Pawlenty seems OK: fairly conservative, a good guy. But, could he win? I don’t think so. Would I support him over Obama? Hell, I supported McLame over Obama and I’d support a “yaller dog” over Obama, so I’d sure support Pawlenty (love that “T-Paw” someone used above!), but probably without any real enthusiasm.
The Republican Party is one election from going the way of the Whigs in the 1850s, and they don’t seem to have a clue about it.
I’ve been a Republican since helping my Mother campaign for Ike in 1956, but it wouldn’t take much for me to support a new conservative party. The national party seems to be back to the “me too” era of the ’50s. I didn’t like it then, and I don’t like it now.
I’m a classical liberal and don’t want a whole lot of social conservative legislation — social conservative exhortation is fine, and even perhaps a good thing, but keep the power of the state out of it! But, we need a fiscally sane, strong defense, strong Constitutional principles, and fundamentally HONEST party. And, the ‘pubbies just don’t seem to get it.
Bush was wet as a conservative, but fine on national security. His instinicts were right in economics, but he just didn’t deliver and didn’t articulate the case to the American people. I won’t blame or trash Bush, though. It was the congressional party that was full of pork and scandal and did not move promptly and effectively to root out corruption in both parties. When the Republicans had the votes, Rangel should have been toast.
Corruption in voting should now be a major focus in 2010: it’s a Democrat ‘thing’ primarily (though I’m sure the ‘pubbies aren’t always pure) and I’m morally certain there are more than one senate and house seat that are now held by Democrats that would be in Republican hands had the elections been limited to properly registered citizen voters who voted only once in the districts in which they lived.
