Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Why Rudy will probably win...

I am, when it comes right down to it, a Mitt Romney guy. He gets the global war on terror and what has to be done, and I am far more certain of his ability to do well in making judicial nominations than I am of the other top GOP candidates. That said, after last night's debate, Rudy Giuliani is the likely GOP nominee, and he is very likely to win the Presidential election in a landslide.

It is something I am very much at peace with. Giuliani has been focusing on the Dems, and rightly so. It is a party where 61% are willing to consider the notion that Bush had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. Yet at least two major conservative forums who I will not mention have been trying to nitpick the front-runners on abortion. It has been part of an increasing absolutism on social issues since the 2004 election that has, quite frankly, turned me off to social conservatives.

If you disagree with some of them on immigration, they insinuate treason. If you objected to the stridency of others, you were a party hack. That's from the tamer of the two sites. The other site allowed users to label those who backed a comprehensive immigration plan Quislings constantly, even an otherwise conservative candidate got the label.

If the powers that be at those sites expect people to sit down with them after they were called traitors and soul-sellers, they must be smoking some very interestingly flavored tobacco. It seems that a fair chunk of the GOP are as well. The conservatives didn't just try to push people out of the big tent, they were crapping in it. We saw the results in November, 2006. Lately, they have demonstrated to me that they seem to lack the perspective (see the recent trashing of Mitt Romney over a 13-year-old donation to Planned Parenthood by his wife - while ignoring the fact that Barbara Bush and Laura Bush both appear to be pro-choice themselves). Their focus on social issues and inside baseball also show a glaring inability to prioritize.

Are they seriously arguing that an appointment to the Appropriations Committee is somehow a bigger deal than Nancy Pelosi's efforts to hamstring our troops in Iraq? Or turning back Pat Leahy's attempts to give al-Qaeda's worst access to our courts? Or defeating Democratic attempts to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine via a "Hush Rush" Act?

If that is their sense of priorities, then they have a problem. It's not about principles - I tend to agree with most of their end goals. I just have no confidence in their judgement. If this means a divorce from conservatism, so be it. The only place conservative should come before country is in the dictionary.

No comments: