Interesting take on the GOP candidates

brucelanthier · 10-26-2007, 10:32 AM

I don't always agree with this guy but he makes a lot of sense with this column:

A Fine Field of 41/2

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, October 26, 2007; A21

Major grumbling among conservatives about the Republican field. So many candidates, so many flaws. Rudy Giuliani, abortion apostate. Mitt Romney, flip-flopper. John McCain, Mr. Amnesty. Fred Thompson, lazy boy. Where is the paragon? Where is Ronald Reagan?
Well, what about Reagan? This president, renowned for his naps, granted amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants in the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli bill. As governor of California, he signed the most liberal abortion legalization bill in America, then flip-flopped and became an abortion opponent. What did he do about it as president? Gave us Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, the two swing votes that upheld and enshrined Roe v. Wade for the past quarter-century.
The point is not to denigrate Reagan but to bring a little realism to the gauzy idol worship that fuels today's discontent. And to argue that in 2007 we have, by any reasonable historical standard, a fine Republican field: One of the great big-city mayors of the past century; a former governor of extraordinary executive talent; a war hero, highly principled and deeply schooled in national security; and a former senator with impeccable conservative credentials.
So why all the angst? If you'd like to share just a bit of my serenity, have a look at Sunday's Republican debate in Orlando. It was a feisty affair, the candidates lustily bashing each other's ideological deficiencies -- Mike Huckabee called it a "demolition derby" -- and yet strangely enough, the entire field did well.
McCain won the night by acclamation with a brilliant attack on Hillary Clinton that not so subtly highlighted his own unique qualification for the presidency. Citing his record on controlling spending, he ridiculed Clinton's proposed $1 million earmark for a Woodstock museum. He didn't make it to Woodstock, McCain explained. He was "tied up at the time."

The rest of it is here

Fieldmouse · 10-26-2007, 10:49 AM

Charles does a great job putting it all into perspective. I really think this will be a repeat of the last two elections where the Dems blame their losses on people stealing the election and not getting their message out. The Demsreally do have a very weak field running on their side. It's full of an empty slate of accomplishments and reasons to vote for them.

brucelanthier · 10-26-2007, 10:51 AM

Quote:

ORIGINAL: Fieldmouse

Charles does a great job putting it all into perspective. I really think this will be a repeat of the last two elections where the Dems blame their losses on people stealing the election and not getting their message out. The Demsreally do have a very weak field running on their side. It's full of an empty slate of accomplishments and reasons to vote for them.

LOL I got this from the Washington Post you know

.

Fieldmouse · 10-26-2007, 11:03 AM

Quote:

ORIGINAL: brucelanthier

Quote:

ORIGINAL: Fieldmouse

Charles does a great job putting it all into perspective. I really think this will be a repeat of the last two elections where the Dems blame their losses on people stealing the election and not getting their message out. The Demsreally do have a very weak field running on their side. It's full of an empty slate of accomplishments and reasons to vote for them.

LOL I got this from the Washington Post you know

.

I've followed Charles for years. He's syndicated.

biscuit jake · 10-26-2007, 02:03 PM

So why all the angst? I think the leading candidates have histories that are adrift from GOP party politics, as least as I knew them. In terms of electability, I think, at least at this point, Rudy is there. (Inspite of my personal misgivings about him, I have to acknowledge his standing with voters as a whole.)

Whitehorse · 10-26-2007, 09:00 PM

Actually, not a bad analysis. Fred's my choice - he's going to work to pick up steam & "peak" at the right time for the primaries, we'll have to see how that works out. I think Rudy is also electable, however I would not take the media cue & count Fred out yet...

If one takes the experience & resumes of the top 3 republican candidates & compare them to any of the top 3 on the democratic side, one will see the dearth of experience. Hiliary is by far more experienced than either Edwards or Obama, & her resume pales in comparison to any of the top 3 (or heck, the bottom 3) on the republican side.

North Texan · 10-26-2007, 09:54 PM

I'll have to say I never really understood the fascination with Reagan.

Venator1 · 10-27-2007, 04:08 AM

Thats easy.He was nuttier than a Christmas fruitcake the last two years of his presidency

.

Don't you remember his speeches toward the end. I think they became less and less frequent also. Thats why he was so effective and well liked.

I used to roll on the floor.

Fieldmouse · 10-27-2007, 07:23 AM

Quote:

ORIGINAL: North Texan

I'll have to say I never really understood the fascination with Reagan.

Perhaps it has to do the economic boom track he put this country on. Then again it might have something to do with the US Pride that was restored under his leadership. Maybe it resides more on the personal level where he believed you as an idividual should be able to retain more of what you earned and dropped your tax rates to 28% from 75% on the top wage earners with the lower earners to follow. It's a shame they had to go back up because congress can't seem to stop spending and mis-managing our money with social programs that have no business in the goverment hands.

falcon · 10-27-2007, 09:09 AM

"I'll have to say I never really understood the fascination with Reagan."

Neither did i.