by the Left Coast Rebel
This is pretty disheartening for a Tea Party, libertarian kinda guy to read:
Am I missing something here? It sure seems like GOP voters are already caving on issues that need to be addressed and solved in order to save this nation from ruin. Some analysis:
Washington (CNN) - Given the choice between a candidate who agrees with them on the issues or a candidate who can defeat President Barack Obama in 2012, a new national poll indicates Republicans overwhelming want a winner.
According to CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Tuesday, nearly seven out of ten Republicans say they would prefer a GOP presidential nominee who can top Obama in the next election, with 29 percent saying a nominee who agrees with them on every issue that matters the most is more important.
- It doesn't have to be this way. Republicans don't have to jettison core values such as a defined belief and subsequent definable set of actions that the Federal government is far too large, intrusive and anathema to what this nation should stand for in favor of ''electability". In fact, an "electable" candidate that mirrors the poor showing of Bob Dole and John McCain (statist, progressive Republicans) actually will most-likely fail to garner the support of independents, conservatives, libertarians and tea partiers, therefore not win in the general election anyway.
- An "electable" Republican candidate that mirrors the big-government philosophy of George W. Bush or many of the establishment Republican leaders will not have the guts and gravitas to scale back the Leviathan. Replacing Obama with a big-government Republican may slow down the trajectory but nevertheless will keep the nation on it's path to bankruptcy. On another note, I can't believe how poor the GOP 2012 field actually is, at this point.
- If you don't stand for anything, you don't deserve to win. Republicans need to take a cue from Dear Leader Obama. Through thick and thin, Obama has never lost sight of his statist vision for the United States and held true to this ideology. We need a limited government fighter that will do the same.
Updated: Rightklik chimes in, in the comments:
There are of course a lot of ways of looking at this.
First of all, it's a CNN poll, so from the outset, I have doubts. I'd note that the poll surveyed all adults (as opposed to voters, as with Rasmussen), and that generally slants results to the left a bit.
I'd also note that the way the question was worded makes it a moot one:
If you had to choose, would you rather see the Republican party nominate a presidential candidate who agrees with you on every issue that matters to you but may not be able to beat Barack Obama, or a presidential candidate who can beat Barack Obama but does not agree with you on every issue that matters to you?
Well, that's a silly question. Whoever gets nominated, whether they have a high likelihood of winning or not, isn't going to agree with me on every issue.
Most issues? Hopefully.
Every issue? Of course not. Even if my favoritest gets nominated.
So CNN asked a stupid question and got a worthless result.
CNN's question boils down to this: Would you take a winner with whom you disagree or a loser with whom you disagree?
Uh, yeah... I'll take the winner please.
Finally, I'd point out that a GOP nominee with significant flaws would be far preferable to Obama, particularly if Congressional GOPs are willing to hold his/her feet to the fire. In the Tea Party era, I don't see Congress or the electorate giving a Republican president any slack at all.
We're watching like hawks. As long as we keep that up, we'll see better results in the near future than we've seen in the recent past.
Milton Friedman made some great points on this issue:
The left understands Friedman's point intuitively. The right needs to catch up.
To be clear, I do agree that CNN has presented a false dichotomy. A candidate who is in line with traditional Republican/libertiarian/conservative/constitutional/center-right values is more electable, not less.