There are so many important topics that need discussion and I just don't have time to discuss them all. Sometimes, I am not enough of an expert to make good analysis. The potential bolting of Social Conservatives is just one of those topics. I did find a fine piece that I would like to share with you from Gerry Phelps that analyzes the situation.
It was the Democrats in 1968 - so angry at having Humphrey as theircandidate that they stayed at home. And brought themselves years of earnedliberal misery under Nixon.It was the conservative Republicans in1992. They were so angry that Bush Sr. broke his "no new taxes" pledgethat they stayed at home, or voted for Perot. And endured 8 years ofearned conservative misery under Bill Clinton.Now a group of conservative evangelicals have denounced Republicancandidates Giuliani, Thompson, McCain and Romney, here. They say they would stay at home or vote for a 3rd party candidate rather thanvote for any of them. And they are urging others to follow theirlead.What? They would prefer Hillary Clinton? Possibly for 8years? Are they masochists? Or just ignorant of the lessons of thepast? Do they really think Hillary would meet their requirements betterthan any viable Republican?Are Christian conservatives yearning to drive over that cliffagain?Please, fellows. Think again. Please!For my money it is far too early to start worrying. I also firmly believe that so called social conservatives are not homogenous and so frankly aren't going to vote for one candidate as a block. I found this analysis at Power Line to be fairly right on. In short, don't fret Republicans Rudy is an astute politician and he isn't going to get plowed over by social conservative leadership or by any third party candidate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment