Who can Unite the GOP?
It’s a question Republicans are asking themselves as well.
Some of the candidates have major issues indeed. Most of them even.
- The person with the best chance to unite the GOP is John McCain. The problem? The conservative base doesn’t like him, mostly because of his support for campaign finance reforms and the immigration bill earlier this year. Of course there’s also the issue of him having taken on the Religious Right some eight years ago.
- Mitt Romney: objectively spoken probably the second best potential uniter. Two problems though: some consider him a flip-flopper, but he should be able to overcome that. Second problem: he’s a Mormon. One can imagine that many Evangelicals won’t support him simply because they don’t consider him a Christian.
- Rudy Giuliani is, in my opinion, probably unable to unite the party. He’s socially not conservative enough. He hoped that his hawkish stances and his 9/11 related image would convince social conservatives conservatives to vote for him, despite their disagreement on a number of issues, but that’s not going to happen. In fact, when he was still leading in the polls, Evangelicals were talking about creating a party of their own.
- Mike Huckabee won’t be able to unite the party either… probably. He’s more than acceptable to religious conservatives, traditional conservatives may support him at the moment he wins the nomination (but most definitely not before), but fiscal conservatives and libertarian conservatives (business conservatives in other words) oppose him quite strongly. For an indication, I’d say read some op-eds in the Wall Street Journal. The anti-Huckabee rhetoric has increased dramatically. ‘Business conservatives’ may change their tone at the moment he wins the nomination, but that seems unlikely.
- Fred Thompson would – strictly in theory – be “the uniter.” Sadly, however, he has given too many people the impression that he doesn’t want to win. His views are all right, but he presents himself as a man without a goal (and without energy). He could’ve turned that around a while ago, I fear for him that it’s too late now.
- Ron Paul: more Republicans than most think actually sympathize with some of his views, but he’s too extreme for most and his isolationist views are in breach with what the far majority of Republicans believe these days. Many wouldn’t vote for him simply because of his views on Iraq. Of course he also has other problems (with white supremacists rooting for him).
In other words, there are in my opinion three people who should be able to unite the GOP to one degree or another, but each and everyone one of them has serious issues. Theoretically Thompson is the man to lead the GOP, but he has failed to present himself as a fresh, energetic leader who can’t wait to lead the most powerful country on earth.
The result of the primaries could very well be that the GOP won’t be as united anymore as it once was. What the results of that will be with regards to the national elections? We can’t be sure. We just have to wait and see. We can say, however, that the inflammatory rhetoric has made it more difficult for the Republican nominee, whoever he will be, to unite the party and, thus, to win the national elections.
Edited by MvdG: since this post is not about Paul, each and every single one comment referring to Paul will be deleted, unless it actually deals with some of the points made in the post.
You claim Paul is an isolationist, but he is not, he is a non-interventionist.
Jeff: isolationists too often do trade with other countries. Before World War II, the US was trading, yet quite Isolationist.
Why doesn’t someone cover the fact that the Baptists teach their members as children to be anti-Mormon? Rather than just saying that Romney’s religion is against him. They wite about the "strange things" about Mormons but I never see anything about how the "strange things" the Baptists teach their members from the crib up.
Edited by MvdG: no name-calling allowed.
The question isn’t "who can unite the GOP".. but who can unite the USA?
Bob A: I disagree. I think – this is strictly from the perspective of an foreign observer – that the US can’t be united, because it’s divided along cultural – mostly – lines.
The division is real. All too real.
With regards to the national elections – in the article I’m strictly talking about the Republican nomination – I think that the question isn’t who can unite the US but "who can get the backing of a firm majority?"
Perhaps not even that these days.
Edited by MvdG: Doesn’t add anything, considered spam.
Edited by MvdG: don’t try that.
Edited by MvdG: thanks, but dealt with it myself
Ron Paul is non-interventionist not isolationist. Further, he doesn’t carry a lot of negatives that would have the Democrats out in DROVES for a different Republican candidate.
McCain gives the impression of being crazed by his imprisonment and torture. I wouldn’t trust his finger on the Big Red Button.
Romney is so OBVIOUSLY a liar – he flip flops on EVERYTHING.
Huckabee needs to remember that we’re not ALL Christians and we don’t want to be governed by Baptist Sharia law. Thompson just really doesn’t sound interested in the job. Guiliani – cross dresser, three-timer, 9/11 liar, sells influence countries with links to terrorism – do you for a minute think the Dems won’t make CHOWDER of these guys? Are you dreaming? go to factcheck.org and see who the only person is you can’t find any dirt on.
Michael.. I respect your opinion, but I think we’re not beyond hope. The real divide(s) our country faces is the economy, the war on terror, the stripping of our liberties, the fleecing of America by special interests and the shrinking middle class,. We’ve been divided before, but we’ve had a good run of harmony also. As I see it, the War on Terror is the greatest threat to the US.. its a never ending war that hasn’t been "declared"..but it has caused the majority of problems I have mentioned. We can’t afford to be policing the world, spending endless trillions of dollars searching caves for terrorists. If we change our foreign policy, the domino effect will bring us back to reality.
Today, I went Christmas shopping, and was looking for an electric guitar for my son. Talking to the shop owner, he pointed out all the used guitars on the wall.. then explained "its never been like this". People are hocking their guitars, amps, stereos and everything else they can .. to get cash for a tank of heating oil for their homes. This is what the war on terror has done to us. Its has made energy unaffordable, created a hidden inflation that is destroying us, destroying our economy and our morale. Not only has it crippled our economy, but it has given the Government the ability to strip us of our civil liberties…no questions asked… and no answers given. We have lost our checks and balances..all in the name of "war". There will always be division..but it doesn’t have to be like this. As I see it, if the CFR is blessing a candidate.. that candidate is nothing but a corporate whore that can’t be trusted.
I wonder about that (and those are quite divisive issues as it is). I think that abortion, same-sex marriage, the role of religion in the public square are all truly divisive issues.
In other words, I think we disagree on what’s dividing America (to a large degree) and what’s not.
You’re right though that foreign policy is very divisive as well. The question is: can the US, in that regard, ever truly be united? Don’t many conservatives truly believe that you have to be on the offensive militarily while progressives emphasize diplomacy far more?
"I think that abortion, same-sex marriage, the role of religion in the public square are all truly divisive issues."
In the sense that we have some fringe maniacs trying to drag the rest in a crusade against reality.
Abortion bans would be an atrocity. The discussion cannot go there – I’ve shown that reason forbids it. The limit and the contingencies should be set with science in mind – the pro-life crowd can go to the table with that or bite their tongues.
Gays in every state can get civil marriage with full benefits today and no democrat should be aiming for anything else. Anything else is a disgrace.
States can decide if they want churces to have the option to wed gays in their sense. Anything else is foolish.
The role of religion is decided by the constitution – beyond that it’s a matter of realizing that religion should never harm the capacity for clear, flexible, sceptical, non-collectivist and generally good thinking and societal progression.
That’s your opinion, a large part of the US disagrees. And if not to ban it, then at least believing that it should be much more limited AND left up to the states.
and no democrat should be aiming for anything else. Anything else is a disgrace.According to you: a large part of America disagrees very strongly. In fact, they find what you advocate a disgrace.
Yeah, true. However it has been interpreted in a way for centuries that conservatives support, while progressives want to reinterpret it. Case in point? You prove my point.
I take exception with your assertion that Fred gave us the impression that he is lazy. That impression was given to us by the e liberal media as they took full advantage of his late entry to smear him personally. All the other candidates spent years building their organizations and campaigns; Fred was drafted by popular demand only 3 months ago and had to start from scratch. You can’t make a national organization appear overnight, no matter how hard you work, and Fred’s foes have used the delay to smear him. His 5-stop-a-day schedule in Iowa will convince anyone paying attention that he is neither lazy nor lacking in energy. Of course, given his solid conservative record and the consistency of his positions, his republican opponents and the liberal press that fears him can find nothing else to attack him with, so they will continue to beat that drum hard.
If Fred can get the Iowa caucus goers to fairly assess his campaign, now on track, he will have a good enough showing to continue the campaign and bring the true conservatives together again. I am praying that happens since I see Fred as our only means to defeat the Dems in November and keep the restoration of the Supreme Court on track.
Fred probably is the best compromise, at least in my opinion as a rabid Ron Paul supporter. I understand why Huckabee is popular, but I can’t explain Romney and Giuliani’s apparently high numbers without pointing to the TV coverage they get and assuming its a matter of ‘name recognition.’
Right now, the candidate who best unites the Republican party is "Hillary Clinton"
well since this is my 3rd attempt to post this comment without it being displayed, I can see free speech is not welcome on your site. I love this comment and jab at Ron Paul. (with white supremacists rooting for him) If this is so important for the American voter, then try do some real reporting and look up every contribution to every politician as I am sure you will find every candidate that has a contributor who has committed adultery, someone who has stole, drug user, felon. Unbelievable.
Jeff T., this being well after midnight for MvdG, let me reply instead …
<< well since this is my 3rd attempt to post this comment without it being displayed, I can see free speech is not welcome on your site >>
This is a blog and as such is private property. MvdG is therefore free to accept or refuse any post at his personal discretion. Bloggers generally blog to promote or at least support a particular bias and there is nothing wrong with this, especially since they do so on their own dime.
If you want to be free to say whatever you want, whenever you want, I suggest you launch your own blog.
P.S.: MvdG has a habit of clearly stating when he deletes or edits a post and his reasons why. So if you simply found your post not uploaded after clicking [Submit Comment], chances are that there was a simple technical reason, most likely a temporary bandwidth overload.
Gay’s, same sex marriage, abortion and religion are more contrived by the MSM and are rallying cries of the GOP when election time comes…but the reality is, abortion has been legal for 30+ years, while the GOP has had their fair share of control of either the executive, legislative or judicial branches. They have really made no strides to stop abortion while they have had control of government. We are no closer now to ending abortion than we were at any time. I believe the gay\same sex marriage issues are just rallying cries for votes, but I really don’t think they’re truly important at the end of the day. I think its just the same old same old.. prey on peoples fears and insecurities. The reality is, the GOP has been caught with their pants down on many occasions regarding gays..they scream how immoral it is, but then are caught in scandal after scandal. I consider myself somewhat conservative..but homosexuality doesn’t effect me or my family. I agree it can be "in your face" on television, but I’m able to change the channel any time I choose to. I truly believe the MSM divides us on these issues..but without the MSM forcing these issues on us, they wouldn’t be issues at all. Its a smoke and mirror show to some extent, but the public is awakening to it quickly. The internet has become the backbone of real information for the past few years, and with forums like Poligazette becoming more popular, more and more people are actually thinking for themselves instead of getting their news in 30 second sound bites. As far as religion..I will only say that I think politicians take advantage of religious people. Religious people have a "quality" that many people don’t have, and its being exploited. That quality is faith, but I think the politicians are using their faith against them. I think the government considers people with strong faith to be gullible..and therefore targets them to push their agenda. If they (the Govt.) can recruit (exploit) people who believe in things with little proof..they assume they are handed a blank check to do whatever they want.
Robert E.: no spamfilter caught it. After seeing his third comment, however, I’ve decided not to despam the other two comments and he’s banned.
If you don’t add anything to the debate, you’re not welcome here. And commenting on our comment policy results in you being banned automatically.
This blog is not a democracy.
Anyway, thanks for your good explanation Robert. You’re right. Freedom of speech truly doesn’t have anything to do with it, since we’re not the government.
Ron Paul is most certainly an isolationist and worse he’s a pacifist. Remember, he’s also opposed to the death penalty for any reason. He opposes War in all instances.
Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aide
US Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)
1997-2003
Eric: care to share more?
Michael, I think you are looking in the wrong place for someone to unite the GOP. What will unite the party next November (if they are united, that is) is the identity of the Democratic candidate. Sad to say, but voting against someone is likely to be more of a uniter than voting for someone. And if the Democrats nominate someone that does not stir strong negative emotions? Then the GOP doesn’t unite — just that simple.
Thanks for putting together this website.
Ah…Yes. Romney, Romney as VP is the correct answer. McCain will of course have to humble himself a bit and learn to play nice with others. Romney will now accept but with conditions. If they will just compromise on a few things I see them doing great things for our country. He will also need Romney to write his speeches for him. Go San Dimas high!!!!
http://WWW.unitethegop.COM http://www.UNITETHEGOP.com