Thursday, November 15, 2007
Dick Morris continues to annoy me with his whiny projections of imminent defeat for the Republicans if the contest is anything but Hillary vs. Giuliani. He has not made many successful predictions this decade so he's probably about due, but first of all, I think his hatred of Hillary is magnifying her threat. A: most of America hates Hillary too. B: She has no more experience than any presidential candidate, less than many. C: We somehow managed to survive the first Clinton presidency; we could survive this one too. Indeed, the more I learn about the prospects for a Republican candidacy, the more the Pendragon thinks, "Things could be worse than President Hillary." At least we're likely to regain the Congress with a Democrat president.
Here's how I see the lineup. Last year thousands of Republican voters stayed home rather than vote for a party that seemed little different from the Democrats while liberals flooded the polls to vote for their party of choice. Morris is suggesting that Giuliani could win over some of the left-of-center crowd. He needs to revisit last November. Will conservatives vote for Hillary? No, but they also will not vote for Giuliani. This division of the party faithful will throw the election to Hillary.
Morris claims that Hillary will be able to attack Romney for his lack of experience in the foreign policy department. I doubt she will be able to raise that at all since she has no more experience in this matter than he has. She made a few goodwill tours as First Lady and has done nothing for foreign policy since winning her Senate seat. Giuliani also has no foreign policy experience and no way of getting any. Thompson is a joke candidate on every single front. The only thing they could dialogue about is that they both wanted Bill to stay when the vote for his impeachment came up. The only serious contender that is immune to the charge of ignorance of foreign policy is John McCain, the Pendragon's backup choice for President.
As for the widespread belief that Democrats will vote for a Republican of Giuliani's ilk, a rebirth of the "Reagan Democrats," this also ignores the lesson of Reaganism. Ronald Reagan attracted Democrats who were social conservatives. These blue-collar working class people may have agreed with the Democrats on economic issues--certainly were not interested in their wealthy bosses keeping more money. But they disliked their Democratic leaders shoving abortion on demand, homosexual marriage and other mores down their throats while mocking the beliefs that made these workers tick. Reagan Democrats were social conservatives, economic liberals, but their social views outweighed the economic ones. They are not likely to back a Republican with whom they disagree on both economic and social issues
Any way you cut the cake, Giuliani's candidacy would be a disaster for the Republican Party. It would be to ignore the lessons of the 1980s; even worse, it would be to ignore the lessons of last year. Economic conservatism is all very well but in and of itself it does not guarantee elections for the Republican party. The American mainstream is very socially conservative but is not overly conservative in the economic sense. And those who are liberal on social issues are not likely to prefer Giuliani to Clinton. Romney makes excellent sense in this scenario. Morris is wrong...again!
Here's how I see the lineup. Last year thousands of Republican voters stayed home rather than vote for a party that seemed little different from the Democrats while liberals flooded the polls to vote for their party of choice. Morris is suggesting that Giuliani could win over some of the left-of-center crowd. He needs to revisit last November. Will conservatives vote for Hillary? No, but they also will not vote for Giuliani. This division of the party faithful will throw the election to Hillary.
Morris claims that Hillary will be able to attack Romney for his lack of experience in the foreign policy department. I doubt she will be able to raise that at all since she has no more experience in this matter than he has. She made a few goodwill tours as First Lady and has done nothing for foreign policy since winning her Senate seat. Giuliani also has no foreign policy experience and no way of getting any. Thompson is a joke candidate on every single front. The only thing they could dialogue about is that they both wanted Bill to stay when the vote for his impeachment came up. The only serious contender that is immune to the charge of ignorance of foreign policy is John McCain, the Pendragon's backup choice for President.
As for the widespread belief that Democrats will vote for a Republican of Giuliani's ilk, a rebirth of the "Reagan Democrats," this also ignores the lesson of Reaganism. Ronald Reagan attracted Democrats who were social conservatives. These blue-collar working class people may have agreed with the Democrats on economic issues--certainly were not interested in their wealthy bosses keeping more money. But they disliked their Democratic leaders shoving abortion on demand, homosexual marriage and other mores down their throats while mocking the beliefs that made these workers tick. Reagan Democrats were social conservatives, economic liberals, but their social views outweighed the economic ones. They are not likely to back a Republican with whom they disagree on both economic and social issues
Any way you cut the cake, Giuliani's candidacy would be a disaster for the Republican Party. It would be to ignore the lessons of the 1980s; even worse, it would be to ignore the lessons of last year. Economic conservatism is all very well but in and of itself it does not guarantee elections for the Republican party. The American mainstream is very socially conservative but is not overly conservative in the economic sense. And those who are liberal on social issues are not likely to prefer Giuliani to Clinton. Romney makes excellent sense in this scenario. Morris is wrong...again!
// posted by The Pendragon @ 1:50 PM 
