[Newsbot]

<strong>Filibuster Cartoon</strong>
<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20071027" target="_blank">GOP Goldylocks</a> (click to view)
<strong>Date: </strong> October 27, 2007

The race to become the next Republican presidential nominee is fast descending into a swaggering machismo-fest in which each man tries to out-conservative the other. <br> <br>Granted, that usually happens in GOP primaries, but the context is particularly odd this year, considering that the leading candidates are by and large generally moderate individuals. In another era the candidates might even be tempted to play up their moderation, and history of pragmatism as admirable, electable qualities. But today conservatives seem to value dogmatic orthodoxy above boldness or intellectualism, so we get a bunch of men who have to pretend to be a bunch of things they are not, in order to take control of a party whose base they secretly can\'t stand.

[Shablabar]

Brilliant. This cartoon perfectly captures what I see when I look at the race for the GOP nomination.

[WBenson]

I still love it when they call Giuliani "liberal," as if they only see the GGG (Guns, Gays, God) issues.

[Dublin]

Agreed with WBenson. It's Giuliani's fascist, authoritative tendencies that scare me, but unfortunately, a lot of dems would like to turn America into a nanny state, putting him with them again.

Anyways. This cartoon is brilliant. Very true and is something that is upsetting me greatly, how the candidates refuse to see the bigger picture, and the large 'christian conservative' number of GOP voters don't see it, either.

[Psudo]

This is, unfortunately for Republicans (me), very true.

[JJ]

What I don't understand is why Brownback and Huckabee are doing/did so poorly, comparatively speaking. It's a bit of a farce to say there are no reliably Christain right candidates when you've got these two who are about as cookie-cutter as you can get. True, no one has heard of them, but no one heard of Bill Clinton either.

[BartSimpson]

Psudo wrote:

This is, unfortunately for Republicans (me), very true.

And me, too.

[Calbeck]

WBenson wrote:

I still love it when they call Giuliani "liberal," as if they only see the GGG (Guns, Gays, God) issues.

Yeah, I get a greater desire to support Guiliani whenever I hear him described as a "liberal" by these folks. Just makes him sound more centrist to me. -:>

[Pitchfork]

Although Giuliani is to the left of most Republicans on some issues, it does amuse me how Republicans view him as this closet liberal considering liberals HATED him when he was Mayor of New York City

JJ wrote:

What I don't understand is why Brownback and Huckabee are doing/did so poorly, comparatively speaking. It's a bit of a farce to say there are no reliably Christain right candidates when you've got these two who are about as cookie-cutter as you can get. True, no one has heard of them, but no one heard of Bill Clinton either.

I don't know why they did so poorly either. Brownback is an Open Borders fanatic, and that didn't help him, but most of the GOP bench has a sad record on immigration. I'm told Huckabee was fairly humorous in the debates, but I didn't see any.

[BartSimpson]

There are no superstars in the GOP race, at all. My opinion is that these guys are just vying for the right to lose the election to Hillary.

[Khaoki]

JJ wrote:

What I don't understand is why Brownback and Huckabee are doing/did so poorly, comparatively speaking. It's a bit of a farce to say there are no reliably Christain right candidates when you've got these two who are about as cookie-cutter as you can get. True, no one has heard of them, but no one heard of Bill Clinton either.

Huckabee has been doing better lately in large part because of his performance in the debates and, in my opinion, people noticing he's the younger, vastly more articulate version of Fred Thompson. What's really holding him back is lack of funds. Note that I say younger because no one really wants someone who looks like he'll die five minutes after taking office to be President...

Another reason he won't be nominated is because this nomination is mostly going to be about whoever has the most recognizable name on both sides.

[WesterCharcoal]

Newsbot wrote:

The race to become the next Republican presidential nominee is fast descending into a swaggering machismo-fest in which each man tries to out-conservative the other.
Granted, that usually happens in GOP primaries, but the context is particularly odd this year, considering that the leading candidates are by and large generally moderate individuals. In another era the candidates might even be tempted to play up their moderation, and history of pragmatism as admirable, electable qualities. But today conservatives seem to value dogmatic orthodoxy above boldness or intellectualism, so we get a bunch of men who have to pretend to be a bunch of things they are not, in order to take control of a party whose base they secretly can\'t stand.

Pretty sure Intillectualism, and Boldness were conservative values. Doesn't make sense to me to be scornful of Conservative's desiring a Conservative candidate, and not just a Republican politician. Especially because conservative Dogma seems to include the things like Boldness and Intillectualism.

Now the comic itself I mostly agree with. I'm just not sure what makes Thompson "...too lazy."

[Jawajoey]

It's pretty shocking to me how messed up the GOP is in choosing the candidate. I'm pretty conservative myself, and would like to vote for someone other than Hillary. But the GOP really doesn't know how to pick a candidate. Guliani is leading, despite alienating social conservatives an general liberals alike. Romney is trailing, despite being very successfully experienced as an executive, and personally very presidential. I guess that' just because he's a Mormon, although Christians criticizing mormonism for being silly is pretty ironic.

Then there's Huckabee, who you'd think would be a Red State republican's dream, but apparently he isn't frontrunner enough.

And then there's Ron Paul. An actually honest and consistent man, a fiscal and social conservative, who can appeal to liberals and conservatives alike. But no, he's a nutjob, because he agrees with 70% of Americans on Iraq. I find it funny that Ron Paul probably has a better chance of winning the general election than he does the republican primary.

The real right-wing GOP guys seem so intent on preserving the leadership and ideals of the current neocon Republican Party, and yet they can't bring themselves to nominate anyone who has a shot of winning.

[WesterCharcoal]

Jawajoey wrote:

But no, he's a nutjob, because he agrees with 70% of Americans on Iraq.

That's his biggest problem really. Although I would argue that 70% of Americans are NOT against the Iraq war, it's not even worth talking about.

The reason why Ron Paul isn't liked by Conservatives, or Republicans is because the USA is a Reprisentative democracy, and not a streight Democracy. The founding fathers beleived that true democracy was mob rule. Just because a Candidate agrees with a majority of American Oppinion poles does not make them a good leader, it just makes them an empty suit that does whatever the news paper polls tell him.

Still I do agree we deserve a better (which meens a more conservative candidate from my perspective).

[Jawajoey]

WesterCharcoal wrote:

The reason why Ron Paul isn't liked by Conservatives, or Republicans is because the USA is a Reprisentative democracy, and not a streight Democracy. The founding fathers beleived that true democracy was mob rule.

That's a pretty bad mischaracterization of libertarianism as democratic anarchy. Libertarians don't support that, the founding fathers didn't, the constitution doesn't, and Ron Paul doesn't. Misconceptions like that will make it hard for Ron Paul to be accepted, but at least they'll be challenged.

Quote:

Just because a Candidate agrees with a majority of American Oppinion poles does not make them a good leader, it just makes them an empty suit that does whatever the news paper polls tell him.

I agree with that, but that's not Ron Paul. John Kerry, sure, but not Ron Paul.