Winners and Leaders

by Lance Thompson

Ironically, the compressed 2008 primary schedule has resulted in an extended selection process–no candidate is running away with the race yet, though several are trailing into obscurity.
At this point, as voters of both parties realize they must eventually coalesce around one candidate, the choice is often between the candidate who is considered "electable" and the candidate who more closely represents the principles of the party.

In 2004, Howard Dean was much in line with the principles of the Democrats–strongly anti-war, supportive of socialized medicine, and an adherent to the priorities of the moveon.org party base. Nonetheless, the Democrats threw over Dean (even before his post-Iowa scream fest) for John Kerry, who was considered more "electable."

In 2003, when California voters chose to recall the hapless Democrat Governor Gray Davis, the GOP had two strong contenders to take his place. Arnold Schwarzenegger had worldwide popularity and solid gold electability. State Senator Tom McClintock, however, was a true, principled conservative with an agenda for change in California based on fiscal responsibility and small government. Republicans in the state voted overwhelmingly for Schwarzenegger, and now California has a Republican governor who is indistinguishable from a moderate Democrat.
In 1976, Ronald Reagan was clearly the flag bearer for conservatives, having governed California as a conservative, having written and broadcast his conservative ideas throughout the country, and advocating them at every public appearance. But the GOP nominated Gerald Ford, believing that his incumbent status made him more electable. Reagan’s convention speech pledging his support for Ford after the close-fought nomination process was a revelation, and ensured that Republicans would nominate the right man the next time.

For 2008, Republicans face a similar choice. Rudy Giuliani has been the front runner for months because of his reputation for cleaning up New York and his actions as mayor on September 11th 2001. Both of these are legitimate accomplishments, but they do not necessarily reflect Republican principles. They are resume items that make him popular and electable. . In fact, Giuliani is pro-choice, supported gun control in New York City, and conducted a very public affair while married
But Giuliani’s front-runner status is shifting to John McCain, a Vietnam veteran with an unswerving record of support for the war on the jihadists, and a reputation for going his own way. His own way includes voting against the Bush tax cuts, advocating relaxed immigration policy, providing Constitutional protections for terrorist prisoners, and co-authoring the free speech-limiting McCain Feingold legislation. But McCain’s appeal to centrists and the main stream media, coupled with his maverick reputation and his recent surge, make him appear electable.

Mitt Romney is pro-life, governed a blue state as a Republican, has a strong record of success in business and private enterprise, supports the current strategy and tactics in the terror war, supports tough immigration policy, supports gun rights and tax cuts–in other words, is the perfect embodiment of most conservative principles. He has won three primaries (Wyoming, Nevada, Michigan) and come in second in Iowa and New Hampshire. He has more delegates than any other GOP candidate, yet he is seldom referred to as a front runner. His change of heart on abortion, from pro-choice to pro-life, and his Mormon faith are often mentioned as barriers to his electability.
So Republicans will have to decide between electability, which is really just a subjective reflection of current polls and press coverage, and principle, which is a measure of character.
There are four possible outcomes. The first two stem from nominating a candidate believed to be "electable." He could win, and our party places in power a leader who has no loyalty to our principles and values, currently exemplified by Governor Schwarzenegger in California. Or our "electable" candidate could lose, thus disproving the single qualification that won him the nomination. Ask John Kerry supporters about that.

The other two possibilities stem from nominating a candidate who shares our values. It is possible that he could lose, but we could go home after the campaign with heads held high, because we fought for the things we believe and a man we believe in. Those who supported Ronald Reagan in 1976 saw their candidate miss the nomination, but they were proven right four years later when Reagan prevailed.

The fourth and final possibility is that we nominate the man of principle, campaign with all our hearts and souls, and he wins. We thus choose a leader who represents the values we live by and the principles we hold dear. Isn’t that what the whole process is supposed to be about?
=-=-=-=
Lance Thompson208-898-1451lancet@q.com