Should Perry & Gingrich Quit Republican Race?
Ace Says ‘No’ - DRH Agrees - Read Why
By Dell Hill
Any shred of conservatism remaining in the Republican presidential primary rests with Texas Governor Rick Perry, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Senator Rick Santorum. And the degrees of conservatism within that trio varies considerably.
From my perspective, Perry is the only totally conservative candidate left in the race, and despite his very poor showing thus far, he should stay in at least through Florida, for the same reason(s) that Gingrich and Santorum will stay - to give conservative voters at least some voice in the final outcome.
Right now, I don’t believe Perry has even a glimmer of hope to win the nomination, but quitting now only enhances even weaker conservative candidates to assume an even stronger grip on the Republican Party. If we’re left with just Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, I’m afraid the conservative brand will take a beating for another four years, no matter who wins the presidency.
But....But....What about Ron Paul?
I find myself in total agreement with Ace on this Ron Paul character.
“Actually Perry only has nine percent to Santorum's seven percent, and Gingrich has a nice 25%, but I wanted to put this out there for the various people calling on Gingrich and Perry to quit the race in favor of Santorum.
Oh, and Paul's at 20%, but I don't count that. Here's the reason I don't count that: Paul and his supporters wish the Republican Party to completely reverse its foreign/defense policy -- going from interventionist and hawkish to pacifist and strictly dovish, with Defense budgets slashed to ribbons to make up for the budget deficit -- without actually convincing anyone on this issue.
The pitch is that Paul will cut government spending. Golf clap. We'd all like to see that. We're all convinced on that point.
But what we're not convinced of is that we should reduce Defense to the coast guard and a nuclear bomber wing and trust that the rest of the world will be nice to us if we are nonthreatening.
You cannot bootstrap a change that great without actually convincing the party that such a change is good and wise. But that seems to be the Paul strategy, run on the one thing people are convinced of (shrinking government) but then implementing the thing that people aren't convinced of (adopting a doctrinaire pacifist policy with virtually no power projection at all, because, see, we don't need that anymore).
I have used this analogy of putting up a strongly pro-choice candidate who talked very strongly about cutting government.
Would such a candidate win? Should such a candidate win, without even bothering with that little step of persuading the party that abortion is a right?
Of course not. And nor can the conservative position on defense be changed so radically without any actual agreement to do so. But that's what Paul has in mind.
Oh, and foreign policy and defense are uniquely within the president's exclusive power, unlike most other areas. The president has not just a first-among-equals status here, but a nearly preeminent position in this area-- the Constitution specifically calls him out as chief foreign relations officer, and of course commander in chief.”
Ace Says ‘No’ - DRH Agrees - Read Why
By Dell Hill
Any shred of conservatism remaining in the Republican presidential primary rests with Texas Governor Rick Perry, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Senator Rick Santorum. And the degrees of conservatism within that trio varies considerably.
From my perspective, Perry is the only totally conservative candidate left in the race, and despite his very poor showing thus far, he should stay in at least through Florida, for the same reason(s) that Gingrich and Santorum will stay - to give conservative voters at least some voice in the final outcome.
Right now, I don’t believe Perry has even a glimmer of hope to win the nomination, but quitting now only enhances even weaker conservative candidates to assume an even stronger grip on the Republican Party. If we’re left with just Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, I’m afraid the conservative brand will take a beating for another four years, no matter who wins the presidency.
But....But....What about Ron Paul?
I find myself in total agreement with Ace on this Ron Paul character.
“Perry Passes Santorum In South Carolina; Newt Still Leads The Anti-Romneys By A Wide Margin
“Actually Perry only has nine percent to Santorum's seven percent, and Gingrich has a nice 25%, but I wanted to put this out there for the various people calling on Gingrich and Perry to quit the race in favor of Santorum.
Paul has climbed 11 percent in the last week and Perry has gained seven percent. Santorum, who was tied for second in last week’s poll at 24 percent, plummeted into fifth place in the current poll.
Oh, and Paul's at 20%, but I don't count that. Here's the reason I don't count that: Paul and his supporters wish the Republican Party to completely reverse its foreign/defense policy -- going from interventionist and hawkish to pacifist and strictly dovish, with Defense budgets slashed to ribbons to make up for the budget deficit -- without actually convincing anyone on this issue.
The pitch is that Paul will cut government spending. Golf clap. We'd all like to see that. We're all convinced on that point.
But what we're not convinced of is that we should reduce Defense to the coast guard and a nuclear bomber wing and trust that the rest of the world will be nice to us if we are nonthreatening.
You cannot bootstrap a change that great without actually convincing the party that such a change is good and wise. But that seems to be the Paul strategy, run on the one thing people are convinced of (shrinking government) but then implementing the thing that people aren't convinced of (adopting a doctrinaire pacifist policy with virtually no power projection at all, because, see, we don't need that anymore).
I have used this analogy of putting up a strongly pro-choice candidate who talked very strongly about cutting government.
Would such a candidate win? Should such a candidate win, without even bothering with that little step of persuading the party that abortion is a right?
Of course not. And nor can the conservative position on defense be changed so radically without any actual agreement to do so. But that's what Paul has in mind.
Oh, and foreign policy and defense are uniquely within the president's exclusive power, unlike most other areas. The president has not just a first-among-equals status here, but a nearly preeminent position in this area-- the Constitution specifically calls him out as chief foreign relations officer, and of course commander in chief.”
No comments:
Post a Comment