’08 Election

Posted on '08 Election, Conservatives, Republicans

newt gingrich: damaged goods?

newt gingrich cannot win the republican nomination for president. even though his supporters might wish that it were possible, it’s not. my concerns about newt are not related to his personal life. they are based on what i have seen while he was in congress –his leadership style and his inability to complete the reform job he started in 1994. i just don’t see him as a guy who would be able to run this country. no matter what newt gingrich says now about bipartisanship and working together to solve the nation’s problems, there are more than a few skeptics who question his new-found commitment to that ideal. that skepticism is well deserved. we didn’t see that very often in the gingrich congress, which always seemed to be at odds with the clinton administration and congressional democrats.

the main problem for newt is that most of the country is already biased against him. i don’t usually put much stock in polls, but if you look at his favorable / unfavorable ratings, the deficit there is around 20 points. whether that rating is fair or unfair, it is undeniably true that he has very high negatives with the average american. not many people can claim that they are unfamiliar with the virtues and the flaws of the former leader of the republican revolution. we know him well, although that knowledge is based on what he did in congress and not so much on his personal life. those who pay attention to politics on a regular basis know enough about newt gingrich to make the judgment on whether he has the ability to be president, and even though we like newt, we should realize that he lacks that ability.

anyone can be re-invented, except newt gingrich. we know what he is, and what he was. if adultery was a disqualifier for the presidency, then our candidate pool would be much smaller in each election year. this isn’t what makes newt gingrich the wrong man for the presidency. gingrich made his mea culpas to dobson and falwell, and whether he was sincere enough to change this pattern of behavior, that’s not for me to decide. you can argue that the details of newt’s past affairs are troubling, and that he has made some glaring mistakes in his personal life. those past mistakes were also well known to the press corps at the time of the lewinsky affair. because of this, gingrich was initially cautious about moving forward with impeachment based solely on clinton’s monica indiscretion. if you still want to accuse newt of hypocrisy because clinton ended up being impeached anyway, i guess you could.

in spite of all newt’s flaws, conservatives still like what he brings to the table as a potential presidential candidate. he’s got a stronger claim to conservatism than any other front-runner except for mccain. we also like big ideas and big-picture thinking. that’s another one of the strengths he has. he also has the appeal of not being giuliani, romney, or mccain… and don’t underrate that quality. even though he hasn’t “officially” entered the presidential race, he still could raise the money necessary in time to get himself into the top three and become a serious contender. i just don’t see it happening.

that said, newt is kidding himself if he thinks that he can blunt the criticism or short-circuit the full examination of past sins by entering the race late in the game. as dean barnett points out, thanks to the speed of information these days, it won’t take long for his entire record to be bludgeoned to death. in fact, it’s already happening at altercation, where a very thorough discussion of all those affairs in newt’s past is taking place right now. his record is not going to hold up under the media scrutiny. he’s a rock star now, but all that changes once he officially announces his candidacy.

tags: ,

2 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

john edwards: victim?

poor john edwards. everybody is picking on the aggressively photogenic presidential candidate. first ann coulter. now roger ailes. his strategy is rather curious, considering that his base would applaud any condemnation from two of the left’s main enemies. doesn’t he understand that whining isn’t a very attractive quality in a potential nominee? i can understand why he might want to take a swing at ann coulter. many on the right sometimes feel the same way about her. on the other hand, he’s allowing fundraising letters to be sent out that accuse the right of having this orchestrated plan to destroy him. that’s a crazy charge, and that kind of accusation didn’t work for hillary either. (remember the “vast right wing conspiracy” line?) ann coulter doesn’t speak for the bush administration or for vice president cheney. there’s no conspiracy here. why would the right need to destroy john edwards? he can self-destruct without our help.

i don’t understand why john edwards still thinks he needs to win the lefties over. he’s got them already. he gave them what they wanted when he decided not to fire his controversial bloggers. he admitted that he made a mistake on the war. he is even calling for cutting off the funding for the war. (that’s easy for him to propose…he doesn’t have to vote on it.) he said no to the proposed nevada presidential debate because fox news was airing it. is it possible that there’s not much else he can do to keep the lefties happy?

maybe this is all part of the grand plan. i don’t see it working. if he considers these personal attacks to be extremely rough treatment, he doesn’t want to know what will happen after hillary gets done with him. if i’m a average democrat who is seriously looking at edwards as a potential nominee, i would want him to take the high ground more often and stop whining about every single criticism he receives. what i have seen so far from edwards doesn’t show me that he’s a leader. it shows me that he’s a follower, and that he might just follow the netroots right over the cliff.

tags: john edwards

Posted on '08 Election, Republicans

george will takes the field

are conservatives being too harsh in their judgment of mitt romney, rudy giuliani, and john mccain? george will seems to think that we are.

Suppose someone seeking the presidential nomination had, as a governor, signed the largest tax increase in his state’s history and the nation’s most permissive abortion law. And by signing a law institutionalizing no-fault divorce, he had unwittingly but substantially advanced an idea central to the campaign for same-sex marriages — the minimalist understanding of marriage as merely a contract between consenting adults to be entered into or dissolved as it suits their happiness.

Question: Is it not likely that such a presidential aspirant would be derided by some of today’s fastidious conservatives? A sobering thought, that, because the attributes just described were those of Ronald Reagan.

tags: , ,

Posted on '08 Election, Republicans

mitt at CPAC

If we are to keep America strong, we must turn to the source of America’s strength. Liberals think that government is the source of our greatness. They’re wrong. The American people are the source of our strength: hard working, educated, skilled, family-oriented, willing to sacrifice for their family and their country, God-fearing, freedom-loving American people. They always have been the source of our strength and they always will be.

And so if we need to call on the strength of America, you don’t strengthen government, you strengthen the American people.

You strengthen the American people by letting them keep more of their own money, and not taxing their families at death.

You strengthen the American people by making sure that the voice of millions of voters trumps the voice of unelected judges.

You strengthen the American people by securing our borders and by insisting that the children who come legally to this land are taught in English.

And perhaps most importantly, you strengthen the American people when you strengthen the American family. Marriage must come before children because every child deserves a mother and a father.

This is not the time for us to shrink from conservative principles. It is time for us to stand in strength.

the rest of his speech was just as good. read it all at redstate.

reagan’s social conservatism was one of his strengths, but the reason why he is idolized so much by the right is his optimism and his ability to inspire and lead the country. of course conservatives want someone who agrees with us on social issues, gun rights, securing the borders, and winning the war against the jihadists. we can find a few of those. what we don’t have is inspiration and a vision going forward. that should be something our nominee should bring to the table. i think romney has this ability, judging from this speech. i’m not at all sure how he’s going to gain enough momentum to pass giuliani in the polls, no matter how many great speeches he gives from now on…but I hope he will.

tags: , ,

1 Comment Posted on '08 Election, Conservatives, Republicans

waiting for newt

i’m just wondering when the soft support for guiliani and mccain turns into something solid. let’s be perfectly clear about this. if a candidate polls in the high 20’s and low 30’s, that doesn’t demonstrate much confidence in the choice, does it? could it be that conservatives could be waiting for someone else…like for example…mr. gingrich? he’s getting 11-15% in the polls right now, and there is definitely interest out there in a gingrich candidacy. is he running? possibly. does he have a shot? if romney is still being taken seriously, then gingrich should be also. (i’m not ripping mitt…i think he’s got potential. but he’s got a limited window of opportunity here if these poll numbers don’t significantly improve.)

meanwhile the newt media blitz continues as scheduled. whatever you may think of the man personally, he’s a idea man. he’s got some great ideas and also some valid criticisms of the way things work in this country. what conservatives admire most about newt is that he’s our version of “truth to power”. he’s not afraid of questioning the way things have always been done in this country, including being honest in his evaluation of republican failures to live up to conservative values.

gingrich believes that there are many changes that we can and should make. he believes that many of the answers we seek in government can be found in the private sector. he’s right about that. the correct answer to the why question (why are we doing this) should never be “because that’s the way it’s always done”.

it’s not compassionate to stick seniors with an investment plan that doesn’t give them the best value, which is what social security does. it’s not the best use of resources to stick the government with another costly entitlement program like government-funded health care. it’s also unwise to pick presidential nominees by sound-bites, tv commercials, and completely scripted debates. that’s why newt’s cooper union lincoln-douglas style debates should be a format embraced by republicans and democrats who want to select the best nominee for their respective parties.

these lincoln-douglas debates are an outstanding idea for all the candidates to participate in. if we really want to get to the depth of all these issues we talk about in a surface fashion, why not make the presidential contenders show us how well they understand the issues we face as a country? i love the concept.

like i said, i don’t believe newt can win, but i like the fact he’s challenging republicans and democrats to go deep in the idea debate. that’s why i totally support whatever involvement he chooses to have in the next election.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Posted on '08 Election, Republicans

just.stop.it.

the mediots are at it again. they are taking on the monumental task of destroying mitt romney before he even gets a fair shot to make his case to the american people. the latest smear is a low blow even by MSM standards. they are now trying to associate governor romney with some relatives of his who just happened to be polygamists. he has only one wife himself, so why does this new information matter? he’s not a polygamist. if the media wants to destroy romney, there are more effective lines of attack than this. this attempt is quite pathetic and stupid.

there are many valid criticisms of romney and we all know what those are, but there’s no reason that he should be disqualified from being president just because he’s a Mormon. what are we so afraid of? that romney will mandate polygamy by executive order? i don’t buy into Mormonism, but mitt romney doesn’t look like a religious nut to me. i haven’t seen any proof that he would be one as president. there should be no religious litmus test. we should elect the best qualified candidate in the field, no matter what religion he or she happens to be. being a person of faith, or if we can be so bold as to say “someone who believes in God” might be helpful in a republican primary, but it doesn’t necessarily make you fit to be president. just ask any sane rational person who knows jimmy carter’s history.

when governor romney talks about “people of faith”, it sounds so new-age and abstract. i’m not sure this is the best way for him to deal with the questions about being a Mormon. i wish he would make this more about shared values between Christians and Mormons rather than trying to say that it doesn’t matter what kind of God you believe in. if you’re someone who believes in God just say so. tell us who you are. i don’t think that we really know who romney is and what he really believes. that’s a tall order for the campaign staff and for the candidate himself. conservatives in particular and republicans in general don’t know what to do with a candidate like romney. he doesn’t look or act like the kind of guy republicans usually elect. maybe that needs to change. we need to put some more thought into this process if we can’t find room for candidates like mitt romney.

i’m just wondering what the media sees in him that the rest of us are missing. he is running a distant 3rd or 4th (generally after newt, who hasn’t announced yet) in most polls. his name recognition is much lower than giuliani and mccain, and that also needs to go up dramatically for him to be a viable contender. the only press about him seems to be bad press, and there are never-ending questions about his evolving positions on social issues.

the media is being very helpful to mccain and guiliani in creating fake scandals to keep romney from gaining any momentum. they have more faith in his future status in this race than republicans do. why else would they coordinate this hit campaign against him? if this is the worst thing they can find in his past, governor romney will survive the media scrutiny just fine, and might even gain a few supporters in the process.

tags: ,

Posted on '08 Election, Conservatives, Republicans

interesting strategy

john mccain must feel that he still has something to prove to social conservatives. despite his consistently pro-life voting record, he doesn’t believe that we are convinced enough to give him our support. why else would he openly call for the repeal of roe v. wade? while i’m not sure that his previous statements on abortion are as strong as what he is saying now, i don’t think that mccain’s record gives us any indication that this is a massive position shift for him.

of course, if abortion was the only concern that conservatives had with mccain, then he would be in a great position to get the republican nomination. however, he has a few more hurdles to jump before he can gain their support.

there is his opposition to a federal marriage amendment, which many social conservatives support. in addition to that,  it may be hard for the religious right to forgive mccain for his harsh statements about them during the 2000 campaign. some of them have long memories, and they haven’t forgotten how mccain treated them. even though the influence of the religious right has diminished somewhat over the years, it still exists, and it wouldn’t hurt to have them in your corner when running for president.

then there’s the main disagreement most conservatives have with him — mccain-feingold. this legislation is an imperfect solution to an unsolvable problem. we can’t improve the process of electing candidates by restricting debate.

mccain doesn’t need to prove anything on abortion, but on some of these other issues, he’s got some fences to mend. he’s the closest thing the republicans have so far to a viable conservative candidate for ’08, but i remain undecided on the field. anything can happen in a year.

tags: , , 

 

1 Comment Posted on '08 Election, Republicans

some thoughts on the ’08 candidates

it’s understandable that social conservatives would have a few legitimate questions about mitt romney. we have all seen conflicting statements that he has made, and it is troubling to think that someone who wants to be president would change his mind on these very important issues purely for political advantage. that’s the indictment that has already been handed down for mr. romney, and many of us may have already convicted the guy.

knowing what I know about mitt romney, i still like him better than hillary, obama, or edwards. it goes back to what i said in a previous post trying to persuade conservatives to vote republican in the ’06 mid-terms — it’s better for us to have a party in power who agrees with us most of the time (which we had) than a democratic party who disagrees with our entire plate of issues.

social issues are important to conservatives, but there’s more to supporting republicans than abortion and gay marriage. there’s also fiscal concerns with taxes and reducing spending, as well as judicial nominations, gun rights, and the growing terrorist threat we face as a nation. even though we may disagree with a candidate’s views on social issues, we still take other factors into account when picking a nominee.

for me, it’s about finding a president (no matter what party he/she happens to be) who scares the hell out of rogue states, bad actors like kim jong il and ahmadinejad, and all other terrorists. i haven’t seen a democrat who gives me that impression. i’m still deciding about romney, giuliani, and mccain.

i would love to find a viable presidential candidate who has always agreed with social conservatives, but i don’t see any of those out there. my ideal candidate would also be a communicator-in-chief, someone who could sell his policies to the american people and rally their support. that’s the kind of president i would like to have, and that’s where i think president bush has really struggled at times. it would also be nice if this person believed in shrinking government and permanent tax cuts. oh yeah…and appointing supreme court judges like scalia and roberts.

why is it that giuliani gets a free pass on his views on gay rights, abortion, and gun control, but every single thing romney ever said or did is sliced up six ways from sunday? if we can forgive giuliani for all these things, we can certainly make allowances for romney.

i don’t know whether romney’s new positions are borne out of political calculation or whether he had a geniune change of heart on all these issues. but if social conservatives can’t accept romney, they also have to reject giuliani, who has been consistent in supporting both abortion and gay marriage.

social conservatives have never gotten everything they want, even with a republican president and a republican-controlled congress. at some point, we have to accept that reality and settle for getting someone who will go along with most of what we believe.

tags: , ,

3 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Republicans

looking for mr. right

it’s a difficult search in real life, but it’s even harder in politics. i don’t know how many more stories i will have to read about how conservatives are unhappy with all the current frontrunners for the republican presidential nomination. they know the kind of candidate they want, and they just don’t see that ONE TRUE CONSERVATIVE in the race right now who is capable of beating the democratic nominee (whoever that is). i admit to being disappointed in the current field, but maybe conservatives will just have to settle for romney, giuliani, or mccain. maybe there won’t be a late entrant on a white horse who will fulfill all requirements of the social and the fiscal conservatives this time. there’s nothing wrong with having high standards and never compromising those standards, but in the political world, we don’t always get everything we want in a candidate.

in supporting romney, giuliani, or mccain, we have to accept that they aren’t really reagan conservatives, and that this is not necessarily a bad thing. it makes sense that they would want to embrace the social conservatives and the religious right, because those are still influential groups in the republican party. there is more to conservatism than “values issues”, although those issues are very important.

how should we define conservatism? in its hard-core form, i suppose that the definition would be a combination of the social (pro-life, pro-gun, opposition to gay marriage) and fiscal policies (low taxes, limited government, and significantly lower federal spending). it would also include a no-tolerance policy for terrorists, as well as an affinity for judges who have an originalist view of the U.S. constitution. (did i miss anything in this definition?)

i’m not sure that there are many conservatives out there like that who would be willing to run for public office. most of them are too smart to run and put themselves through that grinder, and i don’t blame them for that choice, but that’s why we are where we are.it would be hard to make the case that any of the current candidates will be exactly what we want, and on some issues, it will be difficult to overlook past history. that’s ok. take the bad with the good, and don’t give up on this field of candidates just yet.

i have a few ideas for my perfect presidential candidate (which i may or may not share in a future post), but i want to know what you think. if you could elect anybody as President of the United States, who would it be…and why?

tags: , ,

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats

the government owes you nothing

where in the world did we get the idea that being a citizen of the united states means that we are entitled to government benefits? it must have come from FDR, who was the founder of this modern welfare state. perhaps we can blame LBJ’s Great Society. at this point, it doesn’t matter who created this mess of entitlements. we must fix it before our country suffers the fate of old Europe. at some point, European governments will be unable to finance all of the entitlements they provide.

we don’t have a right to government-paid health care, retirement, or the total financing of our pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. many Americans would disagree with me on this, but that’s probably because we have been conditioned to accept government largesse without considering what it costs to receive all of these government benefits. social security is a good example of this. I would like to bet that before social security was introduced, it never occurred to people that the government would finance their retirement.

we have programs in place like medicare, medicaid, and social security that take huge chunks of the federal budget every year, and costs continue to rise. yet no politician has the courage to take on the unpopular cause of reforming these programs or taking steps to reduce the costs of these entitlements. it needs to be done. it needs to be done soon.

with all that we know about the ineffectiveness and inefficiency of government programs and services (think DMV), how can we, in good conscience, propose that the government take on yet another wildly expensive entitlement program like universal health care? like many other liberal proposals, it is based on a feel-good philosophy. most Americans probably do believe that they have a right to health care and that it should be guaranteed to every American. it’s a feel-good position. most of us want to be seen as caring and compassionate and willing to help out our fellow citizens. that’s a wonderful platitude that means absolutely nothing concrete. the pollsters ask the wrong question. sure it would be great for everyone to have health care, but i’m not convinced that allowing the government to fund it is the best solution we can come up with to achieve that goal. it won’t reduce costs, and increased government regulation will add to the workload on medical professionals, taking away from time spent with patients.

services that are publicly funded generally don’t meet our expectations. the argument that there’s no opposition to public funding of education, and that health care shouldn’t be treated any differently is just silly. don’t we want better decisions to be made in health care than are being made in public education? are we satisfied with the results of our public education system? you don’t really need me to answer that, do you?

the important thing to remember here is that competition generally produces a better product. under some single-payer health care systems, such as Canada’s, private insurers are prohibited from offering duplicate services to the public system, and are only allowed to provide services that fill gaps in the national health coverage. there are still coverage gaps under this system. full coverage under any system is an unrealistic goal, but that’s what its proponents seem to be promising.

according to this report(pdf), in 2001, Canada spent 9.3% of its GDP(gross domestic product) on health care, which is higher than the average 8% spent by most industrialized countries. yet Canadians are still unhappy with the service they are receiving. some even are in favor of MORE PRIVATIZATION, not less. the report also concluded that the system had financing problems.

there is another legitimate concern with government-run health care, one that is rarely talked about. there have already been documented incidents in the Medicare system where unauthorized personnel have gotten access to patient records. for those who are concerned about privacy rights in other areas, like phone conversations, and fear that the government knows too much about your personal affairs, wouldn’t this concern you?

i have looked at the arguments pro and con for universal health coverage, and I am convinced that we can make reforms that would get us closer to full coverage without allowing total government control of health care. I am uncomfortable with government mandates on individuals and on businesses, even on such an important issue as health care, which is why I cannot support John Edwards’ health care plan. my intention is to cover edwards’ plan in more detail in a future post, so I won’t get into the details right now. (if you wish to look it over, here’s the link to the pdf.)

for more information on the subject, check out some of these links:
The Case for Universal Health Care (pdf)
The NHS: a dysfunctional insurer
universal health care – answers.com
single payer health care – answers.com

tags: , , ,