominating McCain, you have missed my entire point.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
your point somewhat. I guess the outcome of this election will have some impact on your thoughts. If McCain does win the nomination, then I would have to wonder about conservative ideas in general...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
Fred ran as a full-scale, across-the-board movement conservative, and he went nowhere.
No, the problem is Fred didn't run, he didn't even walk, he sorta strolled along and looked at the scenery.
his failure was NOT that he was a full fledged conservative.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
started off with an idea to run without the organization or staff to accomplish the task. Remember he was asked to run late in the game based on unhappiness of the existing field of candidates. While the other candidates had already started their campaigns, Fred was just getting started. The other campaigns had picked their staffs and settled with a strategy by the time Fred started. Fred had to perform this on the run. The other campaigns had time to find what worked and what didn't and tweaked their organizations accordingly (they had already started debating). Sen. Thompson suffered from lack to time to get completely organized. Had he started forming something closer to the middle of 2006, he might have faired better.
--roxer
Thanks for taking the time to put this together. I am as bummed as any about Fred. I have my own theories about why, but we all need to take a breath & look at reality. We will have those here & elsewhere who will try to use this to "bust up" the "Redstate coalition," & we need to be mindful of this & not give credence to the trolls.
I thought this was a great post. I felt calmer after reading it. More calm than I have felt for some time during this tumultuous political season. What has been the most tumultuous to date is not the fight between Democratic/Republican or Liberal/Conservative, Left/Right, but rancor among those who claim the same party and political philosophy. It has been disconcerting to say the least.
If I understand correctly, Dan is not saying that it is has to be either right ideas or a person with leadership qualities, it has to be both. Ideas are important, they are fundamental, but they are not the entire equation. A leader not only has to have the right ‘ideas’ or core beliefs, he has to be able to inspire people, to be optimistic about the future, to create a ‘can do’ spirit, to demonstrate compassion. And character counts. Character counts. Character counts.
I think the key to all of life comes down to the perfectly balanced co-existence of truth and grace. Life works best when both are equally present at the same time. There has to be coherence between philosophical ideas and existential reality. Existentialism, especially in the 60’s (‘if it feels good do it’ basis for decision-making) was born out of the unpaid bills of philosophy (pure ideas, principles), which had become so cerebral it didn’t address real life.
I think our political tug of war goes something like:
Liberalism feels for people (bleeding heart anyone?) but just feeling for someone without giving them the principals to live their life by, principles that actually work, is like grace without truth. It is existential experience empty of philosophical truth.
Conservatism is all about the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Often, grace is nowhere to be found, so even if the truth is what is needed, it is rejected because it doesn’t take real life and real people into account. It is philosophical truth with no thought to existential reality.
I think that within our own party we are experiencing a similar tug of war. Some want the pure ideas and some say the man matters more, his ability to inspire and lead. Ideas without the flesh and blood man are like truth without grace. The inspiring man without the right ideas is like grace without truth. We need a candidate that comes closest to exhibiting both. Both are equally important.
And since the only one who ever perfectly exhibited both grace and truth is Jesus Christ, (and maybe Ronald Reagan in our nostalgic memory), I say let's give the candidate a break. He can’t be perfect – but he has to exhibit both truth (right thinking) and grace (touching people where they live).
“We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
May Fred Thompson rest in peace. Now what? Bury a bus in the desert? I can't believe how defeatist this is.
We get the best candidate we can from the remaining options, we run with him as hard as we can, we keep promoting conservative ideas and - where possible - conservative candidates in Congressional, state and local races...we don't fold our tents because we didn't nominate another Reagan. Defeatism is precisely what I'm fighting against.
We get McCain, what does that get us? Determination to win in Iraq, willingness to defend the nation by force when necessary, better Supreme Court Justices than the ones they are replacing, a president who may not like tax cuts but doesn't like tax hikes, new entitlements or pork-barrel spending either...I have no illusions about him but McCain is well more than half a loaf.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Friends and supporters of Senator Thompson;
By now you have been inundated with the news of Senator Thompson’s decision to not pursue the office of the President of the United States. I have received many emails and phone calls asking what the next steps for Senator Thompson are and who is the best candidate to support?
As far as Senator Thompson plans I cannot answer for him. Nor do I have any information that indicates what he will do next. But this is what I do know.
The conservative movement is based on several tenants. These include fiscal conservatism, social conservatism and support of a strong military. These principles that are the base of the Reagan coalition live beyond any single candidate or presidential term. The soundness of their doctrine will continue to provide a light for generations to come.
With the departure of Senator Thompson we as conservatives must focus on who is promoting those principles we hold dear and put aside any bias we have held in the past or hear in the main stream media. It is my belief and opinion that Governor Romney is the only candidate in the race that can carry that torch.
I have not accepted any position with any campaign. I offer you this assessment and ask that you join me in supporting Governor Romney as a fellow grass roots leader.
On Monday, January 22nd, we saw near 500 drop in the DOW. China has effectively manipulated the valuation of the dollar by mass liquidating US Treasuries. Our leaders have publically stated that we are either in or headed for a recession. Governor Romney is by far the best Presidential candidate on either side of the aisle who can address the economic perils ahead. He brings years of successful business Executive experience understanding a balance sheet. Some of the other candidates attribute their success political achievements. This is not difficult to do when the government can just raise taxes or print more money. We need someone who understands finances like you and me. That when the checking account is empty you stop writing checks.
Governor Romney believes in the sanctity of family. He supports a constitutional amendment that defines marriage between one man and one woman. He also believes that Roe v. Wade should be overturned to protect the unborn. Many of you may have the same concerns I had in the past regarding Governor Romney’s prior stand on these issues. As a Christian, I do believe in second chances for those who see the errors of their ways. I believe Governor Romney realizes that his past statements were wrong and is working hard to make right the injustice being done against the unborn.
Would be prefer to have a consistent stand on one of the most crucial social issues we face? Yes. I ask that you look into yourself. Is there anyone of us that can honestly say they have never changed a position for the better when the facts were presented to us? I don’t think so.
Governor Romney’s support has never waivered. He has outlined a plan to increase our military personnel and give them the weapons support they need to get the job done. A CEO knows how to let competent leaders do their job and Governor Romney will let the Generals and Field Commanders do their job without the political posturing we have seen in the past.
Finally, one last note for this endorsement. As grassroots activists we have seen the affects that McCain-Feingold has had on our ability to freely speak and support our candidates. Governor Romney has publically stated he wants to repeal that law and support the first amendment. The last thing we need is a candidate who thinks stifling the voice of the American people is a good thing and puts his name on it.
Please visit www.mittromney.com and look at the issues section. Make an informed and comprehensive decision.
Best wishes and thank you for all your support in the past promoting and advancing the conservative platform.
This represents the views and opinions of Richard Rios and should not be considered an endorsement of the Fred Thompson presidential campaign or other members of the California for Thompson team.
Richard Rios
richard.rios@republicanroots.org
former California Political Director, Fred08
Founding Director Arizona for Fred Thomspon, Nevada for Fred Thompson, Oklahoma for Fred Thomson grassroots organizations
It looks to me like most Fredheads are seriously considering Romney, myself included. It's kinda funny how the press thought we'd go for McCain just because the two are friends.
As Richard has pointed out, Romney does have executive experience and leadership qualities that are most admirable. So does Rudy but unfortunately his campaign is in the tank. Should Rudy get a second wind, I will to take some time to weight the two very carefully. But until then, Romney has my vote.
This is my thought exactly, I had the pleasure of telling someone why I support Romney yesterday to only to have them give me a laundry list of 'lies' he's told. Basically all it amounted to was the names of people in his campaign that either worked for a big company or was involved in politics in some way, and this guy was saying this to prove Romney a liar.
strictly an agenda driven individual, I expect someone to get help from all sorts of people and people in Wash, I just hope Romney picked good people.
I think Romney has the best message of all the canidates, and his record and family life seem the most stable and mature, I he is a very solid man and someone we need to smooth out the country and get every one thinking about work and progress.
We do not need the hippy Liberal Clinton ideals of party and sex and everyone gets a free ride....that leads alot of people into being deadweights on society.
"And that fact must be repeated again and again until people understand that winning and losing elections and choosing leaders is about picking the right person from the available choices. Ideas don't run for president, people do."
I tried to say the same thing last week, in poorer words, with a poverty of impact, and a lack of inspiration. I'm glad to see it articulated so convincingly and compellingly.
While our choices certainly reflect our view of the ideas each man champions, it is deeply mistaken to read the choice of one man over another as the final and definitive statement of what ideas we truly support."
Your entire article is rich with statements that enlighten and clarify. It serves, too, as a reminder of the capacity of reason and strength to persuade that the Redstate directors and contributors can bring to bear. A much needed reminder.
So thanks for this.
Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee
Nice to see an ADULT is posting here.
This "My guy is more conservative than your guy" garbage is nonsense.
NOBODY in this race is a true conservative which means they're ALL heretics.
The question now is...who is a Real Leader.
LEADERSHIP will win this race...not pandering.
"Strength and Honor."
"What we do in life, echoes in eternity."
Implicitly calling people children is not the way to convince them to come back and join the effort for November, you know.
over what one guy posts on a blog.
And I notice you're more concerned/worried about that than the actual MEAT of what I said.
Leaders LEAD.
Children WHINE.
And that's what conservative pundits are doing day-in and day-out, whining, pouting, throwing temper tantrums..."that's not what REAGAN would do" & "he'd be a disaster to the party" & "he's more conservative/less conservative" & "I want conservatism"...and in a rage slitting candidates throats (so don't lecture me about "unity")
Well kids, conservatism isn't on the menu this year.
So you'd better look for LEADERSHIP...because you can't trust ANY of these candidates to follow conservatism on every decision.
What this nation is going to need in the near future is Leadership because tragedy will strike...that is certain and only a real leader will get this country through it.
"Strength and Honor."
"What we do in life, echoes in eternity."
"Strength and Honor."
"What we do in life, echoes in eternity."
"Romney) whose positions have changed so much from his past positions and record that nobody really knows for certain how trustworthy he might be if he actually won the general election."
Why do people keep repeating this when it has been proven to not be true.
The man has had ONE JOB in politics - Governor of Massachusetts. He governed as a Conservative. He will continue to govern as a conservative.
Ann Coulter researched his record and said she found NO FLIP FLOPS.
Perhaps you all could actually do some research of your own instead of making the liberal media happy by repeating their lies over and over.
When I look at his Michigan campaign, I see multiple flip-flops. He'd been the conservative, now he's the 'change' candidate. Just like Obama!
See what Jim Cramer, a very well known TV personality has to say about Mitt (very important!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoBKgmnVkrc