Political Football Analysis:
This nation is currently split down the middle ideologically. Both the left and the right have their factions that many consider extreme. The far (radical) left may be 30 to 40 percent of the Democratic Party. While the remaining sixty percent is considered centrist to moderate they tend to allow the radical left to have a strong (controlling) voice in determining democratic policy and agendas. Only in this past election cycle did the rise of blue dog democrats make a difference in party control. But even while the blue dogs were getting elected, their voice was getting drowned out by the radical left. To which direction the party is moving at this point is anyone’s guess. To a conservative's perspective the final two Democratic candidates are considered too far to the left on policy. To the radical left Clinton is too much of a centrist for their liking. Obama is, well, for all of his "dreams of change", Obama has yet to articulate on what his exact policies would be, which so far have gotten him as close to a nomination as he will get. TAKE CLINTON AND THE POINTS
The Republican Party has a "fractured" consensus also. I think the best way to frame the conservative party is to point out that "ultra-conservatives" (to be fair, the "radical right), today consider George W. Bush as a liberal republican on many issues, with spending and immigration on the forefront. The struggle within the party to get back to the conservative principals of a limited government, closed borders, a strong military defense, and a market driven economy is at the heart of the ultra-rights agenda. Any movement to the left of these policies is met with a strong resistance and (I think) a voice that leads to the divisions within the party, justified or not. I've heard over the past few months many conservatives saying "my party has left me out in the cold". The final two choices in the Republican Party aren't all that pleasing to the radical right. Mitt Romney is the party's Obama with many of his issues undefined or recently changed . Romney reminds me of the Clinton's tactic to say what ever the group in front of him needs to hear. Few of Romney's policies seem to be concrete or "ground in stone", even though we want to believe them.
And then we have John McCain. McCain's past history (record) is there for all to see. No one in either party can dispute where McCain stands on national defense or foreign policy. It's in "concrete". His pro-life stance is also unquestionable. While the latest Alito kerfuffle has come to light, McCain will not appoint liberal judges. While McCain has said he will attempt to restrain entitlement spending, his record in the Senate over the years does not show where he has a record of "no's" to confirm this. On immigration McCain got a rude awakening last year when a majority of this nation told their representatives they would run them out of office if the McCain-Kennedy-Bush legislation came to fruition. He now realizes that the first priority is to close the borders and then reconcile with those who are here illegally. Dafydd ab Hugh at Big Lizards argued that this issue would be divisive for the Republican Party and would harm the party during the election cycle. (I still disagree with his assessment). With the economy now at the forefront of issues concerning this nation, (thanks in part to the liberal media-driven agenda), McCain is seen as weaker than Romney on this, but it would serve McCain well to surround himself with a number of staunch fiscal conservatives that understand market driven policies are best at correcting/uprighting the economy. (And I believe the "hedge-funders" should pay dearly for their unchecked greed) A "bail-out" for the idiot home purchasers will have to be in another post. TAKE McCAIN AND THE POINTS
NEXT UP -------- THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS