How much do you care, just in the abstract, about past support for some of the now-forbidden issue positions from presidential candidates? I'm talking mainly here about climate change and health care, issues where the party in general has changed its positions -- not something like abortion. It's pretty clear that most candidates who have been around more than a couple years will have some history of supporting things that the party now finds unacceptable...do you care?
Almost not at all. It would be one thing if the candidate was loud and proud about his/her positions at the time and then did a 180 for political expediency (ahem, Mitt).
ReplyDeleteBut Pawlenty basically going along to get along re. a carbon tax or some such back in 2007, or Huntsman taking an intermediate position on gay marriage by supporting civil unions...utterly irrelevant.
The 2012 race won't turn on such trifles -- it's going to be about demonstrable competence, not shooting oneself in the foot on the campaign trail, offering a vision for America's future abroad and at home, and most importantly, structural stuff such as the unemployment rate, the price of gas, and Obama's approval ratings.