After setting up straw man ( or woman) as the epitome of an "uber conservative" candidate, one whose credentials includes not only building the border fence but rounding up and deporting all illegals, Jazz Shaw at Hot Air LINK then tosses this person (Cruz/Peter King!/Palin) at Hillary Clinton in the election. Not withstanding the fact that Palin hasn't taken any of the positions on abortion or immigration Shaw sets out for her, Shaw comes up with three resulting scenarios;
"Then, in November of 2016, we should know one of two things. If the uber-conservative candidate racks up a 300ish plus electoral vote victory similar to Obama’s last outing, the critics will be vindicated and can authoritatively tell the RINOs to STFU and STFD. Just be happy with the win, accept the new paradigm and everyone can move on with their lives.
But what if they wind up taking a worse beating than Romney at the hands of Hillary? (Or whoever the Democrats nominate, assuming there is somebody out there besides the Candidate of Destiny Part Two.) Then the opposite would be true, the RINOs can happily keep up their fight to win over the middle and the debate will be settled once and for all.
But, of course, there is a third and possibly worse potential outcome.
What if the candidate in question lost the popular vote by 4 or 5 percent, essentially running up the same score in the same states that Mitt did? What sort of message does that send? The reason it might be the worst possible outcome is that we’d be left with the prospect of a nation which has simply drifted too far away from the entire idea of conservatism and the GOP to deliver a win at the national level for any candidate. All of these “establishment v True Conservative” arguments would have been for nothing, since it never really mattered"
We can ignore the first scenario as there is nothing to discuss-so be it. The problem with the second scenario making itself a judgement on whether or not a true conservative candidacy is a viable option is that running against Hillary has all the same problems as the GOP encountered running against Barack Obama. As it was keenly felt that it was time for a Black to ascend to the presidency to "heal the wounds" and the nations media was massively in the can for the concept (and the person) so to would Hillary be presented as "it's time for a woman".It is true of course that Palin is a woman, but the difference is that, like Obama, Hillary would have the weight of the media, and the feminist movement and the RINO's lined up with her. If Cruz were an Hispanic woman (or Martinez ran) then the race would pit "the first Hispanic" against the first woman, but my instinct is that the "first woman' would trump the first Hispanic. In that case Cruz (or a rehabilitated Rubio) would find their turn as "the first' would come due in a further four or eight years from 2016. It would just be their luck to run against a Democrat who was "the first Gay or lesbian at that point. It is clear that all these "firsts" have to play out before whatever equilibrium remains becomes clear-which may take three or four election cycles.
Thus if a conservative defeats Clinton it would be a monumental achievement (unless of course the economy had collapsed as it did in 2008, at which point any Republican-even King could win). If a conservative loses to Clinton it proves nothing. If a conservative lost to anyone else, then if would prove that in the Electoral College it is near to impossible for a Republican, of any stripe to win. This is because the demographics in the hugely populated states contain minorities who vote in near majority numbers for Democratic presidents.
The GOP has run a succession of "moderates who lost, so Shaw's thought that if a conservative loses to anyone but Hillary it proves the moderates should run the show. No it doesn't.
With illegals eventually getting the vote, and Texas subsequently turning purple, it would, nothing short of an economic disaster or some other such "black swan" event, consign the GOP to winning control of Congress from time to time and at least one branch of it most of the time, as well as local and state elected positions. This was the fate of the Democratic party from 1860 to 1932 which saw almost continuous Republican presidencies with Democratic congressional majorities until the "black swan" of the great depression.
If such is to be the case it strengthens the need to run true conservative candidates for the presidency. If demographics make a loss all but certain under normal conditions, then there is no point in running a centrist as there needs to be definition for the rank and file-otherwise what is the point?
Further, lightening can strike, people can feel it is time for a change, voter turnout can be very low as people lose interest in what is expected to be a sure thing, and if that a happens, it would propel a genuine conservative into office and who knows, people might get used to the idea.
The wheel of political fortune grinds on, and what is before our eyes at anyone point, and which seems utterly unchangeable, can change in a moment. It is best to be prepared for that eventuality and running Dole/McCain/Romney moderates is not being prepared.
Fair Use Notice
FAIR USE NOTICE:
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.
We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 107
§ 107. LIMITATIONS ON EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS: FAIR USENotwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Copyright issues e-mail to:
holprof57@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment