It had not been 30 minutes after reading this piece from Peggy Noonan, when we got a call from B-Daddy alerting us to the same. We’ve been big fans of hers for years. We love her easy-going style that manages to be somewhat nostalgic without sounding dated. Like her hero, Ronald Reagan, for whom she was a speech-writer, she “gets” it. She “gets” the big picture of American politics and American society.
… and speaking of Reagan, she wonders if Reagan would succeed in today’s Republican Party given the hyper-intensive religiosity upper GIs to which “we” have been subjecting our leading candidates.
For our part, we believe he would. His message of optimism, hope and belief in the greatness of America would still resonate today with voters. Goodness, would it ever. He was a man comfortable in his own skin and a man comfortable with his faith, a faith which he weaved into the narrative of his walk and talk throughout his Presidency without ever coming across as preachy or self-righteous (Obama?).
In fact, we can imagine a Reagan “moment” today where at the height of the sound and fury regarding his or any of his opponent’s religious beliefs, he would look squarely into the camera, cock his head to one side and with that dry, droll Midwestern delivery give a, “Well, ……….” and whatever the quote would be, would be so spot-on and so dripping with good-natured sarcasm that it would instantly diffuse the situation making all those who have been the most rabid theological proctologists look down-right silly.
The fact though, Noonan doubts he could, worries us.
Our friend, KT at the Scratching Post suggests that Romney is unelectable because his Mormonism is so off-putting to many conservatives. We’ve read the comments at a few conservative blog sites and it ain’t pretty….. but we hope this isn’t reflective of the general feeling of the Republican voters towards Romney. If it is, it’s a shame because it would represent the following logic: “We” fear Mitt’s Mormonism more than we fear a Hillary or Obama presidency.
This election shouldn’t be about “Mormonism” and it shouldn’t be about “fear”. We “feared” Tom McClintock was “too conservative” for California voters (this, after 69% of those polled after the single debate deemed him “most-qualified”) so we went with “electability” in the recall election back in ’03. Now look where we are.
A beautiful thing, this Democracy where, by and large, we generally get what we want. And if we reject out of hand either Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon or Mike Huckabee because he is an evangelical conservative in the general election by staying home then it’s a backhanded admission that we do indeed prefer, want and deserve Hillary or Obama in the Oval Office.
… and speaking of Reagan, she wonders if Reagan would succeed in today’s Republican Party given the hyper-intensive religiosity upper GIs to which “we” have been subjecting our leading candidates.
For our part, we believe he would. His message of optimism, hope and belief in the greatness of America would still resonate today with voters. Goodness, would it ever. He was a man comfortable in his own skin and a man comfortable with his faith, a faith which he weaved into the narrative of his walk and talk throughout his Presidency without ever coming across as preachy or self-righteous (Obama?).
In fact, we can imagine a Reagan “moment” today where at the height of the sound and fury regarding his or any of his opponent’s religious beliefs, he would look squarely into the camera, cock his head to one side and with that dry, droll Midwestern delivery give a, “Well, ……….” and whatever the quote would be, would be so spot-on and so dripping with good-natured sarcasm that it would instantly diffuse the situation making all those who have been the most rabid theological proctologists look down-right silly.
The fact though, Noonan doubts he could, worries us.
Our friend, KT at the Scratching Post suggests that Romney is unelectable because his Mormonism is so off-putting to many conservatives. We’ve read the comments at a few conservative blog sites and it ain’t pretty….. but we hope this isn’t reflective of the general feeling of the Republican voters towards Romney. If it is, it’s a shame because it would represent the following logic: “We” fear Mitt’s Mormonism more than we fear a Hillary or Obama presidency.
This election shouldn’t be about “Mormonism” and it shouldn’t be about “fear”. We “feared” Tom McClintock was “too conservative” for California voters (this, after 69% of those polled after the single debate deemed him “most-qualified”) so we went with “electability” in the recall election back in ’03. Now look where we are.
A beautiful thing, this Democracy where, by and large, we generally get what we want. And if we reject out of hand either Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon or Mike Huckabee because he is an evangelical conservative in the general election by staying home then it’s a backhanded admission that we do indeed prefer, want and deserve Hillary or Obama in the Oval Office.
Posts
13 comments:
But we don't want the Irish!
- Mongo
Well,...I didn't realize I was running for Sunday School teacher. (in my best Ronaldo impression)
So I'm dealing with my democrat, stupidest woman in Menifee, when out comes the comment, "A Morman, omygod, he will overturn the abortion laws!!!"
This seems to be the central theme of being too conservative, and electabilty, abortion rights. The eight hundred pound gorilla in the room is abortion, too conservative is code for pro life.
Those of us that do not consider an embryo or zygote the same as a fetus have a hard time with the polarization this issue has brought.
In 1967, then-California Gov. Reagan signed a liberal abortion law legalizing the procedure in cases where a woman’s mental as well as physical health was at risk.
Candidates on both sides of the isles have changed there position when their sights were set on the presidency. Gore, Gephart, Dukakis. Reagan, HW Bush, now Romney.
Have they had a meaningful change of heart or are they being duplicitas for political gain since this is the real lightning rod.
Dear BwD staff, I will proof my comments better, I was refering to my sister in law in paragraph 1, not my wife.
I think there may be 10% of the electorate who view abortion as a "single-issue" topic.
As far as electoral-viability, the abortion issue is kinda like the weather. We all talk about it but nothing of substance is really done about it.... hence, I don't believe it is the 800 lb. gorilla that you may think.
Dean,
I have never thought I would disagree so strongly with you.
As I agree with you that the abotion issue is like the weather, henc my comment to the post, you apparently don't know many democrats.
Abortion was precicely the issue for Mclintock's viability, even though he could have nothing to do with the law. I listened to radio spots "exposing" his position. The correlaton to that position and the masogenistic male was the resonating theme of the anti-McClintock message.
Before you reply, ask a few self proclimed feminists. I would say you are very wrong in your 10% assumption. I maintain my position; "too conservative is code for anti abortion"
They can hide behind "right to choose" and "denying womens rights issues" but they are not talking about ERA anymore. They are worried the Excecutive will nominate anti abortion judges and Roe will be overturned.
Don't fool yourself, you are not surrounded by these idiots, I am. This is a one issue ideology for these folks, just as it is with the Christian Right. Hey, go to Calvary Chapel and tell them this is not the most important issue of our time.
Since the far left and right tend to shape the primaries, hence the history of duplicity re; canidates positions on the issue.
I saw Krauthammer remind us all that Mo Udall, a Democratic presidential candidate from years ago was Mormon as well and no one freaked out then. I wonder if this was generated by the MSM for some reason. There certainly have been more religion questions asked of the candidates this time than any other.
Dean,
You need to just shut up and take your meds. That era you refer to was before we realized that American power was a force for evil in the world and all Republicans are thugs. Maybe a little re-education program for you, eh comrade?
Seriously though, I agree that Ronald Reagan would have a dose for what ails us today. Certainly, his unswerving belief that communism could and should be defeated would be welcome in today's struggle against Islamic fascists. Further, his belief in smaller government compares well to the actions of the Republicans from 2001 to 2006.
'Dawg, O.K. maybe its 12, 15, 20%... it doesn't matter. Abortion is indeed a hot-button issue... but it isn't the deciding issue among the "swingers", "independants", "moderates"... whatever you want to call them, that generally decide Presidential elections.
Reagan, Bush the Elder, Clinton, Bush the Younger... convince me that their respective ascendancies hinged on the abortion question and I will grant you the argument.
The "far left" and the "far right", as you refer to them, aren't coming off their positions so its the "middle" that places abortion below the economy, health care, taxes, education, etc., etc. as matters of priority that decide Presidential elections.
...and McClintock can blame his failed gubenatorial bid on cowards like me.
... and I'm wondering when the grease fire that has been Harry Reid's Senate Majority Leadership role will be called into account because of his Mormonism.
As with my Libertarian vote, and as you have ponted out yourself, sometimes we have to hold our nose and vote for electability. McClintock, in my humble opinion, did not have the votes and we would have been left with Booooostimante.
Would you rather have that on your concscience? I have the utmost affection for McClintock, but if my vote for him was to enable the Mexican flag to ride side by side with mine, I stop there. I am not being predjudice, he is a member of Mencha (sp)and their policies are for "the race"
Harry Reid is a MOrman? You gotta be sh%&#ting me. If so, just more hypocricy from the media.
Anyway,the base,both right and left, shape what is voted on in November. These are wackos on both sides.
I cant know for certain that their positions on abortion was pertinent to their ascension to excecutive; however, I know that positions hav been changed. Whether it was a finger in the wind or heart felt change, I dont know.
The economy, the war, health care, taxes, ect are important to the general electorate, but part of that electorate is the 10., 12, 20% that still holds the abortion issue dear to them.
Hey, I am more concerned with the mentality that my excecutive can disregard geology, plate techtonics, microbiology or that the earth is only 10,000 years old in his faith, than the abortion issue.
You know my love for the Lord, but I don't want "stupid" leading the country.
Road Dawg
'Dawg, Again, the hard-liners aren't coming off their positions so its obviously other issues that dictate who gets in the Oval Office.
Abortion/Reproductive Rights is NEVER among the issues you see listed as a "top 5 voter concerns" .
As for your contention that I do not come into contact with enough of the "feminist"-type.... I am a single, white, middle-class male. Who do you think might roll in my social circles but single, white, middle-class females... and what do you think their general political leanings would be especially regarding abortion? C'mon dude - I'm surrounded by them.
Fair enough, I forget that you have beers with that demographic. What was I thinking?
Post a Comment