Republicans and Role Models, oh my

[Lisabob]

Watching the current crop of Republican contenders has certainly been entertaining. So many debates, so far in advance of the actual election, are bound to reveal thin preparation and ill-formed world views. And all that's fun for a little while. (particularly since I'm rooting for the other team!)

 

But one thing that astonishes me is the apparent willingness of many Republican voters to serially adopt, then abandon, one Republican candidate after another. The latest is that likely R voters are disembarking from the "Cain Train" in favor of - gasp - Newt Gingrich. I can see the bumper stickers now..."Values Voters for Newt!"

 

Seriously, I don't get it. There are a couple of Republicans who I personally wouldn't vote for if they were the last candidate standing (on political ideological grounds), but who seem to have relatively unblemished personal lives and character. People who I would think the "values" voter base might be proud to have as individual role models for our young men. For example, Rick Santorum or John Huntsman.

 

But..no..the "values" base guys over on the R side swing from Cain to...Newt?

 

I admit, I don't get it. Show me the light. What makes Newt (or Cain) a better role model and exemplar of "character" than these other guys? Why aren't the values voters going for these other guys, instead? Put another way, are there **any** current candidates (from any party) that you find to be worthy role models for boy scout-aged youth?

 

I'm genuinely curious to hear what you-all will say...

 

 

 

 

[SeattlePioneer]

Newt is a politician with REAL experience.

 

Few people can display the scars the railroad train made when he was run over by Bill Clinton in the government shutdown episode.

 

On the other hand, his Contract With America was an extraordinary political triumph in American history.

 

I'm glad to have Newt as the Clay Pigeon in Chief to see how he does when everyone takes pot shots at him. He's a tough politician, sort of like Barney Frank on the Dem side I'd say. He has baggage, but also real ability and experience.

 

Maybe he will prove himself. Maybe he will blow up like Cain and the rest. It seems we will find out in the days and weeks to come.

 

Wow! That Cain meltdown! Spectacular!

[le Voyageur]

 

 

Newt has way, way too much baggage, and no moral compass....that old saw about feet of clay....well, for Newt the clay is past his eyeballs. As for a better Republican choice, there are none. Seems only the truly crazy are going for the brass ring. The thought of any one of these people having their finger on the nuclear trigger should send shrivers down the back of every American....

[lrsap]

What's funny is to think there are people that would vote for Newt to be POTUS, but wouldn't want him to be their son's SM.

[chaoman45]

I'm no PoliSci major, so this is conjecture:

 

People favour or would more likely vote for somebody they've heard of rather than an unknown, even if the well-known person has negative coverage of him. In this case, Cain > moral guy the media doesn't care about.

 

Also, people DO waffle with candidates. But it's not just Republicans. I remember a bit of this happening in 2008. Plus, some of the blemishes just recently came to light and a lot of people didn't know about them. Wouldn't you change your vote if something horrible surfaced from your candidate's personal life?

[JoeBob]

Where do I start?

 

Lisabob: "The apparent willingness of many Republican voters to serially adopt, then abandon, one Republican candidate after another."

You mean like the DNC backstabbing Hillary after the Main Stream Media fell in love with Obama?

 

"What makes Newt (or Cain) a better role model and exemplar of "character" than these other guys?"

Jennifer Flowers? Kathleen Willey? Juanita Broderick? Monica Lewinsky? Paula Jones? Now why are all those names familiar? What is the definition of 'is'?

 

R's decided that being more like the D's in the character department would appeal to the middle.

 

Is it working? Or do y'all really miss Sarah Palin that much?

[Lisabob]

Oh now come on, JoeBob (and others). I don't deny for one moment that Bill Clinton had some major moral shortcomings. I don't deny that Democrats had a hard time choosing between Hillary and Obama in '08, or that people genuinely change their minds when confronted with new info about the less-than-savory sides of a candidate's life. In other words, I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge the flaws of the Democratic side of life.

 

But Democratic voters are not usually the ones shouting about moral character and values as trump cards to experience and ideology. Usually, that cry comes from the Republican side.

 

And as for Newt, no denying the man has serious political experience. I mean, the man was Speaker of the House and as others note, he almost single-handedly championed the "contract with America" and the 1994 "Republican Revolution" that saw the R's take back control of the House for the first time in decades.

 

But he has some serious moral issues and they are not news. The lobbying issues that are coming up now may be sort-of-news, but he's also twice-divorced with a string of salacious stories surrounding those divorces, and he flip flops with the best of them. He says outrageous, offensive, stuff just about every other day. He always has, too. I remember his comments about men being made to hunt giraffes and women being made to stay home & have babies (as an explanation for why he felt women shouldn't serve in most military roles), way back when. And that was hardly the worst thing he said!

 

This isn't to argue about Dems vs. Reps. There are hundreds of examples of Dems with character issues, but Dem voters aren't begging for a "values" based campaign, and Dem voters are more or less settled on our guy. Rep voters - they're the ones who say they want "values" and "character" and "morality" to play a central role and it seems they're the ones hopscotching from one candidate to the next these days.

 

What I don't get - is why are they jumping to NEWT, and why are they overlooking Santorum & Huntsman? I mean, really, Santorum seems like he's the guy with the "values" chops, and an evangelical Christian, to boot. Huntsman has the dubious quality (apparently - in the eyes of a lot of Christian conservative voters, not my judgment) of being Mormon, but he doesn't seem to have personal scandals of the same type that Newt and other front-runners do.

 

So, what makes Newt a better values-guy to lead the party than Huntsman or Santorum? That's what I'm really curious about.

 

 

[Lisabob]

lrsap: "What's funny is to think there are people that would vote for Newt to be POTUS, but wouldn't want him to be their son's SM. "

 

Yeah! I mean, that's the point here!

 

[BS-87]

There's a GOP candidate who's been married to the same woman for more than 50 years, has not had any "values" scandals, and has voted consistently based on principle in the House of Representatives for almost 30 years.

 

Say what you will about Dr. Paul, he's without a doubt the man on the debate stage with the most self-awareness, history of morality, and consistency.

 

I'm positive Santorum and Huntsman are also consistent, moral, self-aware men; but they just haven't proven to be such for such a long period of time as Dr. Paul has.

 

 

[Eagledad]

>>What I don't get - is why are they jumping to NEWT, and why are they overlooking Santorum & Huntsman? I mean, really, Santorum seems like he's the guy with the "values" chops, and an evangelical Christian, to boot. Huntsman has the dubious quality (apparently - in the eyes of a lot of Christian conservative voters, not my judgment) of being Mormon, but he doesn't seem to have personal scandals of the same type that Newt and other front-runners do.

[Tampa Turtle]

Barry,

 

Stop compartmentalizing Democrats or Liberals as some vast, stupid, monolithic group. It is why folks keep talking past each other. Its like saying all Catholics think the same way--it just aint so.

 

As for the media. While I would say there is some liberal bias I would say they are usually more shallow, lazy, and elitist than liberal. They they reduce complex issues into slogans and with smaller and younger news staffs they really do not have the time, resources, and expertise to do a good job.

[Eagledad]

>>Stop compartmentalizing Democrats or Liberals as some vast, stupid, monolithic group. It is why folks keep talking past each other. Its like saying all Catholics think the same way--it just aint so.

[Tampa Turtle]

I, the great and mighty turtle, am highly compartmentalized to reduce torpedo damage.

[SeattlePioneer]

Heh, heh! Well OF COURSE the moral standards for Scoutmaster are higher than for US President!

 

 

I seem to recall that Democrats argued that Bill Clinton shouldn't be judged on his personal moral conduct, only on the way he carried out his official tasks as President!

[scoutingagain]

Along those same lines, I think Mitt Romney would be an effective President. He's a proven executive that makes very pragmatic decisions. He's not an idealoge, but in terms of a moral compass, I don't think there is anything the guy wouldn't say if he thought it would help him get elected. I think he recently admitted though that he had a beer once and smoked a cigarette in his rebellious youth.

 

In Massachusetts we went from Governor Romney, father of Romneycare, inspiration for Obamacare, to Governor Deval Patrick, Obama clone,(although I think Patrick is a better chief exec). If you asked the average citzen of the Commonwealth what the major difference in the two administrations is, I doubt many could identify one.

 

SA