Are Conservatives That Unhappy?
In a glorious example of the wish being father to the thought, the New York Times' Patrick Healy offers a piece recounting the conservatives' supposed angst over the supposed dearth of "true" conservative candidates in the presidential sweepstakes.
It's always possible to find people who are unhappy with the choices before them. But there's no denying that in Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, Republicans have strong, credible candidates before them, both with proven records of achievement. That's more, frankly, than the Democrats can say: What can Hillary Clinton, John Edwards or Barack Obama cite as their achievements comparable to turning around a failing city or successfully governing a state overwhelmingly dominated by the opposition party (after a wildly successful financial career and the leadership of the USOC)?
At this point, the two parties have problems that are almost mirror opposites. The Democrats feel that they have fabulous candidates. The only problem is that the fervor of the base is pushing the party further and further to the left and out of the mainstream, which can impede a general campaign down the line. The Republicans -- if they are doubtful about their choices -- nonetheless have several prospects which, as even Healy concedes, are able to present conservative ideas in a fashion that's palatable to moderates. So it's not entirely clear that the Republicans' "problems" are really worse than the Democrats'.
And despite the MSM's wishful thinking about conservatives staying home, it's worth noting that they didn't in November of 2006, despite one of the most discouraging climates in years. Are they really more likely to do so when Hillary Clinton's at the top of the ballot?
It's always possible to find people who are unhappy with the choices before them. But there's no denying that in Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, Republicans have strong, credible candidates before them, both with proven records of achievement. That's more, frankly, than the Democrats can say: What can Hillary Clinton, John Edwards or Barack Obama cite as their achievements comparable to turning around a failing city or successfully governing a state overwhelmingly dominated by the opposition party (after a wildly successful financial career and the leadership of the USOC)?
At this point, the two parties have problems that are almost mirror opposites. The Democrats feel that they have fabulous candidates. The only problem is that the fervor of the base is pushing the party further and further to the left and out of the mainstream, which can impede a general campaign down the line. The Republicans -- if they are doubtful about their choices -- nonetheless have several prospects which, as even Healy concedes, are able to present conservative ideas in a fashion that's palatable to moderates. So it's not entirely clear that the Republicans' "problems" are really worse than the Democrats'.
And despite the MSM's wishful thinking about conservatives staying home, it's worth noting that they didn't in November of 2006, despite one of the most discouraging climates in years. Are they really more likely to do so when Hillary Clinton's at the top of the ballot?
posted by LadybugUSA at 12:16 PM
1 Comments:
I believe most conservatives would wish for better, but are cognizant of the downside of not supporting those we have. With all their shortcomings, I'd cast a vote for either Mitt or Rudy over anyone the Dems can put up, and feel I've done the country a service by doing so.
There's also the sense that these two would lead to conservative Christians staying away from the polls. I don't believe my brothers and sisters in Christ are that senseless to allow a Dem candidate to just walk away with it. We can see the big picture. Unhappy? We ain't jumpin' for joy, but a rerun of 2004 would make us unhappy.
Post a Comment
<< Home