How Republicans Could Blow It

Yesterday I ranted about how Democrats were behaving badly, making clear that they've been bought and sold by the deep-pocketed ultra-left wing of their party. One symptom of that (or perhaps an attraction to their backers?) is the telling of baldfaced lies that 20-million people can instantly refute and not caring a whit because those people ('ditto-heads') are not their people. It's the very definition of parochialism and partisanship... not to mention paranoia.

With the Norm Hsu pyramid-scheme stuff leaking out despite the MSM's best efforts to quash it, the she-devil may be blunted in her ability to use the "vast right-wing conspiracy" line again. Then again, she's been shameless before... The advantage of building a political machine is having it. The disadvantage--in this day and age anyway--is that everybody knows you're using a machine to do what you're doing. With the headline yesterday that Dems' fundraising is surpassing that of Republicans by 2X, the 'conspiracy' charge sticks left nowadays a lot better than it sticks right.

With that obligatory warm-up, it's time today for some analysis of the Republicans. Their problem is less about maturity than about maintaining and building the kind of "big tent" that's historically been needed for electoral success and doing it with Reagan-like finesse. Captain Ed has a great analysis of how they could blow it next year, under the eye-popping headline: "Christian Conservatives for Hillary", noting that the "Christian Right" (his term):

...[has] significant influence in the Republican Party because of their ability to organize and contribute, but their influence outstrips their actual size. Forming a third party would set them back at least a generation, and it would push Republican politics away from their agenda and towards the center, just when Democrats appear poised to abandon it.

The immediate effect, however, would probably be the election of Hillary Clinton to the White House. Hillary has tremendous negatives, higher than anyone seeking a first-term Presidency in recent memory. At the moment, Rasmussen has her in the best position she's had -- and that's an anemic +6, with a whopping 46% negative. People don't get elected with those kinds of negatives in a two-party general election... unless someone runs as a third-party candidate that drains support from the other option.

That's not dissimilar from my comparison yesterday of Hillary to George McGovern and my soft prediction that she could find herself in nearly as deep an electoral hole in 13 months.

Hewitt (an undeclared but clear Romney supporter) had Giuliani on his show the other day and I was more impressed than I'd been prepared to be. He and Mitt each bring an element to toe-the-line evangelical voters that some will find hard to swallow (Mormonism in Mitt's case; three marriages and a muddy abortion stance in Rudy's).

Yet the presidential positives they share are potentially much stronger: long-time executive experience, clear-eyed strategic thinking and the kind of plain-speaking, hard-hitting, realistic talk that will go over well against some of the truly loopy stuff coming from the Democrats these days. Both of them, for example, recognize that we're at war, that we must win and that it is not confined to Iraq and never has been. (I'm leaving out Fred Thompson only because I know far less about him. I find it harder to envision him leaping into the lead based on his fumbles out of the gate.)

If I had to call it now, I'd call the primary and general election for Rudy based on the 9-11 recognition factor and an ability Mitt may not have to attract independents as well as frustrated Democratic hawks and realists.

Mitt casts a much higher profile around here, and I like him, but that's partly because he was our governor and it's such a relief to have any sane conservative voice around here that I could probably get excited about almost any lame-o conservative who had the wherewithal to stare down Teddy and Johnny K on the local scene.

I'm not sure how well Mitt projects into places like Ohio where winning will be essential in the general election. He's just a tad too Bain/management to Giuliani's gritty 'New Yawhkah'; that will hurt him in the Rust Belt. Captain Ed points out that Rudy's commitment to appoint strict constructionist judges may be enough to assuage evangelicals who are thinking as strategically and rationally as he is. (Presidents can't do much about particular legislative issues anyway, he points out.)

All of which brings me around to an interesting point Dennis Prager made about Rudy the other day. Prager admonished religious voters (among whom he, as a highly religious Jew, counts himself) not to get their knickers in a knot over finding the perfect candidate. (To which I would add: there was only one Reagan. We were lucky to have him. We shouldn't expect another one for a century or more.)

After all, Prager noted, God made excellent use of King David after the man pulled off a jealousy / adultery / murder trifecta of literally biblical proportions. Taking that analogy any further is dangerous and Prager knows it, but the illustration is nonetheless useful. At the very least, it puts Rudy's three wives in perspective.