The Clash of Political Preferences for ideal Republican Nominee for 2012 National Presidential Election?
Republicans have bigger fish to fry than assaulting the Patient Protection and affordable Care Act of 2010, for now. Far from the chastened hall of congress is the emerging field of Republican candidates for next year elections. The sparing candidates from the Party are making many conservative Republicans wonder, where the wise men or women are. Governor Mitch Daniels, one of their favorite candidates, at least in some Republican quarters, has just turned down the opportunity to run for the coveted White House oval office. The former Governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty, is all too eager to tell the public that he is ready to tell us the truth in governance, like we’ve never heard the truth somewhere along the line regarding how there is hardly a black or White preference, but a grey area in politics. Sarah Palin, another 'iffy' GOP candidate for 2012, is making a movie to burnish her image preemption of the Iowa caucus; and, putting up money for a mortgage in Arizona, hoping that these and other tactics may make her a GOP candidate of consideration for the 2012 nomination.
Although the tea party faction of the Republican Party ridicule some of the candidates that have announced their candidacy for nomination to carry the party’s flag against Democrats, come November 2012, there is the greater problem of having to sell Representative Paul Ryan budget recommendation to the country; with a proposal to turn the popular Medicare program into a voucher System. The election results in New York tonight tell the whole secret: Mess with Medicare in any shape or form and you might as well forget your career as a lawmaker; or, being the majority in congress after 2012 elections. Barring any missteps or unforeseen issues at this time, there is ample evidence that the front runner for GOP nomination, Governor Mitt Romney, would not have to expend too much money or energy to get the blessings of many mainstream republicans. The blog tonight would exploit the debate of who is really conservative enough to be the republican flag bearer and who is not.
Looking at the array of Republican candidates that have declared with certainty that they are the right person to unseat President Obama, you get this airy feeling that rights and privileges are inevitable domain of the rich and the inevitable realities of being conservative may have much to do with how huge your bank account is, and not necessarily your ability to garner enough support for your candidature. On this ground, except for one or two in the following candidatures, CEO Herman Cain, 65-year old; Speaker Newt Gingrich, 67-year old; Gov. Gary Johnson, 58-year old; First Gay, First Jewish Republican and first to file candidacy with FEC and Political Consultant Fred Karger, 61-year old; Flight Attendant, Single Parent Tom Miller, 46- year old; Dr. (Obstetrician) Ron Paul, 75-year old; Gov. Tim Pawlenty, 51-year old; Gov. Mitt Romney, 64 -year old; Senator Rick Santorum, 53 -year old, all these men are probably upper middle income and the rich in America. If wealth and income are criteria for being conservative enough, all these candidates are probably well qualified.
If a candidate's age is corollary with conservativeness and the likelihood of being the GOP nominated candidate; only five of these men are conservative and old enough to receive the blessings of the Republican's grassroots. Notice I said men, yes men, because none of the filed Republican candidates with Federal Electoral Commission, is a female as of date. Assuming also that the older you get, the more conservative you are likely to be and that a preferable pegging age for being old enough is 60-year old; apart for Candidates Cain, Gingrich, Karger, Paul and Romney, all the rest will be considered less conservative. On the other hand, if youthfulness is a criterion for being conservative enough, Miller, Pawlenty and Santorum will fit the bill and would probably get the necessary following to be the GOP candidate for 2012 election against President Barack Obama.
Republicans who would like to use the Democratic Party leader's apprehension to send ground troops to Libya as a barometer for measuring conservativeness and likelihood for being the nominated flag bearer for the GOP, would love Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorium. For instance, Gingrich lambasted the leader of the Democratic Party as "Spectator in Chief" and Santorum said: "Even the French! had the chance of being the leader in the drive to unseat Qaddafi. The first critic here cannot stomach the fact that the US is tired of the heavy lifting in foreign interventions and is asking NATO and its members to take more responsibility in ensuring world safety and peace. The second critic could not stand the idea that Uncle Sam is standing down to allow NATO members to do the cooking and offering support to ensure that the dinner is tasty enough, before doing the dishes! Abraham Lincoln reminds us that conservatism is not the adherence to the old and tried but the new and untried. The leader of the Democratic Party remembers this true definition of conservatism and has borrowed the same in dealing with the issue of foreign intervention with respect to Libya and the recent Arab spring.
If being a fiscal conservative, neo-con, Libertarian and or, staunch pro-life constitutionalists with a vent for small government, decentralized governance with more power to the state, is the choice of who is conservative enough, Tim Pawlenty and Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, will be debating Barack Obama come next year in the Presidential tug of war for the White House Oval Office. There is this question mark regarding how fiscally conservative any Republican can be, considering their long history of spending on foreign wars and a dishevel antagonism to less foreign voyeurism by Uncle Sam. That means Tim Pawlenty, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, would still have to work hard to convince the base that they are the real thing. Whether you portray yourself as a fiscal conservative, neo-con libertarian as Tim Pawlenty, or staunch pro-life constitutionalists with love for more State powers like Ron Paul; and lately, Gary Johnson, then you’ve got your guys in these three. The message is somewhat uniform from these three men: we have a pervasive vent for an unyielding commitment of a powerless Presidency; or, an eternal spirit of the chainless mind! However, if it is good to have too much state resident’s liberty while committing endless vault of dollars to wars that hardly yield any benefit to the ordinary American, no one will question the ambition of these three for the oval office.
Social conservatives in the Republican Party, who consider homosexuality and single parenthood as unacceptable norms in a GOP candidate, would probably be up in arms against Fred Karger and Tom Miller. The former is the first gay republican seeking GOP nomination and the latter, is a single parent. These men are aberration to the conservative Republican values. The conservative Republican's fear and nightmare is that these men are probably going to staff their White House, with men just as them. Despite the probability of the opposite, many conservatives are hardly forgiving and mostly committed to their own definition, of an ideal candidate for the office. Even, if any of these two candidates are likely going to quadruple defense funding or hack down all labor unions or institute legislation that would put Republicans in many State Houses, the conservative would still want a choice far different from them.
In particular, Republican conservatives dislike a candidate who is not Protestant Anglo-Saxon Christian, thus, libertarian as Ron Paul and Gary Johnson and Mormon as Mitt Romney are enigmas to the grass roots. These men, who are well qualified on their own merits as citizens of the United States and probably with executive and legislative experience, would be unacceptable to the grassroots conservatives. However, this does not say CEO Herman Cain, is goody-goody two shoes. That very nagging and difficult subject to discuss in American politics is a strike against his candidature according to conservative Republicans. In the opinion of Chevalier De Penat, Conservatives have learned nothing and forgotten nothing. A man's or woman's religion has very little with how he or she will conduct themselves in the office.
Defining conservatism is very difficult. There are probably so many definitions of conservatism that defaulting on the side of one, as the appropriate measure of grass root Republican's choice, will be a disservice to these astute and intelligent group within the Republican Party. Many outsiders to the core Republican Party membership or the newly fledgling Tea Party group are wont to make the mistake of characterizing conservatism in the Republican choice of candidate to carry the Party's banner against the Democrats come November 2012. Over assessment of the ideal characteristics that grassroots Republicans are seeking in a men or woman to carry the banner will do nothing. Under-assessment, and mistakes will probably destroy the moral among the rank and file conservative Republicans. The middle of the road assessment is probably consistent with the approach that moderates within the Party would like, when talking about who is really conservative enough to be the Republican flag bearer and who is not, in the upcoming Presidential Election of 2012. For now, I will hold my breath as further events unfold! Just Stay tuned!!