Feb. 26, 2007
The Right Moves
Weekly Standard: Social Conservatism Is A Must For GOP Hopefuls
-
Play CBS Video Video Focus On Republican Candidates The Republicans may see an addition to their pool of candidates, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Randall Pinkston reports he could be a strong contender.
-
Video Analysis Of White House Race Jim VandeHei, executive editor of Politico.com, talks with Harry Smith about presidential hopefuls Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, all of whom hit the campaign trail over the weekend.
-
Video Romney Is A Mormon Unknown Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney announced his official entrance into the 2008 presidential election. As Gloria Borger reports, many Americans don't know enough about him or his Mormon religion.
-
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney speaks at a rally on the steps of the Statehouse in Boston, Nov., 19, 2006, to spur the Legislature to vote on a proposed ballot question to end gay marriage in Massachusetts. Romney has been criticized in recent weeks for his conservative shift on abortion and stem cell research. (AP)
-
Who's Who 2008 Republican Hopefuls McCain and Giuliani head up the Republican pack chasing the presidency.
-
Interactive Abortion Debate It's one of the most hotly debated political and social issues in America. Review a history of that debate since the historic Roe v. Wade decision.
The sudden embrace of social conservatism by top Republican presidential candidates has been widely misunderstood. It's been portrayed, particularly in the media, as political pandering of the first order — and nothing more. True, there's a large element of pandering when a candidate switches positions on abortion, gay marriage, and other social issues with an eye to gaining votes. But for a Republican seeking his party's nomination, shifting to the right on social issues is hardly shocking. Rather, it's quite normal, it's absolutely necessary — and it's likely to work.
There's a bonus in all this for social conservatives. Switchers on social issues usually stay switched. Ronald Reagan and the elder George Bush did so after becoming pro-lifers. All those Democratic presidential candidates in the 1980s and 1990s who switched sides on abortion from pro-life to pro-choice have stayed put. Tony Perkins, the head of the Family Research Council, says you only get to flip once on social issues. If you switch back, "you're in no man's land," a politician without a political base.
The newly minted social conservative who's made the most drastic move is former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. He's flipped on abortion, gay rights, and embryonic stem cell research, as Jennifer Rubin detailed a few weeks back. Senator John McCain of Arizona has changed his view on Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, from supporting it to favoring its reversal. And Rudy Giuliani, the ex-mayor of New York, has sought to take the edge off his social liberalism, even suggesting he'd nominate Supreme Court justices who might overturn Roe v. Wade.
It was Democrats with presidential ambitions who transformed the switch on social issues-especially on abortion-into a normal political event. Over the two decades after the Roe v. Wade ruling, the two parties sorted themselves out on abortion, Republicans emerging as the pro-life party, Democrats the pro-choice party.
More recently, one party has become reliably conservative on the broad range of social issues (Republicans), the other mostly liberal on those issues (Democrats). This, in turn, has forced presidential candidates of both parties to align themselves accordingly. So a stampede of Democrats who sought their party's presidential nomination after 1980 abandoned their opposition to abortion. The list included Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Dick Gephardt, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, Tom Harkin, and Jesse Jackson.
For all those Democrats, switching was necessary, since a pro-lifer has little or no chance of winning the Democratic nomination. It's the same for Republicans, only in their case it's a pro-choice candidate who has the extreme disadvantage. Were Democrats somehow to anoint a pro-lifer as their presidential candidate, that would surely prompt a pro-choice challenger to run as an independent or third party nominee. With Republicans, a pro-choice nominee would spark a pro-life candidacy.
For Democrats, switching is painless. They not only put themselves on the side of party activists and liberal interest groups, they get right with elite opinion and the media. For Republicans, it's anything but easy. When they switch and endorse social conservatism, elite opinion is appalled and the press plays up their supposed insincerity.
Both Newsweek and liberal columnists have taken umbrage at Romney's move to the right. McCain and Giuliani too have been taken to task in the press. Nothing like this happened when Democrats changed sides. Their switch on abortion was greeted by quiet media acceptance.
"I don't remember any attacks [on Democratic switchers] from the side that benefited from their conversion," says Republican strategist Jeff Bell, coauthor with Princeton professor Robert P. George of the forthcoming book "Social Conservatism." This is largely true for Republican switchers now. With some exceptions, social conservatives accept their changes as genuine or at least steps in a positive direction.
"I want to give them the benefit of the doubt," says Perkins. Liberals and the press, however, can't see a lurch toward social conservatism as anything but a crass political maneuver. "Conservatives don't see it that way," Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention told Newsweek. "They see it as someone who has seen the light." Perkins applies that to Romney, saying he "may have seen the light."
By Fred Barnes
© Copyright 2007, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
 | "Arguably the most influential opinion journal at the White House" - The New York Times For more information and to subscribe, click here. |
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 38 CommentsIn fact it would not be hard for me to argue your point, as, by and large, it is mostly your opinion and paraniod suspicions. You provide very little facts, you get angrier than many posters here do - you get angrier than 'I' do, and I had to leave my wife and kids here to go get shot at in 128 degree heat for a year. I believe you get on these boards because, on some level, you enjoy being angered by the postings and you want to rant. Yes, many of the posters are democrats. I think you should consider that the majority of voters in 06 were too. Why? We didn't manufacture more. People - smart people, people like me who have lived it, people like you who had NEVER before voted democrat - are fed up.
Further, don't get me wrong. I want to win the war on terrorism, on poverty and crime, etc... I just think the conservative battle plan is wrong. And I'm tired of anyone who disagrees being labled unpatriotic or sympathetic to the terrorists. I (F'ing exchanged gunfire with 'em!) I'm also tired of any news organization which reports facts counter to conservative point of view being labled left. Trust me, as a liberal, there are plenty of news stories, editorials, reporters, organizations and shows that tick us off. It doesn't represent a right wing conspiricy.
So no, not "everyone" knew he "had weapons of mass destruction." In fact, many people tried to tell you that he didn't.
Posted by Zoroastor at 08:24 AM : Mar 01, 2007
He had a big, 3 week or so, heads-up from the UN; more than enough time to get those weapons out of Iraq. Yet nobody talks about that. Democrats and Republicans both voted for military force based on intel that was provided, intel that even Clinton had during his administration. Yet nobody on the 3 major networks talks about that. So why do democrats say that Bush lied about WMD's? I just don't get it. I've followed all of this from it's inception, I am aware of what many Democratic Senators have said then verses what they are saying now. It is an attempt on their part to tarnish the presidency of George W. Bush for their own political gain. The Democratic talking points are out and everyone of them is on board. If they continuously say the same things over and over again they know it will lock into the brains of the people. They get to say whatever they want on the three major networks so in essence they are brainwashing you. I do watch all of networks and FOX, CNN and MSNBC. If you did too it would be hard for you to argue my point.
I have a brother "over there", thank you very much. I am proud of him and he is proud to be fighting for the country he loves so very much. I guess that is why I find myself getting so defensive on these posts. It is a fact that CBS is owned by the left and a fact that over 90% of the people posting responses here are democrat. I know this because everytime I post I get attacked. Having said that, I am not trying to disrespect you or anyone else with my responses, I'm just trying to defend what I hold to be true. Judge me if you will. I guess that's what makes our country so great, huh?
So no, not "everyone" knew he "had weapons of mass destruction." In fact, many people tried to tell you that he didn't.
Your response is exactly what I'm talking about. You can't state that the three major networks want us to fail in Iraq and "that is a fact". That isn't a fact, it's your suspicion.
I get my facts from all sorts of sources, not just the big three. I was a public affairs officer. I know many reporters from all sorts of news agencies all over the world, including FOX news. I suspect ALL your news comes from agencies with a right-wing agenda, not an agenda of simply reporting facts objectively.
Kurds - yes Saddam attacked them. Having been there, I can tell you, however, that the sectarian violence there is not restricted to Saddam. Further, WE assured the Kurds that if they rose up against Saddam while we were kicking him out of Kuwait in 90/91 that we would back them up. They did. We didn't. They got their a$$es kicked for it.
I don't see "us" as the bad guys. I see a commander-in-chief with a personal agenda, faulty intelligence, and a very short-sighted, self centered goal. I was just a soldier. I did what I was ordered. Now I'm a civilian. I speak my mind, with a vast amount of personal experience and inside knowledge to back it up.
I AM one of the good guys. I fought over there. Did you? Just because I think being there is a mistake and a misdirection of funds, resources and time that would be better spent elsewhere, doesn't mean I'm a "bad" guy.
You never took logic or debate in school did you?
Posted by taddles at 04:36 PM : Feb 28, 2007
He's your president too my friend, embrace it.
Posted by katg21 at 10:45 AM : Feb 27, 2007"
Correct, and your president pulled troops out of Afghanistan when they had a chance to get the person who attacked us and diverted those troops to attack a country that was no threat to us.
***Posted*** ***by*** ***dallison7***
***Glfkt*** ***had*** ***a*** ***seizure*** ***at*** ***his*** ***keyboard***!
***probably*** ***slightly*** ***more*** ***centrist*** ***R***'***s*** ***then*** ***centrist*** ***D***'***s***...
***The*** ***D***'***s*** ***castigate*** ***our*** ***party*** ***because*** ***of*** ***the*** ***conservative*** ***base*** ***of*** ***the*** ***R***'***s***....***you*** ***are*** ***beginnning*** ***to*** ***experience*** ***the*** ***same*** ***thing*** ***due*** ***to*** ***the*** ***outspokenness*** ***of*** ***the*** ***Left*** ***wing*** ***of*** ***your*** ***party***....***your*** ***party*** ***will*** ***splinter*** (***it***'***s*** ***showing*** ***signs*** ***already***) ***due*** ***to*** ***the*** ***positions*** ***taken*** ***by*** ***the*** ***left*** ***wing***....***that*** ***turns*** ***off*** ***a*** ***lot*** ***of*** ***American*** ***voters***...
***Concerning*** ***the*** ***conservative*** ***wing*** ***of*** ***the*** ***R*** ***party***...
***They*** ***are*** ***value*** ***based*** ***issues***; (***abortion***...***will*** ***not*** ***debate*** ***that*** ***issue*** ***now***, ***family*** ***values***...***etc***...), ***where*** ***your*** ***left*** ***wing*** ***bashes*** ***our*** ***parties*** ***conservatives***...***it*** ***has*** ***a*** ***tendency*** ***to*** ***swing*** ***voters*** ***to*** ***the*** ***Republican*** ***side***...***Iraq*** ***qill*** ***eventually*** ***be*** ***settled***...***the*** ***vicious*** ***attacks*** ***by*** ***the*** ***left*** ***wing*** ***will***, ***in*** ***all*** ***likelihood***, ***swing*** ***th*** ***centrist*** ***voters*** ***to*** ***the*** ***R*** ***side***...
Everyone knew Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and everyone believed he would give them to the terrorists. He had attacked the Kurds with them and he had killed thousands of Iranians with them. He also refused to follow the United Nations resolutions. He was a destabilizing factor to a very important region. If we are going to be the strongest power, we need to use that power to prevent the type of genocide that the Taliban and Saddam had attempted. Saudi Arabia is a problem but at least we seem to be able to negotiate with them. There was no talking to or negotiating with Saddam. We can%u2019t leave Iraq until the Iraqi%u2019s can handle their affairs. They have been under a tyrant%u2019s rule so long that they don%u2019t know how to do that yet.
We are the greatest nation in the world and we have done more to promote peace and tranquility than any other nation. Why don%u2019t you take the side of the good guys rather than the side of the bad? Do you really see us as the bad guys? The 3 major networks want us to lose because they hate George Bush %u2013 that is a fact! You need to sort out the chaff!
The moderates have largely defected to the Democratic party now, and the GOP my have to suffer the same fate as the Whigs did in the 1800s. Then a more moderate party will be able to emerge from its ashes.
The Republicans are falling on their swords for George W. Bush as we speak!
The Republicans are dead in the water for 2008.
In the summer, two activities increase. Eating ice cream and swimming.
Katg21. You especially crack me up. I'm no hypocrite. I was in Iraq for a year. I agree with you that we need peace in the middle east. And how is it that what we are doing there is going to achieve that? Remember the old saying "fighting for peace is like Fu(k!ng for chastity." I'm no pacifist. If we are attacked, we should defend ourselves. However, Iraq did not attack us. Prior to our arriving there, there were very few, if any, Al Qaida there. Remember I was there at the begining. My fellow soldiers and I practically watched them come over the borders. I understand you feel the need to punch someone in the nose over 9/11 and other terrorist acts, but you have to punch the right person. Why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia? It had a lot more ties to 9/11 than Iraq did.
Read something other than right-wing agenda. Get all the facts, not just some of them. Otherwise you might think eating ice cream leads to drowning.
Yes it is quite normal for a republican,
IT'S CALLED LYING!!!
Many Americans today have been enlightened by the two wars we find ourselves involved. One war, the "war on terrorism", finds its main battleground in Afghanistan, and it is a war that costs lives and money but the majority of Americans support. Liberals, Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, most don't have a problem with us kicking down the doors of members of the Taliban.
When talking about the war in Iraq the parties have much difference. Democrats say that the public and congress was mislead to justify the war in Iraq and that the Bush Administration no longer deserves autonomy in situations where US service men and women's lives are on the line. Based on the results of the last Congressional elections, most Americans see a problem with GOP/Republicans; at least in the way they make decisions about the use of our military.
So why is it that in the GOP/Republican party there are no dissenters, no independent thinkers, no moderates? Where are the real conservatives who would laugh at how conservatively the current Republican party has been spending taxes, and creating big government? Has the Republican Party lost its identity? Can the ideology of the GOP be so easily summed up in Karl Rove talking points like %u201Csupport this and support that%u201D, and angry rhetoric like %u201Cliberals are traitors%u201D?
Hello centrist Republicans! Anybody out there?
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 38 Comments