A lot of conservatives in the Republican party seem to think that the most important thing about primary season is finding a candidate who can beat Hillary. That's bull.
First of all, by the end of George Bush's presidency we will have had a Republican in office for 8 years. Of that time, we will have had Republican majorities in the Senate for a little over 4 years. (Would have been 6 if not for "Jumpin' Jim Jeffords") 6 of those 8 years we've held a majority in the House. Despite that, apart from the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, I can't name any major policy concerns for which we've won conservative victories in all that time. Is that really worth it?
To be sure, George Bush showed a commitment to national defense we would never had gotten from Al Gore. However, you have to weigh that commitment against his absolute incompetence when it comes to prosecuting wars. Does anyone seriously doubt that the Bush administration gave short shrift to the idea of what we'd do with Iraq once we'd beaten their army? Further, is it not obvious that Bush should have cut Rumsfeld loose far before he did? I like Rumsfeld, but his approach to Iraq clearly wasn't working, yet he remained.
While I believed then, and still believe, invading Iraq was the right thing to do, both because it improved our security and it removed a ruthless dictator who had tormented his people for decades, we would have been far safer if the insurgents and al-Qaeda had been effectively combated 4 years ago instead of now. Things have been so poorly run that I'm not convinced we're that much better off security wise than we would have been with the Al-bot.
So, if we've had Republican control for this long and accomplished so little, why are conservatives ready to jump for Giuliani, Romney, et al who either firmly stand against many conservative values or who just discovered them when they got ready to run for office because we think their electable? If one of these jokers is elected, do we really think we'll make conservative gains while they're in office?
Winning with a candidate who doesn't really support your goals and values isn't likely to accomplish anything. It can even be a long-term negative because the public will still associate them with us. (We told them too.) They'll rightly wonder, if we failed last time, why should they give us another chance.
Besides all this, many Democrats chunked their personal preferences in the primaries for John Kerry because he was "electable". How'd that work out for them?
Powered by ScribeFire.