The Candidates
??????? I think former Governor and current Republican presidential candidate Jim Gilmore makes a good point to ABC News about the so-called GOP 11th Commandment - thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican - which we will need to keep in mind as this hotly contested 2008 Republican presidential primary unfolds. The commandment implicitly refers to personal attacks rather than substantive policy challenges and differences. After all, the person most closely affiliated with the 11th Commandment, Ronald Reagan, ran?against an incumbent Republican president in Gerald Ford in 1976 (of course on the sound?rationale that President Ford had not been elected to the office and was also damaged goods after pardoning President Richard Nixon).
By the way, as a matter of history, it was not Ronald Reagan who coined the phrase, though he was a big part of its genesis. When running for governor of California in 1966, conservative Reagan was in a tough Republican primary race with liberal San Francisco mayor George Christopher. Recalling the vitriol of the 1964 Republican presidential primary in the Golden State between Barry Goldwater (who Reagan supported) and Nelson Rockefeller (who Christopher supported), an aide to California Republican Party Chairman Dr. Gaylord Parkinson (whose name escapes me but can be found in Lou Cannon’s outstanding book, “Governor Reagan”) suggested the concept to his boss, who went around the state?preaching the new rule among Republicans for the 1966 gubernatorial primary.
April 16th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
All good and well, but Jim Gilmore is hardly the person to make this point. He has never been in the private sector (unless you count a law practice) and was a mediocre governor. He can rail against the top tier for not being conservative enough, but it only exposes him to attacks of hypocrisy and incompetence. It’s easy to be conservative and accomplish substantially nothing, as is Gilmore’s situation. It’s not so easy to be conservative and execute a purely conservative agenda, which Gilmore has not done. Gilmore’s attempts to boost his campaign by making this his central theme only makes him more pathetic than he already is.
April 16th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
In general, I definitely agree. If we extend the 11th commandment to include discussing policy differences, why bother with a primary?
Specifically, though, there’s not much behind Gilmore’s comments decrying the conservatism of the Big 3 other than pot shots from the peanut gallery. If he wanted to give specifics, that would be nice…otherwise he’s just jockying for a little elbow room without articulating policy.
April 16th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
I respectfully disagree with JF (in #1). Jim Gilmore is precisely the person who should make this point based on the grief he took from this past weekend’s Iowa Lincoln Day Dinner over his “Rudy McRomney” comments.
Gilmore is a competitor in this field and his relative standing should have nothing to do with him clarifying the rules, which was made even more germane by Mayor Giuliani’s opening remarks at the event where he pleaded for the GOP contenders to make nice. It was a noble try by the Mayor, but it won’t work. Look for the Mayor to get pounded if not ganged up on over his social positions when the first Republican presidential debate is held on May 3 at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library; it will be the quickest and easiest way for GOP candidates in the second and third tiers to score points and take voters away from the Mayor (though, yes, I will admit there is a risk of backlash in the current environment where some conservatives may be willing to overlook the Mayor’s social positions).
April 16th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
JF and Murphy:
As much as it pains me to do so, I fear I must concur completely in what each of you says about Jim. It would truly be a crying shame for a candidate from the peanut gallery, who has no chance of breaking one/two percent anywhere but in his own mind, to persist in tearing down those candidates who do have a shot at winning, whoever they may be. I can’t think right now how it might be phrased, but it would be nice if a version of the 11th Commandment could be formulated to cover this kind of situation.
April 16th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Luther, with all due respect, I think your position is naive in the extreme. Candidates, unfortunately, frequently talk more about what they are against than what they are for - for better or worse. George H.W. Bush won an entire presidential election against Michael Dukakis on that basis. And lower tier Republican candidates are going to be able to make a lot more hay out of criticizing the Mayor in the debates than touting their own positions, which are similar to around eight other candidates in the field.
I realize that the Rudy Giuliani supporters are going to decry efforts by GOP opponents to point out his liberal positions on social issues, but the 11th Commandment simply does not apply. And I think the Mayor would be wise to fight back, pointing out the attributes he has that the others in the field do not, rather than complaining about the game getting too rough.
April 16th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Republius and Luther, I’m not saying this because Gilmore has no chance of winning (although that is true as well). I’m saying it because Gilmore is a hypocrite of the worst kind in making this charge against the top tier. Gilmore himself may be more conservative, but we’ll never know, because he never proved that on the political battlefield. In using this tactic, he comes across as a political hack. Gingrich could plausibly make this attack because he engineered the Republican Revolution on the back of the Contract with America, which was a true conservative policy platform.
So Republius, Gilmore gets grief because he deserves the grief, and if he continues on this road, he will continue to get criticized until he is humiliated into withdrawing from the race or his masochistic ego forces him to destroy what is left of his reputation. Gilmore forgets that our party is a coalition, and that makes him an unsuitable national leader.
April 16th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
JF, you imply that the Mayor should not be subject to challenge over his liberal positions, such as public-funding of abortion, that are way out of the mainstream of Republican ideology. I disagree, and am convinced the rest of the GOP field will too, as we shall see on May 3.
If you are claiming that Governor Gilmore had better be for something rather than only against Giuliani, McCain, and Romney if he expects his candidacy to go anywhere, I agree. But my point is that Giuliani, McCain, and Romney are going to get attacked by the GOP competition for not being true conservatives, and invoking the 11th Commandment as a defense won’t work.
Hey, admittedly such hardball tactics bring the negatives of both the target and the purveyor down, with the purveryor figuring his will go down less. This is how the game is played. And the last thing Giuliani, McCain, or Romney should do is complain about the attacks and look like wimps.
April 16th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Republius, I did not imply that Guiliani should not be attacked. Let him be attacked, let him be attacked viciously. But the only ones who have enough credibility to attack him on his liberal positions are those who have publicly taken and successfully executed conservative positions, and Gilmore has not done this. Thus, Gilmore is not a credible critic of the top tier. As you saw in my post, I concede that Gingrich would be one such credible critic, and each of the top tier is more conservative on various issues and less on others, so let each of them attack each other’s weak points. For example, Brownback can attack Romney on social conservative issues and Romney can attack Brownback on immigration. But Guiliani can’t attack Brownback on immigration, because he’s even weaker in that area.
Gilmore is weak because he hasn’t achieved. That’s the underlying point. It’s not that Gilmore’s dismissal of the 11th Commandment that’s invalid, it’s the messenger that’s invalid.
April 16th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Of al the many things I have been called in my life, one of them has never been “naive in the extreme”. Indeed, the very formulation of my wish for a “nice new version” of the 11th Commandment indicates that I know it will never happen. Naive is hardly the proper description of wishful or wistful thinking. Also, JF, I didn’t mean to lose your point about Jim being a hypocrite; I took that in as well, and I don’t disagree. For me, however, the more important dynamic in Jim’s case is that, whatever he says, justified or unjustified, he is merely “lobbing them in from the peanut gallery”. This sort of thing helps no one except Jim, in his attempt to raise his own profile for a future State race, and the enemy. BTW, even Mitt Romney is included as an intended beneficiary in my aversion to low-level candidates taking pot-shots. In the final analysis, however, both the concept of free speech and robust campaigning prevents a party from trying to muzzle candidates like Jim. Nothing, however, prevents JF, and others like him, from calling them on what they do.
April 16th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Interpreting the “11th Amendment” to mean a ban only on personal attacks, rather than any attack at all, is somewhat more realistic, but if it is conceived in that manner, then why restrict it only to Republicans?
Why not restrain yourselves to substantive attacks only vs. Democrats as well?
April 16th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Tano, that is certainly the ideal. I was disgusted by the scheming and innuendo that destroyed McCain in SC in 2000. And the vitriol directed against HRC is also unwarranted. Unfortunately, partisans are driven by personal issues on both sides of the aisle. It’s human nature. The Left is not immune either, and I’m sure you’ve seen the garbage that has been coming out of Daily Kos, MyDD, MoveOn, Huffington Post, etc.