Republicans and Role Models, oh my

[Eagledad]

>>Romney's problem is that as a Mormon he doesn't appeal at all to the Christian right, as a governor from Taxachusetts he doesn't appeal to the anti-tax crowd, and he has no national security chops to speak of.

[Lisabob]

Yeah a bunch of you did miss my point. Of course Dems have flaws, of course we aren't going to agree on policy (I make no bones about being a liberal Democrat, thank you, and I don't expect to convert y'all.), and of course in years when they didn't already have an incumbent the Democratic field has been a wide-open mess. But this year, the Dems are pretty much settled on Obama and the circus is over on your side of town.

 

What I don't get is why many so-called, self-described, "values voters" would ever even consider Newt, while ignoring Huntsman, Paul, and Santorum. (Yes, thanks for reminding me about Paul, BS-87)

 

I would never vote for Paul or Santorum on policy grounds, and I also find the latter's homophobic views to be extremely offensive. I probably wouldn't vote for Huntsman either - though I can imagine him as a good VP choice (I appreciate that he can find China with two hands & a flashlight, unlike some of his colleagues). But I can see the appeal that all three hold, if what Republicans are actually looking for are "values" candidates. And let's be honest, that values stuff isn't just media hype. That's how the Republican party has tended to market itself in recent years.

 

Beavah suggests that it is really the security-focused Republicans that like Gingrich, and I find that funny too, because there as well, Huntsman probably has the upper hand in terms of policy chops (less so for Paul & Santorum). **AND** he has the morality edge over Newt (well really, who doesn't?). By that logic, Huntsman should soon be running away with the race for the Republican nod and it is pretty plain that isn't going to happen.

 

 

[Beavah]

Beavah suggests that it is really the security-focused Republicans that like Gingrich, and I find that funny too

 

Nah, I didn't. I said neither da security voters nor da Christian Right really have a candidate yet. And that's not about policy, it's about patriotism and money. Salutin' da flag and larding up defense contractors. Newt gets the latter

 

More seriously, for "values voters" da lynch pin isn't infidelity, eh? It's abortion. If yeh believe in traditional values, everything else takes a back seat to killing unborn children. Marital infidelity is a sad and sinful personal failure, but da choice between an unfaithful husband and someone who supports murdering children when they're inconvenient is an easy one, eh? And I have to agree.

 

Beavah

[JoeBob]

Lisabob says: "many so-called, self-described, "values voters""

 

Harumph! I personally know of NO self described 'values voters'.

 

I do recognize that a few candidates describe themselves as 'values' candidates in an effort to woo Evangelicals. But there are fewer Evangelicals than Mormons. (Wild Ass Guess - no stats) All of those 'values' candidates are polling in the low single digits, hence demonstrating how low the number of 'value voters' there really are.

 

But the Media ain't about to let the blatant hypocrisies of those 'values' slide outta the picture. They need sensationalism to sell stories! And some of the 'gotchas' are pretty good.

 

 

Beavah: regarding abortion, I think you're close to the heart of the matter. But I think that the 'killing babies' argument is a reach from a religious based attempt to control your sex life. (Resistance to the RU486 Morning After drug proved that one.)

Republican Conservatives have no business in my bedroom.

Liberal Democrats have no business in my wallet.

[Lisabob]

Well I dunno where you live, JB, but I know all sorts of self-described "values voters" who also say they vote Republican. They're sure not talking about Huntsman or Santorum. A few do talk about Paul.

 

Beavah - fair enough. I read too quickly, misconstrued a bit. Sorry.

 

 

[JoeBob]

Now I'm curious. A question for all the other conservative/moderate minded folks on the board:

What percentage of your friends who did NOT vote for Obama would describe themselves as 'values' voters?

 

LisaBob's

courtesy deserves an answer.

[vol_scouter]

JoeBob,

 

It was a liberal democrat, Bill Cilinton, that blocked RU-486 - not conservatives. RU-486 would bankrupt Planned Parenthood who fought tooth and nail against allowing it to become available.

[Mr. Boyce]

Lisa: I'm an old PS guy, and have been active in politics. I really wanted Huckabee to run, and right now, he still looks much better than the current set of dwarfs.

 

I'd point out that "liberals" are also values voters. They like the Current Occupant's views on promoting abortion, for instance, and think it's a good thing. They want even more funding for AIDS research, when any fair measure seem to show that, per death, we're already overspending in that area. They also feverishly promote gay marriage, and our Current Occupant denies his obligation to enforce the law, as Chief Executive, because he personally doesn't care for it (the doma bill).

 

So, yes, liberals push values on the public. Some characterize this as radical individualism or secular humanism or secularism.

 

I wanted the best for Mr. Obama, but once in office, he dropped his guise of moderateness.

[Beavah]

Whatsoever you do, to the least of my people... that you do unto me.

 

Just once, I'd like to be able to vote for a candidate who believed in protecting both the unborn and the elderly, who expect da Executive both to defend marriage and prosecute those who engaged in torturing captives.

 

Beavah

 

[scoutingagain]

Well when one tribe's stated No. 1 goal is to defeat the other tribe's candidate in the next election, some of those things move down the priority list. That's part of the answer to Lisa's initial question. For many Republicans it's more important to defeat Obama than to support a candidate that more closely reflects their values.

 

SA

[scoutingagain]

"as a governor from Taxachusetts he doesn't appeal to the anti-tax crowd, "

 

Just BTW, this simply is not true. Relative to personal income Massachussetts ranks in the lower tier of states with respect to state and local taxes.

 

http://www.newgeography.com/content/00754-local-and-state-tax-burden-maps

 

SA

 

 

[Lisabob]

On the heels of the SC primary, once again, I'm astonished that the Newtster apparently has the support of a conservative, evangelical Christian, values base.

 

So: my fellow scouters who lean toward the Republican side of life, how would you really feel about having Newt as your guy? Not trying to make fun, or pick a fight here - I'm really curious. Does he light the fire? Leave you wishing he'd crawl back under a big rock? Is it "anyone but Romney" for you? Where do you all stand on this guy?

 

 

 

 

[packsaddle]

Lisa, I think it's the first time I have laughed and laughed after seeing the results of an election. Incredible. Why are you surprised? Newt is a natural! Don't you WANT him to BE the candidate?!!! Think of how much fun this is all going to be!

 

I'm not trying to be mean to you when I say this but you really don't 'get' the South, do you? It seems so 'genteel' and polite. I guess yankees may view southerners with a little prejudice but you must understand the subliminal and cleverly-nuanced malevolence that permeates the South of southerners rather than the South of transplants from other regions. I guess you have to 'live' it to understand.

 

The only thing that surprises me is how clearly and decisively SC repudiated and 'put the lie' to Republican claims over the years to high moral principles or family values. You should be on your knees in prayers of thanks for their having removed the cloak of that deception. They can never get that 'high ground' back again. Ever.

What a great show! Play on!

[Callooh! Callay!1428010939]

Regarding "worthy role models for boy scout-aged youth:"

Most Republican voters aren't looking to government and officeholders as national daddy and mommy figures on whom they should rely. Ceteris paribus, they'd probably prefer the good role model. But that's not what they're voting for. They'll raise their own children, thank you. They don't need the Republican candidate to be a role model for them. They do need him to be effective at defeating Obama and pushing back the tide of collectivism.

 

Whoever these "values voters" are, they aren't going to find a viable candidate who shares all their values. They must prioritize and choose.

 

[Lisabob]

No, pack, I agree, I definitely do not "get" the South. At least not South Carolina.

 

In some regards, candidate Newt would be an excellent outcome for the opposing party because he's said so many nutso things, made so many enemies (within his own party, especially), and shoved so many skeletons into his closet over the years, that I think he'd get demolished in the general election. Moderates and independents aren't going to vote for this guy in a million years. They might stay home, but they won't vote for him. And his candidacy will do a lot to energize the Democratic base. A lot of Dems remember Newt from the 1994-96 era, and not fondly, either.

 

So if electability is the key thing, then Romney's a better bet. I know a bunch of moderate Democrats who would probably vote for him over Obama - he'd fracture Obama's base. If social conservativism is the key, then there's Santorum. If small government is the main issue, there's Paul. On any of these fronts, Newt comes in second (or third, or fourth).

 

About the only things I can imagine that Newt wins on are that he is full of bluster and ego (which could, I guess, look like spine to some), and that he's a Washington insider who has a sense of how the game gets played (but I thought you Republicans didn't like "Washington insiders?!"). And in South Carolina, perhaps he scored extra points for casual racism too, I'm not sure.