Recently, “Politico” has begun referring to a triumvirate of Republican governors – Bobby Jindal (LA), Tim Pawlenty (R-MN), and Mark Sanford (SC) – as the presumptive front-runners for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination. Bad news? They’re all creationists – and at least in Jindal’s case, empty suits built for grandstanding, not deep thought.
Let’s try to forget Sarah Palin for the moment: you all know how I feel.
Though I bleed Democratic blue, the country needs a meaningful, intelligent conservative party. None of the candidates above will bring that “change.” Even though I’m sure to disagree with them, I want to respect the GOP again. Apparently I’ll have to wait more than four years.
This does not surprise me. The past few elections have seen the religious right tighten their grip on the GOP leaving respectable conservatives out in the cold. If Obama and the Dems succeed in handling the current crisis then we will see republicans continue to lose ground on the national scene as moderate conservatives break with the evangelicals. Good for us but bad for the country as republican controlled areas will be run by religious kooks without a clue how to govern rationally (see Louisiana). The return of rational conservatism to prominence will take time and a determination on the part of moderate conservatives to push back against the fundies.
Posted by Jello | February 24, 2009, 5:37 pmI’d really like to see how the far-right birthers spin Jindal. If they’re going to go with the “Natural Born Citizen = both parents are US citizens” argument, then Jindal is completely unacceptable because while he was born in the US, *Neither* parent were US citizens when he was born.
Posted by Patrick McKinnion | February 24, 2009, 6:44 pmFirst time posting here, and I’m a Brit so please pardon my ignorant mistakes, if I make any.
But surely it’s way too soon to be making any predictions about the Republican Candidates for 2012. I mean (ignorance here) was Obama even considered in ’04?
Surely the new asshole they’ve been torn must hamper their powers of prediction?
Sure, it would be easy for them to get back to business as usual, and suggest that the religious candidates they are told their constituencies require are solidly in place, but if they want power, confronted by a supremely admired and intellectual man, “they” won’t be looking for a credentialed idiot to oust him.
I’d be ready to bet that their eventual candidate won’t be any of the above and will certainly not be a creationist.
Hey, you just got it right over there, I’m sure that the unexpected international goodwill will make it difficult for even the GOP to put forward a backwards – in every sense – candidate.
Posted by AnthonyK | February 24, 2009, 7:23 pmI hope so Anthony (and thanks for the comments). You’d be surprised how early earnest election speculation starts. Sadly, it’s not too soon :-/
Posted by Ames | February 25, 2009, 12:47 amJindal’s speech was horrible, and there is a lot of commentary on the part of pundits–even really conservative pundits–about how bad it was.
Posted by Ian | February 25, 2009, 12:02 pmI saw that on Digg: that’s awesome. Patrick’s point is really good, that the crazy birthers can’t simultaneously argue against Obama and for Jindal, at least without a considerable and uncomfortable amount of cognitive dissonance.
Posted by Ames | February 25, 2009, 12:08 pm..”the country needs a meaningful, intelligent conservative party.”
Why? What good has ever come from any form of conservatism? Even with the smart ones, all you ever hear is “tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts”.
Posted by KataVideo | March 1, 2009, 11:23 amI know we should refrain from Sarah-Bashing, but it’s such a ripe target. Though, maybe her exorcism cleared the demons if not just her tax responsibilities. I’m guessing there’s an allowable deduction for killing the demonic polar bears.
Posted by Mag7 | March 1, 2009, 11:38 am@Kata, I certainly don’t think the GOP should start winning :). But vitality is good in the two-party system, if only for a robust exchange of ideas, before the Democrats win..
@Mag, I really miss her. Now that she’s lost so horribly and not threatening any more, I realize just how much laughter she brought into my life…
Posted by Ames | March 1, 2009, 11:51 amWe DON’T need a working conservative party.
We have one: the Dims.
What we NEED is a Socialist/Labor Party.
Chuy!
Posted by woody | March 1, 2009, 12:24 pmConservatism is a useful impulse. The general population is, by definition, more or less centrist, and progressives have a tendency to underestimate the traditionalist/authoritarian elements of the population. When progressives are unchecked, they tend to overreach and create a popular backlash or power vacuum which often puts their own cause back quite a ways as traditionalist impulses are strengthened by rapid change. It’s good for progressive causes to meet steady opposition rather than to risk a backlash.
As well, it’s occasionally the case that progressives are simply dead wrong, but this often isn’t realized for some time. In general, progressives tend to be too confident in new theories of science and politics, leading to historically strong progressive support for coercive eugenics and Soviet-style government. We’re just now shaking off blank slate psychology. I also think that the US is better off than many European countries with respect to race relations largely because conservative reactionaries forced the country to always be aware of the issue – take France, where the government has, on ideological grounds, refused to recognize that race is something worth thinking about and where racism is clearly a bigger problem. There was a good ‘Talk of the Nation’ on this a few days back – it’s apparently illegal in France for a questionnaire to ask about the respondent’s race. Color-blindness is the conservative viewpoint in the US -now-, but only because it was the progressive viewpoint for so long that it became traditional.
Posted by Gotchaye | March 1, 2009, 2:55 pmCreationists are RETARDED.
Posted by Louise | March 1, 2009, 3:13 pmLouise, they’re actually a level below retarded .
Posted by DrBadger | March 2, 2009, 12:26 am