The Republican Party has lost its center, its soul. There’s really no doubt of that. They’ve had strong moral and spiritual centers and leaders in the past, though most of us progressives may have argued with whether those leaders were right. Reagan with his Morning in America was one strong spiritual leader for the Republicans, and Newt Gingrich with his Contract with America was another. Heck, Dubya, leading the party away from the moral decay the Republicans felt coming from the Clinton White House can even be seen to be a strong spiritual leader for the Republicans, until he actually had to lead, that is, and until the moral decay and dozens of Republican sex scandals forced them off of the moral high ground. No, there’s few candidates for a spiritual leader, a man of ideas who can lead the Republicans. They’ve lost Mr. Right, and I’m not sure they’re actually looking for him anymore. But I just might try to find out who the Soul of Republican conservatism is in a moment.

First, though, one more comment about the extreme condition the Republican Party finds itself in, when even Larry Hunter, one of the architects of that Contract With America, has something like this to say about the Republicans. From Bruce Bartlett at The New Republic:

And, what’s more important, he [Larry Hunter] views the Republican Party as a “dead, rotting carcass with a few decrepit old leaders stumbling around like zombies in a horror version of Weekend at Bernie’s, handcuffed to a corpse.” Unless the Republican Party is thoroughly purged of its current leadership, Hunter fears that it “will pollute the political environment to toxic levels and create an epidemic that could damage the country for generations to come.”

I’m not sure even Rude Pundit can match Republican Larry Hunter for such a scathing review of the state of the Republican Party. I tried, but I couldn’t come close to that marvelous Weekend at Bernie’s reference.

OK, ok, who are the candidates to lead the Republican Party, to stand for the values that they claim to represent? Or maybe we should nominate a leader for the Republicans who represents what their party has become? My goodness, if you combined those two ideas you’d end up with a transvestite who spends money like a Yale Cheerleader, who declares war and then shoots not only his friend but destroys many of the civil rights our country was founded on. But I digress.

Let’s agree that ideally Republicans want low taxes, efficient government, market solutions to economic problems, judicious and strong military policy, and to protect the family from roving gangs of abortionists and gay couples. Oh, I know all of you are begging, just on the edge of your seats doing a Horshack waiting to be called on to tell us all how miserably the Republicans have violated what they claim to be their own principles. Still, I would like to present a few folks who Republicans claim they look up to, and measure them by how they fit these former Republican principles. Hey, it might be instructive. Certainly if Republicans themselves could see how absolutely zero of their leaders comes anywhere close to living up to supposed Republican principles they might start a revolution, or maybe become Obamacans or something.

Here’s a few Republicans who, in the long run, do not match up as a man who can spiritually lead the Republican Party, for, alas, they all fail at measuring up to the principles Republicans claim to represent. But let’s go through the list anyway.

George W. Bush. He hits big on the protecting family thing, but he’s been fiscally irresponsible in his Presidency. No, he is the poster child for deficits and history will see him as so. When parents talk to their children in the future about spending money wisely they will say, “don’t be like that bad George Bush — he’s the reason you’re paying for the biggest debt in history.” Bush has also not been judicious in his use of the military, just ask the guys at votevets.org. And, as to efficient government, can you say. . . . “Katrina?” Heck of a job, Dubya!

John McCain. He supports extending, surging, accelerating. . . he wants to repeat the Bush military debacles. There’s no doubt about that, is there. Indeed, McCain wants to put his notions of accelerating the reckless Bush military policy as the centerpiece of his campaign. I’m guessing you can’t have an efficient government run by someone so stupid as to campaign on that Iraq policy, but what do I know? Still, McCain’s got the family thing down, except for abandoning his first wife, then marrying an heiress 20 years his junior, then arguing with her and calling her a “c*nt.” And I’d say the McCain history of opposing his party on issues such as immigration means he was disqualified anyway, and all those Republicans who won’t even endorse McCain certainly disqualifies him from speaking for the Republican soul.

Ronald Reagan. Sure, Reagan may be the soul of the Republican Party still, even though he was diagnosed with Alzheimers 14 years ago, and eventually succombed to the condition in 2004. But is Reagan, with his divorces, the Iran Contra scandal, and such, really a true candidate to represent the soul of the Republican Party? Sure, every Republican candidate touts that he loves Reagan best, but what kind of fiction is that, given how so many of them have succombed to indictments and the Abramoff scandal, among numerous other scandals that have plagued the Republican Party over the last several years? (Yes, Bush is tainted by Abramoff, as is John McCain.)

Rush Limbaugh. Are you freaking kidding? The man is a drug abuser! Still, if we are talking about a man who reflects the soul of those Republicans who don’t give a flying fuck about the soul of their party, Rush Limbaugh might be a good candidate to represent that soul.

Ron Paul. This is interesting. Ron Paul is running a competing convention in Minneapolis during the Republican convention. I’m thinking that convention will host more people who understand the soul of Republican conservative values than the one the GOP will run. Paul is fiscally conservative, a fierce defender of individual rights, and his policy as far as how our country uses the military is certainly judicious. Maybe too much so. But there’s nobody who can claim that Paul doesn’t defend the family, though he does not demonize good American citizens who are pro-choice and who are gay or lesbian. Perhaps that’s Ron Paul’s deficit when he is trying to represent the soul of the Republican party, that he can’t bring himself to do the demonizing thing.

Hey, I’m tired of this exercise. I’m thinking we can find nobody who can adequately stand for the soul of the Republican Party as they claim that soul is represented. Perhaps I’ve stumbled upon the biggest problem they’ve got here. Still, I’m willing to see nominations for such a man (never a woman if we’re talking a Republican, and rarely a minority) to represent them. Come on folks, give us a few nominees.