Questions follow Republican sweep Nov. 2
The Republican domination of the recent mid-term elections leads to a few questions.
Read more on Exeter News-Letter
“The upcoming Texas Primary March 4th has revealed some conservative dissatisfaction with the likely nomination of Senator John McCain for president. This primary ranks as the most important since 1976, when Gerald Ford fought Ronald Reagan for Texasâ delegates to the Republican Convention.
Since the primary is later than many other states, the nominees of both major parties are usually known before the presidential contest rolls into Texas. Senator McCain leads the national GOP field by a large margin in the delegate count, with only former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee standing between him and the nomination. With the recent departure of Mitt Romney, both McCain and Huckabee draw increased support in Texas opinion polls, according to a report in the Houston Chronicle. On Feb. 8th the Arizona senator polled 43%, Mr. Huckabee 33%, and Ron Paul drew 9% of likely voters in Texas, Mr. Paulâs home state. The 32 congressional districts each have 3 delegates at stake, for a total of 96, and 41 additional delegates going to the winner of the statewide vote, making it likely that each candidate will win some delegates.
Mr. Huckabee recent victories in Kansas and Louisiana highlight considerable dissatisfaction among some social conservatives with Senator McCain. Many feel that McCain supported liberal and Democratic Party positions at the expense of conservative unity, while the Arizona senator feels that by supporting issues on a factual basis, he supports the country over partisan ideology and creates the opportunity for bipartisanship. Most of the institutional leadership of the Texas GOP now supports him, including former Rudy Guiliani supporter Governor Rick Perry, who recently called on Mr. Huckabee to withdraw from the race. Senator John Cornyn also recently endorsed McCain, though Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison has yet to endorse anyone. With a large base of conservative evangelical voters, Texas will challenge the secular Arizona senator. Even if Gov. Huckabee manages to win in Texas, John McCainâs march to the nomination may be unstoppable.
McCain may experience what happened to Gerald Ford in 1976, when social conservatives in the Texas Republican Party supported someone else in the primary and stayed home during the November general election. Another outcome is that unhappy conservatives may crossover March 4th and vote in the more interesting Democratic Party primary, since Texas voters can participate in either primary. Jimmy Carter won Texas in the 1976 presidential election, the last Democrat to do so. With McCain likely on the ballot in November, Democrats could carry Texas again. “
www.RonPaul.com – 04 Due to a transmission error the segment from 17:26 – 17:47 is inaudible. A transcript of these seconds follows: “Dangerous things for our children should be handled by the parents, just as education is. [Applause] But we have a long way to go and we’re in a very, very difficult situation. And to me the reason why we face the crisis we’re in is because we are bankrupt and nobody can come up with a solution.” For a full transcript visit www.ronpaul.comRon Paul is America’s leading voice for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. For more information visit the following sites: www.RonPaul.com http www.house.gov www.YALiberty.org http www.RonPaulForums.com
The poll just released by The Pew Research Center For The People & The Press, entitled, Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2009, confirms the conclusions reached by the recent Gallup organization polls (April-May, 2009), namely, that the Republican Party is in trouble. Both of these organizations revealed that a mere 23% percent of voters now identify themselves as Republican. As a result, Republican standing in public opinion polls is at the lowest point since the Watergate scandal (1975). The polling demonstrates that Republicans have lost much of their once popular governing philosophy.
The reason for this is that Republican political identity is based on unifying two contradictory political ideas, which can no longer peaceably co-exist; that is, social conservatism and libertarianism. The Party’s social (religious) conservatives promote government regulations of private conduct. By contrast, libertarians base their political philosophy on respect for individual rights, and oppose coercive governmental regulations. ‘Fusionism’, or the attempt to combine these two, opposite political ideas, no longer attracts the voter support necessary to transform the Republicans into a majority political party. Socially conservative Republicans, in fact, alienate moderate and independent voters, who might otherwise support Republican free market and pro-business policies.
Unfortunately for Republicans, changing voter demographics have intensified the contradiction between libertarians and social conservatives on the question of government regulation of private conduct. New voters display only marginal support for Republican social conservatives who endorse government interference in the private sphere, on questions such as marriage or family planning. Over the past decade, there has been erosion in the percentage of Americans holding socially conservative views on family, ethnicity, homosexuality, and gender roles. The decline in social conservatism is largely a result of the changed values of younger generations, who take a more tolerant view of the differences amongst people. For these younger voters, political strategies that exploit questions of difference harms Republican electoral opportunities, in part, because these voters view many of the positions advanced by social conservatives as obnoxious.
The best-known examples of these are restrictions on marital rights that target gays, regulation of women’s ability to seek to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, and prohibitions against stem cell research that seeks medical cures for human diseases. In the past, social conservatives went even so far as to support a ban on so-called ‘inter-racial dating’ between whites and Afro-Americans (a policy Bob Jones University refused to end until March, 2000), as well as apartheid in South Africa and segregation in the US (the late Rev Jerry Farwell who founded the Moral Majority once promoted these positions, though later, he recanted them).
In addition, the Pew Research Center poll demonstrates that Republicans no longer reflect the growing ethnic diversity of the electorate, 32% of which comprises members of minority groups. For example, whites constitute 88% of the Republican Party, whilst making up only 56% of the Democratic Party. Latinos and other ethnic minority groups account for 44% of Democrats. Additional social changes concern women and youth. Women, for example, take a particularly harsh view of Republicans, with 57% of women identifying themselves as Democrats, or saying they are independent but leaning toward the Democratic Party, compared with 35% who identify with or lean to the Republican Party.
Republican attacks against Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor, a distinguished women jurist of Puerto Rican-American ethnicity, the first Latino to be nominated to the highest court, only serves to further erode minority group support for Republicans. Judge Sotomayor, like President Obama himself, stands as a trail-blazer and symbol for ethnic groups, including her own Puerto Rican-American community, as well as women. Her nomination solidifies the popularly-held belief uncovered by the Pew Research Center poll, namely, that hard work and self-discipline leads to the kind of personal success illustrated by Sotomayor’s impressive life story.
The Gallup organization polls also concluded that younger voters come to age in the post-George W Bush era identify themselves with the diversity themes embodied by President Obama’s administration. Similarly, Gallup reported that only 20% of the so-called ‘Generation Y’ (18-29 year olds), or ‘Millennials’, identify as Republican. By contrast, two-thirds of Generation Y identifies themselves either as Democrat or Independent.
The emergence of independents as a political force demonstrates that most voter groups do not approve of governmental restrictions that are promoted by religious and social conservatives. For example, according to another recent Pew Research Center study (April, 2009), even amongst religious groups, majorities of white mainline Protestants (66%) and white non-Hispanic Catholics (62%) supported President Obama’s decision to end Federal restrictions on stem cell research.
However, the poll results suggest that Republicans could yet achieve electoral success if they were prepared to focus on their libertarian, anti-statist preferences and at the same time discard at least the more intrusive government restrictions they promote in relation to the conduct of private and family life. The Pew Research Center’s study concludes that voter defections away from the Republican Party are due to the divisive core beliefs promoted by religious (and national security) conservatives, and not the party’s anti-big government stance. The Pew study also revealed that Independent voters now comprise 36% of the electorate, the highest level in seventy years. Most Independents do not support the kind of government regulations advanced by social conservatives. In fact, a majority of voters (54-57%), continue to believe that government does more harm than good whilst more voters continue to view government as wasteful and inefficient, as well as controlling too much of daily life. More tellingly, a majority of these voters continue to believe that the government does not work for the benefit of all.
The polls provide an awkward message to Republicans, who, in the past, were known for their anti-big government sentiment. There appears to be substantial voter support for a libertarian approach, but only one that abandons social conservative baggage. A successful example of this was demonstrated by Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tx), himself once member of the Libertarian Party, who attracted enthusiastic support from Independent voters for his Presidential campaign last year. It is interesting that, on national security questions, some libertarians, such as Ron Paul, stand to the left of both Democrats and Republicans because they philosophically oppose the idea of state-initiated invasions against foreign nations, and hence oppose military adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. These views on national security are also attractive to liberals, moderates and Independents, large numbers of whom question the value of war-making as an instrument of national security policy.
If Republicans want to halt their political marginalization, they will have to re-examine their allegiance to social conservatism. Given the Party’s religious-evangelical base, this will be a difficult challenge. However, Republicans may find a way out of the political wilderness through stressing their essential philosophy, namely, a minimal state that respects the rights of individuals and ends coercive governmental regulations. At the very least, such an approach would steer public discourse away from distracting debates about what constitutes the good (and moral) life, such as arguments about gay marriage or abortion rights, and instead promote a constructive discussion about defining a proper role for government. This is not to suggest that voters oppose regulation of the free market; indeed, most voters (62%) support regulation. However, such a change of focus by Republicans would at least stimulate more debate about the kind and quality of government regulations the public wants in their lives.
Iâve noticed lately that the media has taken to calling John McCain the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. Itâs a strange sort of twist considering that a couple months ago they seemed so certain that McCain was the Republican presidential nominee. It wasnât so long ago that the media was crowing that all other Republican candidates had dropped out. Yet today we suddenly hear again and again that McCain is the presumptive nominee. Why the change of heart? Why is the language suddenly so blatantly changed? Why do we need to âpresumeâ McCain is the nominee when supposedly no one else is running? Perhaps it is time for the media to stop presuming and to start reporting on the reality of the situation.
There is another guy running to become the Republican nominee for president. The mass media seems almost frightened to speak his name. Itâs like, to them, the man is Voldemort. His name must not be spoken for fear of what might happen. And yet why be so frightened of a name? Why not report on this mystery candidate who makes it necessary for them to presume McCain to be the Republican candidate for president rather than know it as a certainty?
Perhaps we can glean an answer by looking at the way the mass media reports on the Democrats who are still running for president. I think it would be fair to say that Barack Obama could be called the presumptive Democrat Party nominee. He has nearly enough delegates to take the primary. Instead, they keep harping on the battle between him and Hillary Clinton. They praise her for her tenacity or chastise her for splitting the party. They report that Hillary made a gaff when she spoke about this or that someone Barack Obama knows is spouting hateful remarks. They speak about nothing of any substance. The issues have a tendency to be put into the background. Mostly they report on personality traits. They dwell on Obamaâs âflowery rhetoricâ or Clintonâs extensive experience, none of which matters as we march in lock step toward bigger government, socialism and a complete loss of freedom.
It seems to me that Hillary and Obama more or less want to implement the same policies. They are both in favor of socialized medicine. They both want to take the power of medical decisions out of your hands and put it in the hands of the state. They both want to regulate the decisions doctors can make on your behalf. This seems to be their main issue. Neither one seems to have real solutions to the financial crisis we are undergoing. They both seem to want to raise taxes, albeit only on the rich. They both are trying to buy the votes of the poor by promising to increase the welfare state and institute government sanctioned wealth redistribution schemes. Both seem to think that government solutions are the only solutions and that we common folk would be unable to straighten things out on our own and so they donât want to give us the chance.
Both Democrats are supported by corporate lobbyists and special interests. That is where most of their money in the form of campaign contributions comes from. It seems to me that when one has to depend on someone for their political survival, one has a tendency to cater to that someone. The mass media reports on Obamaâs commercialized claim that he represents change as if thatâs fact. In his speeches he praises himself as a bringer of change and unification. Yet the only changes he advocates are those that are contrary to the principles of freedom and liberty that made our nation great and prosperous. The only unification he offers is that of thoughtless, virulent personality worship that could lead to the persecution of those who would disagree with his programs.
John McCain really isnât too different from Hillary and Obama. Issue for issue Mr. McCain almost seems as much a Democrat as either of the two presidential candidates still running for that party. The only issue on which he really differs much is the war issue. On that issue, Mr. McCain has chosen the losing side. The American public has grown weary of spending our childrenâs lives and our nationâs treasure on a regrettable war that seems to have only benefited those with political clout. Combine that with his admitted lack of knowledge in economics and you have a recipe for disaster for the Republican Party in November.
Once again with McCain it seems the mass media is reporting more on his personality traits than on anything of any real substance. The bulk of his campaign contributions come mainly from special interest groups and corporate backers just like his rivals in the Democrat Party. Some of these same entities have major investments in the mass media. It seems as if the powers that be donât want any serious discussion of real solutions to our nationâs problems taking place where the majority of the public has easiest access to them. It appears that they wish the presidential elections to be a popularity contest between two corporate bought and paid for candidates rather than a platform where ideologies can be discussed and ideas for how to better the circumstances of all Americans can be presented. And so they have picked McCain to be the presidential representative from the Republican Party and they continue to hide another Republican who is still in the race by refusing to even mention his name.
Who is this other candidate? Who is this man who causes McCain to be referred to as the presumptive Republican nominee? Who is this man whose ideas have proven in the past to be the path to prosperity? Who is this man who dares to speak of freedom and personal responsibility rather than of government regulations and entitlements? Who is this man of principle who has never given up on the idea of smaller federal government? Who is this candidate who wishes to do away with the income tax? Who is this candidate who wishes to give money back to the people by doing away with the Federal Reserve and thus the hidden inflation tax, or at least bring sensibility beck to our monetary system by allowing competing currencies to exist? In case you havenât guessed, this man is Dr. Ron Paul, the congressman from Texas who never withdrew from the Republican Partyâs presidential nomination process. His popularity continues to grow despite the mass mediaâs attempts to marginalize and ignore him. His popularity continues to grow despite that the media does not report he is a war hero, or a polished orator, or a politician with a great many years of experience. His popularity continues to grow even though the media continuously has painted him as an unelectable candidate. Why do you suppose that is? Perhaps there is more to Ron Paul than meets the eye. Or perhaps itâs his ideas that are popular. Perhaps the people of this country are growing tired of the same old same old and want to try something different for a change, something that hasnât been tried in this country for decades. Or, as Dr. Ron Paul would say, perhaps itâs because freedom is popular. The time has come for the people of this nation to start electing people of substance to lead instead of personalities. The time has come for the people of this nation to start looking seriously at that other guy, the one the media does not want you to notice.
Did you find this article useful?Â For more useful tips andÂ Â hints, points to ponder and keep in mind, techniques, and insights pertaining to credit card, do please browse for more information at our websites.
</a>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
house.gov CampaignForLiberty.com Congressman Ron Paul addresses the crowd at the South Republican Leadership Conference, April 10, 2010. Dr. Paul lost the straw poll to Mitt Romney by a single vote.
Sorry. No data so far.