Moderates Need Not Apply ... J. D. Longstreet

Moderates Need Not Apply
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
******************

I have no clue, at this writing, whom the next republican  candidate for President of the USA will be.  But I do know this:  for the GOP to even be in the running, their candidate had better be conservative -- and conservative to the core.

Christie and Brown can save their time and money.  Rubio has a snowball's chance in Hades.  He's finished so far as the conservative core of the GOP is concerned.  The immigration debacle showed him for what he really is and conservatives do not like being duped.  He's done.

If the GOP insists on offering up another moderate he/she will go the way of Dole, McCain, and Romney.

Ted Cruz?  I don't think Cruz is qualified to be President of the USA.  I mean by the circumstances of his birth, understand.  I think he'd probably make a hell of a president, but I don't expect he'll ever see the inside of the Oval Office -- except as a visitor.

OK.  I can see some of you think that just because the democrats have an illegal poser in the office as US President that the republicans can do the same thing.  Well, dear reader, you are W R O N G!

I am in my eighth decade of living in the United States and one thing I have learned about US politics -- above all others -- is this:  There are two sets of morals and two sets of laws governing the democrats and the republicans.  Basically, it works like this:  Anything the democrats can get away with is moral and legal.  Everything the republicans do is, at best, questionable and probably immoral AND illegal.  If you keep that in mind you will seldom go wrong in 21st century America.

If you have been fooling yourself into believing the democrats are going to allow a conservative candidate with an actual chance to beat Hillary to get his name on a ballot for President of the US then please, allow me to disabuse you of that deeply mistaken belief.  It will not happen.

Had the GOP had the intestinal fortitude God gave a gnat, Obama would have been challenged and his name scrubbed from the list of candidates before the 2008 election. But they didn't - and we now have a communist centered government in the (temporarily) United States of America.

A couple of things on the 2016 election:

One: Hillary will be the Democratic Party candidate.

Two: She will win.

(A hurried disclaimer -- or caveat -- is in order, I believe:  "...  barring an act of God.")

No matter if the GOP runs a moderate or a conservative a host of GOP voters WILL stay home.  That is a given.  The party is that riven ... and don't forget, the GOP is leaderless, too.

Then there is this:  The GOP has already lost the 2016 Electoral College vote.

Myra Adams , in a column at The Daily Beast dot com, says the GOP’s biggest problem is that Democrats start with 246 electoral votes. 

The American electorate spends little (if any) time trying to decipher and understand the electoral college and how it is the Electoral Vote that decides elections for President in America.

There are a total of 538 electoral votes.  The candidate receiving 270 of those votes wins -- period!  And yes, it is possible, indeed it has happened a number of times, that a candidate can win the popular vote amongst the electorate and STILL LOSE THE ELECTION -- BECAUSE HIS OPPOSITION WON THE 270 ELECTORAL VOTES.

When you seriously analyze the electoral vote and add the number of electoral votes from the "blue" states you will quickly see that the democrats begin each Presidential Election cycle with over 90% of the electoral college already assured.

Ms. Adams explains it this way:  "After totaling the electoral votes in all the terminally blue states, an inconvenient math emerges, providing even a below average Democrat presidential candidate a potential starting advantage of 246. Here are the states and their votes:

CA (55), NY (29), PA (20), IL (20), MI (16), NJ (14), WA (12), MA (11), MN (10), WI (10), MD (10), CT (7), OR (7), HI (4), ME (4), NH (4), RT (4), VT (3), DE (3), DC (3).

Let me repeat, if only for the shock value: 246 votes out of 270 is 91 percent. That means the Democrat candidate needs to win only 24 more votes out of the remaining 292. (There are a total of 538 electoral votes.)"   SOURCE:  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/18/can-a-republican-win-270-electoral-votes-in-2016-or-ever.html

Ms. Adams states that 63% of Americans favor dumping the Electoral College and going solely with the poplar vote.  I'm not so sure about that, but that is a topic for another day.

Ms. Adams says:  "To change from the Electoral College to direct voting would require a constitutional amendment. But it is highly doubtful that such an amendment would gain any traction in Congress since Democrat leaders have grown fond of the severely slanted Electoral College and have no incentive to make such a change. (Yes, Democrats also remember Al Gore in 2000, but that was ancient electoral math.)"  SOURCE: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/18/can-a-republican-win-270-electoral-votes-in-2016-or-ever.html  

So.  You can see an awful lot of work remains for the GOP to field a winning candidate for 2016.   It will be even more daunting if, as I suspect, Hillary is the dem's candidate.

Conservatives should not fool themselves.  Fielding a moderate candidate will not be a winning answer nor will fielding a candidate open to legal challenge in the courts as to his qualifications for the office of President.

The GOP needs leadership and it needs it badly. 

This is a defining moment for the GOP.  I am of the opinion that should the republicans go with another moderate candidate, they will create a third party as a result.  That "third party" could be an entirely new party, or -- it could turn out to be the Republican Party itself!

© J. D. Longstreet