38. On Republicans - and a few Democrats

Today marks the 198th anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln, born in a log cabin to Thomas and Nancy Hanks Lincoln, in what was at the time Hardin County, but is now a part of Larue County. A National Park just south of Hodgenville, where KY 61 heads east away from US 31E, marks the site. Former State Representative Bob Heleringer, a friend of many years, has written an interesting op-ed piece in today's Courier-Journal, the link to which is listed at the end of this post.

Heleringer is generally considered a moderate in his Party, which is generally considered to be conservative, and effectively has been since Ronald Reagan began his quest of the presidency several years before achieving it in 1980. Heleringer's support as a legislator of several social-leaning ideas, especially those which relate to the health and well-being of children, caused some in his Party to be less supportive than they were of others. In 2003, he was paired with Republican gubernatorial hopeful Steve Nunn, another moderate in some matters, in the Primary against Ernie Fletcher and Rebecca Jackson. The Nunn-Heleringer team ran third of three; comments were made by several Democrats that if they made it through their own Primary, they would probably receive the support (some public, some secret) of a number of moderate to liberal Democrats. I've no doubt that would have been the case. But, they weren't right enough for the Right.

As we celebrate the birthday of the Republican Party's first standard bearer, our own Abraham Lincoln, a short look at the presidential race of 2008, is worth a visit. In the last week, word has leaked out that Rudolph Giuliani, he of 9/11 fame, is leading Senator John McCain in the early line. The irony here is the distance McCain has moved, from center to right on the political spectrum (as has Mitt Romney), only to be surpassed at this point by a well known social-liberal, whose only conservative high marks come from his no-nonsense crime fighting as a federal prosecutor in Reagan's Justice Department and later as a two-term mayor of New York, the first Republican to be re-elected to that office since Fiorello LaGuardia, the beloved "Little Flower" who served three terms from 1934 to 1945. (John Lindsey won his first race as a Republican in 1965. He lost the Republican primary in 1969, but won re-election as mayor running on the Liberal ticket. He later switched to the Democratic Party, but did not seek re-election under that Party's banner).

It is an old argument in politics that Democrats move to the left in the Primary while Republicans move to the right. Getting to the center, where most of the voters are, is only necessary in the Fall. McCain and Romney have demonstrated their willingness to sell out personal beliefs in the name of political gain, as has been made evident by McCain's senate votes and Romney's vetoes as governor of Massachusetts. Giuliani, on the other hand, has always been a liberal on social fronts and a conservative on crime matters. When he first ran for mayor in 1989, he was the candidate of both the Republican and the Liberal parties. He lost that race, the closest one in New York's history, by 48,000 votes out of 1,900,000 cast to Democrat David Dinkins. He came back four years later and defeated Dinkins. In 1997, he was re-elected garnering 59% of the vote. As the darling of the old Republican Party, that is pre-Reagan and heavily Eastern Establishment, and as a one-day wonder as an American hero for his very personal role in the events of September 11th, he finds himself in a very unusual position, as front runner of the Republican Party for nomination as president.

On the other side, my side, several days ago I posted a picture in the right hand column of Senators Clinton and Obama, arguably the leaders in the Democratic race to the White House. Obama announced his candidacy over the weekend, and were it not for an early morning commitment I had made to the Metro Democratic Club (of which I was recently elected as Treasurer), I would have driven the 520 or so miles to Abraham Lincoln's place of election, Springfield, Illinois, where Senator Obama made his formal entry into the fray Saturday morning, announcing from the Old State House, where Lincoln had served 150 years earlier. Voting with my heart, Obama is my first choice. Voting with my head, Senator Clinton is. I am hopeful she is the nominee and he is her running mate. I ran that ticket passed my mother, an retired State employee who is something of a moderate, having voted for Ross Perot in 1992, when she thought Bush pere was inept, but couldn't bring herself to vote for Bill Clinton because he seemed to be a womanizer. She indicated Clinton/Obama was a ticket she could support. She went on to say she is for Clinton and whomever she chooses as a running mate, and that Obama would be an excellent choice.

Clinton has made her own journey on the political spectrum, mostly because of her marriage to Bill Clinton. I've never considered the Clintons overly liberal, although I have appreciated some of their ideas. But they are perceived as liberal, and because of that Mrs. Clinton has found herself creating an image with strong ties to the military, getting herself on the Armed Services Committee and voting for the war measures which got America in the predicament in which she currently finds herself. And even while campaiging in New Hampshire and Iowa, she has stressed she would not vote to financially undercut the current troops. She has waffled as to a date-certain for departure of America's troops from the civil war we are participating in in Iraq.

Obama, on the other hand, has a plan which creates that date for March, 2008, which would effectively put it during the few weeks when decisions are being made by the Democratic voters across the Republic in early primaries. And, he has challenged the stable of other Democratic nominees to do the same - come up with a plan, a date, an answer. The merger of her experience and his idealism and absolute star-like qualities, should be a ticket without peer in 2008. It is one for which I hope to cast a ballot in November 2008.

The decision on who will be the Democratic nominee will be very close to have been decided this time next year. But given the large field of several very able candidates, it may be that for the first time in several decades, the Democrats will have a truly divided convention, and the role of convention delegates, local and state supporters and parties, and bottom line grassroots organization, will take on a new meaning, or truthfully reclad itself in the importance they once had in the past, in times such as when Abraham Lincoln was first nominated to his Party's ticket in a four-way race with Salmon Chase, Simon Cameron, and the expected winner, William Seward.

Wouldn't it be nice to have, as part of the 200th celebration of Lincoln's birth in February 2009, the leaders of the greatest nation on the planet to be a president originally a Republican from Illinois, and her vice president, also a native of the state from which Lincoln was elected as a state and federal legislator, and ultimately as President of the United States, all emanating from a log cabin on Sinking Creek branch of Nolin Creek near Hodgenville, Kentucky.


Heleringer's editorial can be found here:
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070212/OPINION04/702120381


Post Script

It has occurred to me several times during my college education, that were I to have lived in any era prior around 1964 and after 1888, chances are I would have been more of a liberal Republican, as is Giuliani, and as was presidents Ford, Eisenhower, Taft, Roosevelt, and McKinley. At least it has crossed my mind.