What Will Republicans Do?

One of the news items that came out during the New Hampshire election discussed voters who voted in the Republican primary. The question was, "Why did you vote for [Republican candidate for president]?"

Of the voters who responded, 33% said that their primary criterion for choosing the candidate was, "He can beat Obama."

Really?

Would they vote for Charles Manson if he could beat Obama?

I am left with the opinion that they would, indeed, vote for Charles Manson; if they thought he was the only man who could beat Obama. After all, if you were to go soley by this, then he's no crazier than some of the Republican candidates.

Today I see that Tony Perkins, of the Family Research Council (FRC), says that social conservatives are "not judgmental". He was discussing moral concerns about Newt Gingrich's personal life.

This arose because CNN asked Gingrich about the allegations that he had demanded an "open marriage" of his second wife (basically, that he demanded the ongoing right to commit adultery). On MSNBC, Perkins says of that questioning, "I do not think that it’s an appropriate way to start the debate. In fact, I would have left it out of the debate. We’re talking about issues of the economy, we’re talking about issues of policy."

Perkins once called on Christians who voted for Obama to repent—obviously because it was a sin to vote for Obama. I guess Obama is unforgivable, but Gingrich isn't. Perhaps because Perkins thinks Gingrich might be able to beat Obama?

This ties in to one of the main reasons I left the Republican party and joined the Democrats. President George W. Bush was a neoconservative (neocon); rising to his office on a wave of neocon ideology within the Republican party.

To achieve their objectives, it appears to me that neocons let nothing stand in the way: Not the Constitution, not law, not gentleman's agreements, not tradition, not ethics, and not morals (Biblical law included). I think that they follow only a self-serving, win at any cost, creed.

Want an example? Karl Rove, one of the foremost of the neocons, once ruined opposition politician Mark Kennedy, by starting a whisper campaign claiming that Kennedy was a pedophile (based on pictures of Kennedy holding hands with children while doing volunteer work).

It was creative. It was defamatory. It was unethical. It was immoral. ("Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.")

It was also extremely successful. So what if it breaks all the rules?

More and more, it seems the attitude pervades the Republican party from top to bottom. One third, 33%, of Republican voters would apparently vote for an axe murderer (and certainly would vote for someone immoral by their lights) if only he can beat Obama.

What will Republicans do to win? Well, almost anything (but murder, at least so far).

Or so it seems.