Ray Malone's Commentary

Reading so called Republican pundits leads me to believe that many of them just don't get it as far as the social conservatives are concerned. Tony Blankley, who was Newt's Press Secretary when Newt was the speaker shares many misconceptions with his former boss. He publishes similar appeals and conclusions in his column.

Lately Blankley who was born a British citizen has taken to explaining why the Religious Right is wrong to state they will not support or vote for Rudy if he wins the Republican nomination for president. He compares the situation to Unions staying with the Democrats no matter what. But what has that done for the Unions. Their membership is falling, the money they can use in politics is shrinking, and they have less and less influence as each year goes by. Blankley is saying.. that social conservatives should follow a strategy that has failed for the Unions.

Blankley actually thinks that is a good strategy that his columns can cause Social Conservatives to follow. Tony here is a clue.. Social conservatives are not nearly as politically naive as you or Union members.

Blankley argues that Social conservative would actually ensure that Hillary Clinton becomes our next president. In that case he is right. But how could they prefer Hillary over Rudy Blankley asks? I would ask Tony why did economic conservatives prefer Bill Clinton over George H. W. Bush? It is the way the REAL WORLD WORKS, TONY.. Welcome to the REAL world. The real world, Tony is not Newt Gingrich's office!

Starting with Barry Goldwater the Republican party came to be dominated by those on the social right. From 1940 to 1960 the social liberal Republicans controlled the Republican party. With nominee Wendell Willkie in 1940, and Tom Dewey in 1944 and 1948, to Ike Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956, the Republican party nominated moderate to Liberal Republicans.

In 1950 Truman had even offered his support to Ike in 1952 if Ike would run as a Democrat. Ike told Truman it was not good for one party to control the presidency for over 20 years. Ike did not have issue differences with Democrats, he had holding power too long as his reason for not running as a Democrat.

Tom Dewey was a New York prosecutor that shared many of the views today shared by Rudy Giuliani. They had very similar careers. Wendell Willkie was at best a "ME TOO ONLY A LITTLE LESS THAN" type candidate when he challenged FDR in 1940. And Dewey perfected the "ME TOO ONLY MORE EFFICIENT" pitch in 1944. In 1948 it was figured by the media that Dewey was a better clone of FDR than that no good TRUMAN ever would or could be.

Has anyone figured out that socially liberal Republicans have only won in the last 90 years when they run a huge war hero?

After the Nixon defeat in 1960, conservatives started to work to take the party back from the North Eastern left. They started at the grass roots and got behind Barry Goldwater as their new conservative hero. Nelson Rockefeller was the Rudy type candidate of 1964.

Then after 64 Nixon got the message. He adopted what he called the southern strategy, which is another way of saying he adopted Southern social values.

This year for the first time since 1976 there is a fight for control of the Republican party. There are the social Republicans to which there are just two over ridding issues. Those issues are gun control and abortion. If the nominee is pro gun control and pro abortion much of the Religious right will take a walk.

But lets turn to the other two major issues that are currently large on the horizon. What if a Republican candidate was a surrender now type plus pro taxes for increased government programs. What if that candidate was also pro gun rights and very anti abortion. It is likely many of the social conservatives could support such a candidate. But the fiscal and foreign policy hawks would be screaming at the top of their lungs that they could not support such a dastardly dirty, no good Republican candidate.

My point is it is all about whose ox is being gored. If the war hawks and fiscal tax cutters get a candidate they can support they are very happy. The problem is they actually think such a candidate can win. The other issues are not important to them, so they reason they should not be important to others. On the other hand the social conservatives care less about the war and taxes and a lot more about abortion and gun control.

My point is the nominee of the Republican party has to strongly support the conservative positions on all four issues. Anybody remember what happens when the fiscal conservatives don't like the stances of a Republican candidate? Ask George H. W, Bush how raising taxes plays with fiscal conservatives on election day. He will tell you they stayed home and were happy to let the rest of the voters elect Bill Clinton president. It is not good to promise NO NEW TAXES and then go back on that promise. Fiscal conservatives will take a walk on election day. The reason he said NO NEW TAXES in 1988 was so he could win the support of fiscal conservatives.

Now some Republicans believe that, while it may be true that those that felt betrayed by the broken No New Taxes promise stayed at home in 1992, that is no reason to believe that anti abortion and pro gun conservatives have any right to stay home in 2008. Their only issue is killing babies.. not something really important like raising marginal fees on some people.

I was amused by Tony Blankley quoting Barry Goldwater about the need to compromise on issues by voting for people who don't agree with him. Barry apparently at some point said no candidate meets all of your desires, so one must compromise. I guess Barry was just flapping his jaws when he said during the 1964 campaign, that he would rather be right than president.

Did Barry really mean he would rather see the leftist JFK have the presidency than compromise on an issue or two that could have made Barry president. I wonder if Barry were running today, would he say, I would rather compromise my beliefs than let Hillary be president?

Does Tony really believe Barry would do that? Or is he just trying to help leftist Republicans take over the Republican party. Hillary may very well be president.. Just as JFK was president. But the social conservative right is not going to give control of the party to the social leftists.

The real question is, would you rather see Rudy be the nominee and Hillary be next our president or let the social conservatives have a veto over the Republican nominee?

The nation awaits your answer.