I have been thinking about the 2008 Presidential Elections, and in particular, who the GOP candidate is likely to be. I like to have a good fix on an opponent some way in advance.
Now, take a look at this poll here: http://www.gopbloggers.org/...
It's a poll of the top gop candidates for 2008, taken across the top Republican/conservative blogs. People were allowed to vote acceptable/not acceptable/'top choice' for each candidate.
As you can see, the top choices (by some way) were:
Gingrich 3681 25.6%
Giuliani 3529 24.6%
Romney 2868 20.0%
Now, I don't think Gingrich will have support outside of the 1994 throwback crowd.
I don't think Giuliani will play well in the "heartlands", wherever they are.
All this time, therefore, I've thought that Romney was the true frontrunner. Tancredo, Brownback and Hunter may try to build some momentum, but for the time being Romney was the man to watch. Well, I don't think that any more.......
This article has changed my mind:
http://www.redstate.com/...
It's over at RedState, and it's quite the read. I usually think of RedState as being kinda nutty. but in an ideological way, rather than hung up on 'faith issues'. That's why I thought Romney would play particularly well with those guys - they wouldn't have issues with his religion.
But check out the knots that even RedStaters ties themselves in when discussing his religion -
Maybe saying "I am a Christian" will work, until the WaPo or someone asks "Do you wear sacred undergarments?"
Oh, that Damn WaPo! Always with the questions. Well, here comes another friendly poster to add his $0.02:
Romney saying "I'm a Christian" to evangelicals will cost him several bazillion votes. I would consider him based on his political philosophy. The instant he appeals to me based on his "christianity" he's off the radar
Yep - cos Mormons aren't Christians, any more (to quote another poster) than Hindus are. Or... wait... maybe they are Christians! Wikipedia says so! (seriously, this is the level of the debate).
Wait, here come some Libertarians!
As a proponet of smaller govt lets quit recognizing marriages altogether and move it back to the church where it belongs. Homosexuals can go to their own churches for whatever it is they want to do to each other.
Um... cool... I think.... hang on -
Why can't I marry my dog?
There then follows an informative argument comparing the wagging tails of dogs to the concent 'of the metally retarded'.
I couldn't make this up. Ladies and Gentleman, if this issue throws even the RedStaters into disarray, Mitt Romney will prove unable to rally the GOP base in 08, and I am predicting his candidacy will be D.O.A. I know others have predicted this before, but this thread has truly opened my eyes to how seriously this will limit his chances.
I myself have no problem with the reilgious beliefs of Mitt Romney, nor any other major politician I can think of. Especially if they "practice their beliefs, but don't legislate their beliefs" as someone once said. But it's increasingly clear that a big chunk of the GOP base don't feel the same way - and they just won't be happy with Romney.
What's more, the discussions that will flow from his candidacy will turn base member against base member in a heated "what it means to be Christian" and "what it means to be a Conservative or a Libertarian on marriage" arguments that will generate nothing but resentment and confusion on their side.
And i leave you now with the quote that made my want to write this diary in the first place. This quote really is worth a read. I give you one RedStaters analysis of the breakdown of marriage in the western world:
The institution [of marriage] was badly wounded before we children of the Sixties got to marrying age. A combination of an increasingly overtly sexualized society, attributable mostly to the movies, and women's entrance into the workplace during and after WWII had more to do with wounding marriage than anything else.
Prior to the Fifties, once a man was married, the only contact with women that he had were the womenfolk among his kith and kin with all the taboos that entailed, or, if he was the type, there was that other kind of woman available on the other side of town. Once women began entering the workplace in significant numbers, men were in constant contact with women and the only taboo was the procription against adultery - one of the shakier restraints on male behavior.
You've been around the block enough to know that all it takes is proximity and alcohol, and there's plenty of women who have that horizontal career move down. I've been five words and five minutes from the sack with half the women I've ever worked with or who worked for me and the only restraint was my own self-discipline, not always my strongest trait. I'll freely admit that most of that restraint was far more motivated by concern for my social position than from any moral compunction. Prior to the late Eighties when sport sex became a blood sport because of AIDS and other STDs, an office was like hunting in a baited field and that rock on her finger just gave you an indication of the opening bid.
Sing it, brother! ;-)