I am by no means a Republican, far from it. I'd probably refer to myself as a liberal independent, who tends to vote for the Democratic candidates. However, in saying that, I still feel bad for moderate to liberal Republicans in the House, Senate and/or those running for the oval office.
After the GOP sold themselves to the Evangelical community and conservative radio along with Fox News hit the airwaves the party has become progressively more conservative (progressively more conservative sounds wrong, yet makes me chuckle, so I'll stick with it).
Look back through the history of the Republican Party - Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, etc. These presidents would not have fit in with the Republican Party of today. It humors me to hear so many high-powered members of the party claim that Ronald Reagan was the greatest president in the history of this country and treat him like their role model, because if they look at his policies, what he did while in office, he would not fit in with today's party. Heck, one of the biggest issues with the modern day Republican Party is to not raise taxes on ANYBODY, even the top 1%. Under Bill Clinton, taxes for that group of people was 39.6% and that's what Obama wants to do. For Reagan? That number was 50%. Like I said, he really wouldn't fit in today.
Due to the party being cornered by the church and talk radio/Fox News, the moderate/liberal members of the party have had to change their tune publicly or else they will be ridiculed and voted out of office. Don't believe me? Look back at the 2000 Primary. John McCain was referred to as Maverick McCain back then for a reason. He drove the base of the party crazy, because he was unafraid to speak out against them if he disagreed on a matter. He ran for president in 2000 and what did the Rush Limbaughs of the world say? Do NOT vote for this guy, because he's too liberal. Yeah, John McCain...too liberal. What happened? Well, as George W. Bush "won" the presidency, it's pretty obvious McCain was not the GOP's nominee that year. After that and with intentions of running again someday, McCain's voting record took a sharp turn toward the right and by the time the 2008 election rolled around, John McCain had to create a different identity for himself in order to appease the conservative based which hated him in 2000, yet persuade independents that he was still the McCain of old. This was an extremely difficult sell. If he made the Maverick version of him well known, Rush Limbaugh and the Fox News crew would not be happy and let the public know about it, yet he'd win over some independents and perhaps even some Reagan Democrats. On the other side of it, if he attempted to appease the conservative base, while the talking heads wouldn't have anything to gripe about, those independents and Reagan Democrats would likely vote for Obama. Either way, it would have made things extremely difficult for McCain to pull off a victory in the election.
Now we have one Mitt Romney. Like McCain, he has been lambasted through the years by conservative talking heads as being too liberal. There's a good reason why he hasn't been able to run away with the Republican Primary and why it seems that every week, a new GOP candidate emerges as the main competition for Romney. This individual is referred to as the not-Romney candidate or non-Romney candidate. The conservative base does not want Mitt Romney as their nominee. Not only has he historically been fairly moderate, he's a Mormon. I, myself, could care less about this and don't think it should play a factor in this year's election. HOWEVER, with the Evangelical community being one of the GOP's largest supporters, they will not be thrilled to see a Mormon as their nominee. It could result in fewer such people showing up at the booths to vote come election day.
Also, like McCain, Romney has had to change his tune on a number of issues, as he's trying to tell the conservative base he's one of them. There are many late-night jokes being thrown at Romney due to his seemingly constant flip-flops. Again, which Romney do we have? The one who could be fairly successful winning over independents and Reagan Democrats, but not please his party's base or the one who pleases the base of the GOP, yet won't have much success persuading independents and Reagan Democrats to cast their votes for him? Once again, this is a very difficult line to walk down, a very difficult strategy to pull off with the public and will, in the end, prove to be too much for Romney, I believe.
I feel bad for candidates or potential candidates like McCain and Romney. Why should they have to alter their ideology in order to please the extremists in the party, especially those with plenty of airtime on the radio and/or television? Why should they worry about being criticized if they aren't a yes-man (person)? Why can't John McCain disagree with the party about Guantanamo? Why can't Romney disagree with the party about health care and gay rights? If these two candidates hadn't been forced to switch their identities, I'd give/would have given them both fair looks, but I can't do that now. I don't know which politician/candidate/person they are. We all flip-flop a time or twenty-three in our lives. We all have the right to change our minds due to a life experience, research, critical thinking, a conversation, etc. However, it's one thing to flip-flop due to a valid reason and another to flip-flop one's entire identity due to outside pressure. That's one thing I'll give Ron Paul. The guy doesn't waver. I think he's a bit loony sometimes, but respect the fact that he doesn't care what the base of the party thinks. He's going to say exactly what he thinks/feels about a situation. I really wish the other GOP candidates would do likewise. This doesn't just go for presidential candidates. I wish all members in Congress would abide by this as well. We'd see a lot more productivity in Washington if the two parties actually talked about things, listened, made compromises for the good of the people at large. We don't need a bunch of yes- or no-people. We elect these individuals into office to get things done in Washington, to move this country forward, to better our lives and the future of this country. I only hope the moderate Republicans finally fight back and are able to instigate the feeling of an actual party, a sane family and not a cult.
After the GOP sold themselves to the Evangelical community and conservative radio along with Fox News hit the airwaves the party has become progressively more conservative (progressively more conservative sounds wrong, yet makes me chuckle, so I'll stick with it).
Look back through the history of the Republican Party - Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, etc. These presidents would not have fit in with the Republican Party of today. It humors me to hear so many high-powered members of the party claim that Ronald Reagan was the greatest president in the history of this country and treat him like their role model, because if they look at his policies, what he did while in office, he would not fit in with today's party. Heck, one of the biggest issues with the modern day Republican Party is to not raise taxes on ANYBODY, even the top 1%. Under Bill Clinton, taxes for that group of people was 39.6% and that's what Obama wants to do. For Reagan? That number was 50%. Like I said, he really wouldn't fit in today.
Due to the party being cornered by the church and talk radio/Fox News, the moderate/liberal members of the party have had to change their tune publicly or else they will be ridiculed and voted out of office. Don't believe me? Look back at the 2000 Primary. John McCain was referred to as Maverick McCain back then for a reason. He drove the base of the party crazy, because he was unafraid to speak out against them if he disagreed on a matter. He ran for president in 2000 and what did the Rush Limbaughs of the world say? Do NOT vote for this guy, because he's too liberal. Yeah, John McCain...too liberal. What happened? Well, as George W. Bush "won" the presidency, it's pretty obvious McCain was not the GOP's nominee that year. After that and with intentions of running again someday, McCain's voting record took a sharp turn toward the right and by the time the 2008 election rolled around, John McCain had to create a different identity for himself in order to appease the conservative based which hated him in 2000, yet persuade independents that he was still the McCain of old. This was an extremely difficult sell. If he made the Maverick version of him well known, Rush Limbaugh and the Fox News crew would not be happy and let the public know about it, yet he'd win over some independents and perhaps even some Reagan Democrats. On the other side of it, if he attempted to appease the conservative base, while the talking heads wouldn't have anything to gripe about, those independents and Reagan Democrats would likely vote for Obama. Either way, it would have made things extremely difficult for McCain to pull off a victory in the election.
Now we have one Mitt Romney. Like McCain, he has been lambasted through the years by conservative talking heads as being too liberal. There's a good reason why he hasn't been able to run away with the Republican Primary and why it seems that every week, a new GOP candidate emerges as the main competition for Romney. This individual is referred to as the not-Romney candidate or non-Romney candidate. The conservative base does not want Mitt Romney as their nominee. Not only has he historically been fairly moderate, he's a Mormon. I, myself, could care less about this and don't think it should play a factor in this year's election. HOWEVER, with the Evangelical community being one of the GOP's largest supporters, they will not be thrilled to see a Mormon as their nominee. It could result in fewer such people showing up at the booths to vote come election day.
Also, like McCain, Romney has had to change his tune on a number of issues, as he's trying to tell the conservative base he's one of them. There are many late-night jokes being thrown at Romney due to his seemingly constant flip-flops. Again, which Romney do we have? The one who could be fairly successful winning over independents and Reagan Democrats, but not please his party's base or the one who pleases the base of the GOP, yet won't have much success persuading independents and Reagan Democrats to cast their votes for him? Once again, this is a very difficult line to walk down, a very difficult strategy to pull off with the public and will, in the end, prove to be too much for Romney, I believe.
I feel bad for candidates or potential candidates like McCain and Romney. Why should they have to alter their ideology in order to please the extremists in the party, especially those with plenty of airtime on the radio and/or television? Why should they worry about being criticized if they aren't a yes-man (person)? Why can't John McCain disagree with the party about Guantanamo? Why can't Romney disagree with the party about health care and gay rights? If these two candidates hadn't been forced to switch their identities, I'd give/would have given them both fair looks, but I can't do that now. I don't know which politician/candidate/person they are. We all flip-flop a time or twenty-three in our lives. We all have the right to change our minds due to a life experience, research, critical thinking, a conversation, etc. However, it's one thing to flip-flop due to a valid reason and another to flip-flop one's entire identity due to outside pressure. That's one thing I'll give Ron Paul. The guy doesn't waver. I think he's a bit loony sometimes, but respect the fact that he doesn't care what the base of the party thinks. He's going to say exactly what he thinks/feels about a situation. I really wish the other GOP candidates would do likewise. This doesn't just go for presidential candidates. I wish all members in Congress would abide by this as well. We'd see a lot more productivity in Washington if the two parties actually talked about things, listened, made compromises for the good of the people at large. We don't need a bunch of yes- or no-people. We elect these individuals into office to get things done in Washington, to move this country forward, to better our lives and the future of this country. I only hope the moderate Republicans finally fight back and are able to instigate the feeling of an actual party, a sane family and not a cult.
Comments
Post a Comment