Paul Weyrich in a January 10th column made the case for conservatives to get behind one candidate. I agree entirely with Mr. Weyrich’s sentiment that a divided conservative base will prove costly.
Out of a meeting of Conservative leaders, Weyrich expressed frustration with the inability of the group to get behind a single candidate with a clichéd statement, “We must be willing to accept that the perfect cannot be the enemy of the good.”
If I might be so bold, what Mr. Weyrich seems to have failed to consider is that the greatest challenge for the candidates he listed off is that they were neither perfect nor good. In fact, some of the candidates represent a regression
The choice between perfect and good can be valid in some cases. Perhaps baseball could serve as a good example, just because you can’t get Babe Ruth, doesn’t mean you turn down Cal Ripken, Jr.. The problem is that instead of Ripken, most presidential candidates are more analogous to a career minor league outfielder with a bum knee and one bad eye.
The list of a candidates considered by Weyrich and his colleagues are an uninspiring motley crew.
The three most mentioned candidates—Giuliani, McCain, and Romney—are a mix of the unacceptable and insincere. Many would prefer the unacceptable. Giuliani gained the support of one poster on Red State who said he’d rather support “the devil he knows.” McCain has shown a willingness to disregard the fundamental rights of people in the name of reform and has shown himself willing to sell out Conservative principles to please the press. As for Romney, he’s gone from pro-life to pro-choice to pro-life, gone from attending gay pride parades to excoriating civil unions. In addition to that, he passed a big government health care initiative and has supported gun control measures.
Senator Sam Brownback (R-Ks.) voted for the largest expansion of government since the Great Society and is aligned with Ted Kennedy and John McCain on immigration. Governor Mike Huckabee (R-Ar.) presents us the opportunity to replace a President who doesn’t control spending with a Governor whose record shows he doesn’t know how to control spending or taxes, and is also soft on illegal immigration. Newt Gingrich started us down the path of breaking budget caps in 1997 despite his complaints about the current fiscal mess.
Perhaps, the problem with Mr. Weyrich and friends is that they’re looking for unity in all the wrong places. The candidates proposed all require a suspension of disbelief or offend one or more groups in the Conservative coalition. Is there another answer? Weyrich writes:
“I pleaded with my brethren for us to back as good a candidate as we could find. Even if he didn't win, if he made enough of a showing, the winning candidate would make concessions in our direction — perhaps the Vice Presidency, perhaps federal judgeships “
If you’re looking for the best candidate out there, as I was, I have a recommendation, the same one I made a few weeks ago. John Cox is a Social and Economic Conservative who has established grassroots organizations in thirty-three states. He is pro-life, pro-family, a fiscal conservative who supports fundamental tax and social security reform, an opponent of amnesty, and a strong believer in keeping America secure.
Cox comes with a career in the private sector, which will be welcomed by many Americans given the mess career politicians have made of Washington. In addition, the story of a disadvantage youth who became a multi-millionaire will play well with the American people.
He may not be known to the Washington power elites, but Cox is taking the campaign to the people. He’ll be at CPAC at this year to share the message of his campaign. Hopefully, Weyrich and others looking for a good conservative candidate will take note.
