We’ve been hearing a great deal about which Republican candidate is the most electable. The pundits have all but anointed Mitt Romney as the most electable candidate in the field even though he has a less than stellar conservative record. These were the same so-called experts who claimed Ronald Reagan was too divisive, too conservative making him unelectable. We can see how that worked out. The current mindset appears to be a beat Obama at all cost and because of this mindset, electability has been thrust to forefront in how we should view our candidates; principle has taken a back seat. But what exactly does electability mean and should we trading off a principled candidate for one who is view by the so-called experts as electable? Is compromising our principles to put forth a candidate who on the surface appears more electable really the way forward for the conservative movement? I say absolutely not.
I found a very good article (Electability vs Principles) that touches on this topic.
Below is an excerpt from the article.
When the only thing that matters is getting re-elected, lying and cheating and general wrong-doing don’t matter either. When you lose your principles you lose your way. Let’s face it: There has not been a conservative Presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan. Election after election, voters have been sold that “electability” is the most important thing a candidate must have…
Voters have been force fed “read my lips” and “centralist” and “moderate” and “compassionate” until we’ve puked up nothing that even resembles Conservatism or the Idea of America. The results are that Republicans are almost indistinguishable from Democrats.
You can read the entire article here>>
How many times have we seen this played out over and over again? From George W. Bush running as a “compassionate conservative” to John McCain running as a centrist who was suppose to have strong crossover appeal we have paid a heavy price in terms of advancing true conservatism. We have bought into this crazy notion that electability is all that should matter and it’s killing us. The truth is the reason an inexperienced junior Senator from Illinois won in 2008 was because we didn’t give the electorate a clear alternative to liberalism. Instead we gave the electorate a candidate who walked and talked like a Democrat. We now see how costly that was and yet we are walking down the same road to defeat when we look to a candidate who is more electable than principled. You know what they say about insanity; it’s doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. This is where we are folks. We’re getting talked into do the same thing over again and my fear is we will end up with the same results; an Obama second term.
With the exception of John Huntsman, Mitt Romney is the least conservative candidate in the field and in our gut we all know this. This is why his poll numbers are not really moving one way or another. He has maintained in the 20 percent range since the beginning. He is the candidate the establishment supports and the one the left would like to see matched against Obama. The left understands that a more conservative candidate would have a better chance beating Obama than a watered down conservative. This battle to pick our candidate has been fought before and conservatism has lost ground each time we put forth a centrist or moderate. This is why the MSM attacked Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, and Herman Cain. This is why they’re giving Mitt Romney a free pass for now. He is their path to getting Obama reelected.
When are we going to wake up and stop playing their game? When are we going to stop falling into this electability trap and start nominating a candidate who is grounded in principle? This much is true, it had better be soon because Iowa is right around the corner and too much is riding on 2012. We can’t afford another 4 years of Obama and a true conservative has the best chance to unseat him. I know this. You know this. And so does the left.
Liberty forever, freedom for all!