Geee Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 American Spectator:The straw hadn't even settled in Ames, Iowa when Texas Gov. Rick Perry announced he would be seeking the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. Yet even Perry's entry wasn't enough to stop the clamor for House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan to throw his hat into the ring. The Ryan buzz was then swiftly followed by another round of rumors about a Chris Christie bid.What is it that keeps Republicans searching despite a field that by some measures ought to be full? Some of it is a sense that there is something lacking in the current group of contenders, whether it be gravitas or the intangible qualities of national leadership. Others fear that no one presently running can unite the conservatives they need to win the primaries with the swing voters who will decide the general election.But the biggest void many Republicans hope Perry, Ryan or even Christie could fill is that of consensus conservative. There are many conservatives running for the Republican nomination right now. Most of them, however, appeal only to slices of the conservative movement.Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum are drawing heavily from social conservatives, though Bachmann has also worked to tap into the Tea Party's fiscal conservatism. Ron Paul's supporters view him as the gold standard of conservatism, but many hawkish Republicans consider his foreign policy views are worthless fiat currency. Mitt Romney attracts certain business-minded conservatives and establishment Republicans, while leaving activists cold.The distinctions between the different groups can be overstated. Christian conservatives are among the strongest fiscal conservatives in the country. Some polls have shown Tea Party supporters tend to be quite conservative on social issues as well as economics. But it is clear there has been a search for a full-spectrum conservative, a quest that predates the 2012 presidential race.Last time around, many hoped Virginia Sen. George Allen would be the consensus conservative. Allen lost reelection to the Senate in 2006, dashing any hopes for a top-tier 2008 presidential campaign. Romney tried to position himself as the "four-legged stool" conservative, but his Massachusetts record and rhetoric made this difficult. This produced a groundswell for Fred Thompson, who entered and then underwhelmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 From the article: What is it that keeps Republicans searching despite a field that by some measures ought to be full? Well, how many more people have to be running to be full? There's already a bunch of candidates, and I think that's because they all think they can beat Obama in the general election. They (the MSM) said the same thing about the Democrat field in 1991/1992, but their "consensus candidate" emerged. But then I think I already have mine selected, though some of the others ones running I'd gladly support against Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickadee Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 From the article: What is it that keeps Republicans searching despite a field that by some measures ought to be full? Well, how many more people have to be running to be full? There's already a bunch of candidates, and I think that's because they all think they can beat Obama in the general election. They (the MSM) said the same thing about the Democrat field in 1991/1992, but their "consensus candidate" emerged. But then I think I already have mine selected, though some of the others ones running I'd gladly support against Obama. I feel I absolutely must support ANY final candidate who runs against Obama. That does not mean I will be happy about it. But NO THIRD PARTY for me, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argyle58 Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 From the article: What is it that keeps Republicans searching despite a field that by some measures ought to be full? Well, how many more people have to be running to be full? There's already a bunch of candidates, and I think that's because they all think they can beat Obama in the general election. They (the MSM) said the same thing about the Democrat field in 1991/1992, but their "consensus candidate" emerged. But then I think I already have mine selected, though some of the others ones running I'd gladly support against Obama. I feel I absolutely must support ANY final candidate who runs against Obama. That does not mean I will be happy about it. But NO THIRD PARTY for me, thanks. Let us not forget that the Republican party came into being as a third party. Made up by members of the conservative Whig party and the (yeah, the same one) Democratic party. The abolition of slavery was the single motivating principle of the new party. Formed in 1854 in Illinois, it swept the elections in that state in it's first election cycle. Continuing on the the National level, it had achieved majorities in both Houses of Congress and the White House by 1860. Today, we have another issue that is so dividingly controversial as to launch another such dynamic change in the body politic. We stand today ready to decide whether or not we will embark on the already failed principle of "democratic socialism". As we watch Europe collapse under this same policy, those powers that be on the left keep pushing us toward the cliff, while the spineless lemmings on the right keep following, despite rhetoric in refute. Party hierarchy sometimes becomes so entrenched in either rhetoric or compromise that making real, necessary changes become impossible. I would not close my mind to a possible third party as a viable option to the snake pit that D.C. has become. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clearvision Posted August 23, 2011 Share Posted August 23, 2011 IMO, right now this country lives or dies on getting US government social welfare and US government control of states/corporations/people reduced. The other issues of global warming, gay marriage, immigration, etc., although important, have to be second to stemming the socialism and government spending and control. We have to control 2 of the 3 branches (really, really need all three) this election cycle or it may be too late to worry about the social issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollyannaish Posted August 23, 2011 Share Posted August 23, 2011 Ok. THIS HAS TO STOP. It drives me crazy that the right frames this with leftist language. The right needs a consensus conservative. Well I'm sorry, but the left isn't particularly cohesive most of the time either. You can't have unionized truckers and tie-dyed in the wool environmentalists in the same party without a little friction and fussing. The primaries are a time not to find consensus, but to HONE the candidates and identify the most pressing issues to the country. The general is a time to then explain the SOLUTIONS to the top issues that we offer to the nation. It is not some sort of great, horrible divide in the party. It is EXACTLY what the system was designed to do. /rant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepper Posted August 23, 2011 Share Posted August 23, 2011 Good rant, pollyannaish! "It drives me crazy that the right frames this with leftist language." Even the American Spectator has fallen into this trap. Ok. THIS HAS TO STOP. It drives me crazy that the right frames this with leftist language. The right needs a consensus conservative. Well I'm sorry, but the left isn't particularly cohesive most of the time either. You can't have unionized truckers and tie-dyed in the wool environmentalists in the same party without a little friction and fussing. The primaries are a time not to find consensus, but to HONE the candidates and identify the most pressing issues to the country. The general is a time to then explain the SOLUTIONS to the top issues that we offer to the nation. It is not some sort of great, horrible divide in the party. It is EXACTLY what the system was designed to do. /rant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evad Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 From the article: What is it that keeps Republicans searching despite a field that by some measures ought to be full? Well, how many more people have to be running to be full? There's already a bunch of candidates, and I think that's because they all think they can beat Obama in the general election. They (the MSM) said the same thing about the Democrat field in 1991/1992, but their "consensus candidate" emerged. But then I think I already have mine selected, though some of the others ones running I'd gladly support against Obama. I feel I absolutely must support ANY final candidate who runs against Obama. That does not mean I will be happy about it. But NO THIRD PARTY for me, thanks. Is there anyone in their right mind that doesn't realize that this would simply had Bambi his 2nd term?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepper Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 Evad! Am waiting for heads to explode if Palin does not run Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now