John Edward's promise to support the Democratic nominee, regardless of who wins the primary, follows a growing trend within the Democratic Party and has been grabbing the media's attention. But why are the candidates willing to downplay their individuality in order to support their party? Given the Republican record over the tenure of George Bush and the ethical scandals that plagued the GOP (from Ted Haggard to Jack Abramoff), it would seem that the Democratic Party holds both the policy and moral high-ground. Furthermore, the Republican candidates are relatively weak and seemingly beatable to any Democratic candidate, regardless if the primary losers offer their support.
Only John McCain, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul have a feasible chance of winning the nomination, but Ron Paul is the sole candidate with a chance to beat the Democrats in the general election. He has to be a major motivator of the current wagon circling going on inside the Democratic Party because McCain and Romney do not match up well with any Democratic candidate. McCain's persistence in “staying the course” and his trigger-happy mentality will not appeal to moderate voters who are tired of our endless and deadly involvement in the Middle East. He runs on supporting the troops, but Ron Paul is the candidate who receives more donations and endorsement from service men and women.
Romney has three major strikes against him. Firstly his Mormon faith will definitely cost him votes from the large Evangelical base within the Republican Party. Secondly, his wealth and self-financing creates mistrust. Edwards also faces this dilemma, but he has worked hard create a Robin Hood image, which is something Romney definitely lacks. He has big business written all over him. Finally, coming from a relatively liberal political arena like Massachusetts, there will be a lot of attention given to his “flip-flopping.” This will cut even more deeply into the GOP's socially conservative base.
Ron Paul's consistent anti-war message is perhaps the biggest threat to the Democratic candidates. He voted against the war and the Patriot Act, a startling contrast to Clinton. Furthermore, his attention has always been on the economy and fiscal responsibility, a message that is gaining momentum now that the financial markets are looking so volatile and recessing. The Democrat's penchant for high government spending and taxation will not bode well against Paul's small government crusade, and his ethical consistency will keep the Republican base, who like his pro-life position.Tweet
Latest posts by R.K. Chase (see all)
- Conservative GOP Concedes 2008 Election - February 8, 2008
- Atheism is not a worldview - February 6, 2008
- The “Change” Campaign Slogan - January 31, 2008
- The War on Drugs and Terror - January 27, 2008
- The Economy Debate is Diverting Attention from Paul’s Foreign Policy - January 25, 2008
- Atheism is not a Religion - January 24, 2008
- Ron Paul Causes Democrats to Circle Their Wagons - January 24, 2008
- Religion Offers the Facade of Purpose - January 24, 2008
- The Power of the Executive Branch - January 23, 2008