Tuesday's Ohio Primary is potentially a historic one, as voters will have the chance with one vote to do several things that need to be done. These include:
a) breaking the hold of the country-club faction on the Ohio Republican party
b) electing a true social conservative to the governor's office, a platform for genuine social reform
c) electing a true fiscal conservative to the governor's office, in a state that desperately needs to lower taxes and spending
d) proving that African-Americans have political opportunity in more than one political party
All that and more can be done with a vote for Ken Blackwell. As we have said before, he's the best Republican candidate to beat Ted Strickland, he's the best to bring needed change to Ohio, and he's the best to change the shape of national politics for years to come.
Amazingly enough, even the Cincinnati Enquirer agrees.
So we intend to show up early at the polls on Tuesday. It would be fun to be the first in our precinct to vote for Ken. See if you can beat us there.
7 comments:
Another good reason to vote Blackwell is simply that the Dayton Daily News recommends against it. With an indicator like that, it would be hard to go wrong.
I'm trying to figure out what Fiona said. A social conservative is not electable nationally because Ohio chose Bush over Kerry?
Unless Kerry were thought of as a social conservative, that doesn't make much sense.
Fiona, once again, you can be as disappointed as you want that I am not willing to support a social conservative who does not exist, but I remain committed to supporting actual candidates.
My SWNIDish analysis is that there is no credible social conservative running for Prezzie in 08. Bill Frist and George Allen are not credible candidates. We keep talking about "a social conservative," but we never talk about a specific candidate. Why? Because there isn't one.
When one emerges, I'll consider her. In the meantime, I will back the guy who can do the job on the Islamofascists and the deficit and hope that with the backing of a majority in Congress that he can do the equivalent of a Nixon-in-China on abortion.
What's wrong with me? I got a good write up in Nat Review by Rich Lowry.
For one thing, you can't use upper-case letters.
For another, you're a Senator. Unless you daddy buys you the presidency (JFK), you're doomed.
The difference between SWNID and all armchair politicians is that he doesn't rely on his government to make a difference for good and his society. He himself accepts the responsibility of being salt and light and sees how the church, not the government, is God's only hope for people. Nothing could be more social or conservative or socially conservative. Hats off to you SWNID, you make the difference and inspire other to do likewise!
Fiona, you've missed my subtle (?)point on where the country is on abortion and gay rights. It's split, but it's not even. We're looking at a range of opinion that tends to support a libertarian status quo. The mushy middle likes things as they are, sadly. And that plays to the hands of those who want legal abortion and expanded "rights" for same-sex marriage and such. Read the polls that break opinion into five categories, not just two. You'll see what I mean.
Of course social conservatives can get elected, if they have that ineffable characteristic of "electability." Blackwell has it (maybe nationally in '08 as a running mate? with Rudy?). Dubya had it. Frist and Allen don't have it. Romney ... we'll see.
But here's the point: even a socially conservative president can't change the bigger picture on abortion or gay rights without a larger change in public opinion that clearly supports such change. That's why I can't make those issues the only ones on which I base a political decision, sometimes not even the primary ones. Voting for a pro-life President in November of '08 doesn't make the country any more pro-life in January of '09 than it was in October of '08, regardless of the winner.
If going-on-16 years of Reagan and Bush II have shown us anything, it's that you need more than a socially conservative president to have a socially conservative body politic.
And if the last two years have shown us anything, it's that the McCain juggernaut is on cruise control to the nomination in '08. SWNID doesn't trust the co-author of McCain-Feingold, the worst piece of legislation since Smoot-Hawley, maybe since the Fugitive Slave Act. So we're stoking the Giuliani furnace long before cold weather sets in, to do our share to halt the "inevitability" of a McCain nomination.
Keep up the posts, Fiona. Everyone likes a good fight.
Post a Comment