After watching this latest Republican Debate on Fox News, one thing becomes clear, and that is the very real split between the insane and the reasonable. For whatever reason, there just does not seem to be any middle-ground in this GOP nomination grouping or the conservative trademark overall. This is why the conservative voters have had such a difficult time trying to find their perfect candidate, which in itself speaks volumes about the rationale of the GOP mindset.
One of the worst things about being crazy is being too crazy to realize that you’re crazy, and that is the conservative ideology in a political nutshell. For the GOP voters to ask a candidate to be just crazy enough to satisfy their conservative dreams of going rogue through manifest destiny with 2nd Amendment remedies attached to conservatively friendly, Americanized Christianity, while at the same time being reasonable enough, moderate enough, and politically appealing enough to draw the interests of Independents, Reagan-Democrats, and dissatisfied President Obama supporters, is definitely beyond the limits of absurdity.
When you peel back all of the rhetoric and all of the political ballyhooing, you are left with one of two choices as a Republican/conservative. One choice is based on what candidates like Michele Bachmann and Newt Gingrich like to refer to as a consistent conservative, and the other choice is based on the only conservative alternative, which is what pundits like Glenn Beck like to call the progressive Republicans.
But when it’s time to cut some program not called defense, they all turn into small government Jekyll, but whenever they decide to invade, destroy, occupy, and then rebuild another country like Iraq, most of them will then turn into big-government Hyde; leaving behind political dysfunction for the dreamy, conservative voters seeking the perfect candidate in the middle. And unlike Glenn Beck’s analogy, to real progressives it seems like the only difference between consistent conservatives and progressive conservatives is the issue and which side of the political aisle that issue benefits.
For example, candidates like Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum will all harp heavily on the ‘less-government-in-our-lives’ train to help big businesses and sleazy fat cats inch as close as they possibly can to a zero percent tax rate by stripping away regulations, only to revert back to the good, old standby of ‘big-government’ when it’s time to go to war with Iran to destroy what they think could be there or to try to retrieve what they know is there in our lame-duck, downed drone. Now ask yourself if any of this sounds like the party that’s honestly determined to cut spending.
As former Arizona Cardinals football coach Dennis Green said to the media about the Chicago Bears after they defeated him on Monday Night Football, “They are who we thought they were,” and no sentiment rings more truly when applied to the feelings that all voters should have about the Republican Party, because they are who most of us thought they were, and the debates have done nothing to alter that perception. If anything, the debates have only reinforced it.
If you still don’t have a clearer picture of the dangerously insane vs. the reasonable, consider this. Gingrich and Bachmann actually had the nerve to look a nationally televised audience in the eye and assertively suggest that wiping out certain judiciaries and judicial decisions, especially those that are prone to be more left-leaning judiciaries and judicial decisions, like the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals should be the job of big-government Hyde.
In simple terms, less-government Gingrich, with support from less-government Bachmann, stated his unwavering desire to wield the right to strike down any piece of judicial legislation that he didn’t agree with while in the Oval Office. He even talked about dragging non-conservative, activist judges in front of Congress to be lectured on the grounds of ineptitude. Now isn’t that a Timothy McVeigh calling a Osama bin Laden a terrorist!
So based on this overall point of view, if the court system–including the Supreme Court–didn’t declare something like Obamacare unconstitutional, a Republican led Congress would reserve the right to overrule that decision, even though within the next 2 to 4 years a Democratic led Congress could come into power and restore those courts and their decisions right back into political prominence. Now ask yourself if any of this sounds like the party that is looking to get big government out your life.
To the sane, responsible conservative, if they still exist, the only viable candidates based on a reasonable grasp of reality, whether that’s based on governing or trying to win the general election, are Jon Huntsman, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul. Now that isn’t saying very much, but you have to recognize who the rest of the field consists of. Compared to Santorum, Gingrich, and Bachmann, even the recently departed Herman Cain seems more reasonable.
For example, Jon Huntsman contributed one of the smartest lines of the night when he again promised not to sign any goofball, “He-Man Woman-haters Club,” wedge pledges. Romney talked about his ability to seek out and conjoin with Democrats in a bipartisanship effort to get things done, and Paul accused the conservative, war-machine of propping up the Iranian, nuclear weapons of mass destruction act, which is a recycled, left-over re-run from the Bush 43 era, to try to drum up Middle Eastern, Islamic fears to help persuade the U.S. to go into Iran to pursue ‘Operation Iraqi Occupation’ the Iranian sequel!
Despite the limited understandings of the gung-ho, conservative voters, there is a huge difference between being a consistent conservative and being a formidable, general election candidate. And until they are willing to remove their party blinders, they won’t ever be able to embrace the candidate who has the best chance to give President Obama a run for his electoral money.
And as bad as conservatives claim that they want Obama gone in 2012, what will it say about them if they purposely decide not to choose the candidate that gives them the best chance to do so? Does that say more about their alleged concerns over Obama’s policies, or does it say more about their crazed, disingenuous, agenda-driven lust for power? To the reasonable deductions of basic, GOP, politics; the agenda-driven lust for power is much more feasible than any fairytale concern over socialized medicine! When it comes to the GOP, they are who we thought they were.