Two readers comment on GOP candidates and other matters

Derek C. writes:

I’m convinced there are four types of candidates.

The first type is made up of the mercenaries, that is, they’re in it for the publicity and money. This group would include Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and Herman Cain. They want to raise their profile, and, consequently, their speaking fees. I would also include Rick Santorum here, too.

The second type are laying down markers for 2016 or 2020. The GOP traditionally nominates the next candidate in line for the presidency. So these people are trying to get into the position once held by Dole and McCain, and now held by Romney. This group would include Bachmann, Perry, and Huntsman. They don’t expect to become the nominee. At best, they might come out of it with a VP nomination. Mainly, it’s about getting their name out there. Thus you don’t see any serious attempt at becoming president. Perry hasn’t even acknowledged that he’s running.

The third type are the ideologues, and this includes Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, who are in it more for the sake of getting their libertarian ideas into the debate. Really, I would have put Bachmann here, too, except that she’s done far better than expected. So well, in fact, that she’s going to be a national figure.

The final type really are trying to become president. This would include Pawlenty and, of course, Mitt Romney. Pawlenty has been an awful campaigner, but he did intend to challenge Romney seriously for the nomination. Now, he’ll be lucky to run as VP.

Jack S. writes:

A few thoughts about your recent postings.

Bachmann has some good conservative ideas and is capable of expressing them forcefully and unapologetically. She’s not perfect and her Afghanistan comments unfortunately show that the mindless rah rah, “go, team” spirit which led most Republicans to support whatever Bush did is still foremost in her mind. She hasn’t bothered to learn about Islam or to give any thought to the impossibility of civilizing a nation of barbarian cutthroats, especially with the insane PC rules of engagement. Notwithstanding her positives, I’ve never seen any lady Republican that wasn’t a RINO under the surface, so I never gave her candidacy any credence.

The Steyn article you linked actually defines this “too-big and too-PC to win” attitude perfectly. No war can be fought to its conclusion else the left will start screaming about over-reaction and demanding a pause to let the enemy regroup. Furthermore, no war in the country’s national interest can ever be fought. The two wars started by Bush in 2001 and 2003 were won a few weeks after they began. It is the nation-building fantasy wars that began after actual combat ended that were lost. The reasons why Bush and his successor felt compelled to prolong these wars indefinitely are difficult to understand.

Perry does look good compared to the rest of the field. He has made some Texans, even conservative Texans hate him with a passion. Most of his detractors cite as reasons his trans-Texas highway support and his attempt to institute mandatory HPV vaccination for schoolgirls. Despite those concerns, which appear trifling to an outsider, he is a passionate opponent of Obama’s attempts to communize and destroy this country. His quasi endorsement of the possibility of Texas secession was a manifestation of this opposition. Team Bush apparently hates him and tried to replace him with Kay Bailey Hutchinson in his last election, a huge argument in his favor.

Regarding Panetta’s recent 100-0 confirmation in the Senate: what good reason could the 45 [?] Republicans have had to blow kisses at Obama with this unanimous endorsement of his flunky. Did the Democrats ever do such a thing? Again they prove they are the stupid party. It is especially galling at this critical moment, with most of the left’s America- destroying policies passed into law that not a single Republican thought to say they renounce Obama and all his works.

LA replies:

” … the mindless rah rah, ‘go, team’ spirit which led most Republicans to support whatever Bush did … “

That is the precise truth, precisely expressed. They literally have never thought about what the Afghan effort involves or what it means. All they know is, “It’s a war—to support this war is pro-America.”

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 23, 2011 04:45 PM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):