go right not left

Believe it or not, there is a Republican left with some credibility on fighting wasteful spending by our Congress — Senator Tom Coburn.  Senator Coburn has been consistent in this area, but unfortunately many of his colleagues have refused to follow his lead, and that of other senators like SC’s Jim DeMint.  There aren’t enough fiscal conservatives in Congress, and we have seen the negative results when  Democrats and Republicans agree to waste our money.  Now there are many so-called wise men, telling the Republicans that we are losing because we aren’t compassionate enough, or that we need to abandon the ideal of limited government completely to gain the favor of those independents and moderates.  Even people who started out believing that government is the problem have changed their minds to be more tolerant of activist government — including Newt Gingrich.   It is an almost irresistible proposal — that there can be a way to merge the activist government policies of the left with the free-market impulses of the right.   I’m not convinced that this is the case, or if it is possible, that Newt has come up with the right balance.

Here’s a sample of what Senator Coburn had to say:

As congressional Republicans contemplate the prospect of an electoral disaster this November, much is being written about the supposed soul-searching in the Republican Party. A more accurate description of our state is paralysis and denial.

Many Republicans are waiting for a consultant or party elder to come down from the mountain and, in Moses-like fashion, deliver an agenda and talking points on stone tablets. But the burning bush, so to speak, is delivering a blindingly simple message: Behave like Republicans.

Unfortunately, too many in our party are not yet ready to return to the path of limited government. Instead, we are being told our message must be deficient because, after all, we should be winning in certain areas just by being Republicans. Yet being a Republican isn’t good enough anymore. Voters are tired of buying a GOP package and finding a big-government liberal agenda inside. What we need is not new advertising, but truth in advertising.

Truth in advertising.  That “compassionate conservatism” is a euphemism for wasting our money on more worthy causes than the stuff the Democrats want to waste our money on.  That we need to get back to what Republicans said we believed about reducing earmarks and government bloat.  That we should be principled enough to hold our fellow Republicans accountable when they forget what kind of message got them where they are today.  Like Senator Coburn said, “spending other people’s money isn’t compassionate”.  There’s nothing wrong with heartless conservatism when it eliminates excuses for out of control spending and massive pork projects.

This is where Republicans have gone wrong. The voters didn’t reject conservatism, they rejected dishonesty.  Republicans promoted one agenda and delivered something different.  The scandals sure didn’t help us, but at the end of the day those who stayed home in 2006 and those who voted for Democrats sent the same message.  Republicans didn’t deliver what they promised, and they deserved to lose.  Congressional Republicans still haven’t gotten the message.  They are blaming their losses on the stubborn conservatives who refuse to abandon principle to win elections.  Some of our “leaders” have suggested that we need to expand our coalition to include independents and moderates, and that we should do this by watering down our governing philosophy so that those people agree with us. As long they keep following that dimwitted advice, Republicans will keep losing elections.

this is not good

House Republicans are voting in favor of entitlements and earmarks, and not even trying to resist all these new spending proposals by Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats.  So says Bob Novak.  Maybe it’s fair to blame the Republican leadership for this, although I’m not sure how much they can do, because it’s clear that the fiscal conservatives are outnumbered.  That’s one reason why the Republican brand will remain damaged through the November election.  We are acting no different from the Democrats on this, although I suppose that the few Republicans opposing all this new spending should be given some credit.  Of course they never had a fiscal conservative in the White House to begin with, so that makes the fight against spending even more difficult.

conservative cred

My favorite senator Jim DeMint has it, and he’s willing to help out John McCain. Senator DeMint is the kind of conservative that McCain should pick for VP. We need DeMint where he is now, but someone like him would be awesome as second in line to McCain.

Here he is defending McCain’s health care plan.

Why not nationalize health care and allow the government to control the entire system? Because as Americans we believe in the individual and in freedom.

Since the dawn of our nation, Americans have resisted government control over their daily lives. Unlike Europeans who have mortgaged their futures in the name of nationalized health care, we have an innate distrust of big government schemes. We have seen time and time again that the greatness of our nation comes from its people, not from the government. Perhaps most importantly, we understand, as Thomas Jefferson understood, that “Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have.” Jefferson went on to explain that “the course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.”

The history that Jefferson observed then is the same that we do today. Those principles still hold true, and as we consider the health care crisis we face today we would do well as Americans to bear these thoughts in mind.

Do we want a solution that offers American more freedom, more choice and more competition? Or do we forsake our principles and follow the path of the Europeans, which has resulted in rationed health care, less choice, less freedom and future fiscal ruin?

I’m much more confident that Senator DeMint understands the way conservatism is supposed to work when applied to the federal bureaucracy than I am in McCain’s grasp of the concept. But his endorsement of McCain’s health care plan goes a long way with me, and I’m sure, with many of my fellow conservatives.

leave mitt alone

Some social conservatives can’t accept victory. Mitt Romney will not be our next President. They got what they wanted. They won. Seems to me they can’t take yes for an answer. Thanks to their support of anyone but Romney, we are now stuck with McCain. Now a small vocal group of malcontents is making threats not to support McCain if he picks Romney as VP. They even have printed an ad (see PDF here). First of all, McCain knows that he got this far without their support, so what makes them think they have any influence on him now?  There’s also no guarantee this group wouldn’t sit the election out no matter what McCain does with Romney.

This is incredibly stupid on their part.  There’s no need to make threats about it, because McCain wouldn’t pick Romney anyway.  In some ways, Romney would be a smart choice.  He does shore up a McCain weakness as far as knowing something about the economy, so it does make sense in these economic times to take that aspect into consideration.  He would certainly be a desirable choice over Governor Crist, Governor Pawlenty, and McCain’s BFF Lindsey Graham.  Any of these guys more closely mirror McCain’s positions on the issues than Romney does.  But as much as I think Romney would make a fine VP, and even President someday,  now is not the time, and McCain has some better choices if he really cares what social conservatives want (that’s doubtful).

There are many other ways for Romney to raise his 2012 or 2016 profile without tying himself to a possible McCain presidency.  Of course, McCain’s VP may be the Republicans’ 2012 nominee, but I think Romney would be a strong contender without that built-in advantage.   He will have 4 to 8 years after the 2008 election to build up his conservative credentials.  I know that there are fellow Mitt fans out there who have complete faith in the guy, and who may find it unfair that he still has to prove himself to social conservatives, but we have to acknowledge that there are misconceptions out there that cause people not to trust him.  He has the ability to change this.  He just needs time.  Being McCain’s VP isn’t the right move for Mitt Romney, and with the other options McCain has, it’s not the right move for McCain either.

mark sanford is now on the record

sanford.jpg

Mark Sanford, also known as the libertarian/conservative governor of South Carolina, tells conservatives why we should support John McCain in November and work to get him elected. The article is notable in what it doesn’t say. Sanford, like other South Carolina conservatives, has serious problems with McCain’s failed immigration plan, and shares most of the other concerns we have with John McCain — but he does not mention any of those concerns here.  Even though he didn’t endorse anyone when it could have mattered, I suspect Gov. Sanford was secretly backing someone other than McCain.  He’s doing what he feels he should do to support the Republican nominee, but this doesn’t look like someone who wants to be McCain’s VP.

Of course, I would lose much respect for Sanford if he started acting like Lindsey Graham around McCain.  But it is refreshing that even in his request for conservatives to support McCain, he doesn’t try to convince us that all the disagreements we have with him aren’t all that serious. I think Governor Sanford would be an excellent choice by McCain for VP. I know he’s not well-known nationally, but there’s no question conservatives can trust this guy to follow conservative principles because he’s done that as governor of SC. And by the way, I can’t believe McCain would be stupid enough to pick his BFF (Graham) for VP. If it’s not Sanford, I hope McCain’s VP pick is someone conservatives can trust, not a moderate Republican.

Read Governor Sanford’s argument for yourself here.  (It’s all about the fiscal conservatism of John McCain compared to Hillary and Barack’s many new spending proposals and the very real possibility of higher taxes to fund those proposals.) With the economy the way it is, it wouldn’t hurt to have a President committed to reducing spending, and that wouldn’t be either of the Democrats.

fred is done

Kathryn Lopez writes the obit:

What his campaign may have lacked in organizational luster and ambition it made up for in authenticity and charm. You knew his greatest dream in life wasn’t to be president. You knew he’d be happy living life with his family, advising those who wanted his opinion and expertise, talking federalism with Beltway friends on weekends. When he was on Meet the Press a while back, Claremont’s Seth Leibsohn said, admiringly, “Fred came off like his hour there was not the most important thing he had to do that day.” There’s something attractive about that. And that it won’t get you elected president is today’s reality, it’s a reality to reflect on.

For myself and other former Fredheads, this authenticity is something McCain doesn’t have. Huckabee doesn’t have it either, once you start digging into his Arkansas record and finding out that this Baptist minister-turned Arkansas governor was not the guy he is now. Mitt Romney suffers the most from his perceived lack of authenticity, and I think that he struggles when he tries to be someone he is not. This is something he is improving on throughout the primary process, and I am encouraged about his future prospects because he is emphasizing his strengths and his resume instead of trying to be the most conservative guy in the field. (Although you could argue that this has changed now that Fred is out…)

I liked Fred Thompson because he was the closest thing we were going to get to someone who agreed with us on all the issues we cared about. He was a consistent conservative, even though he did support campaign finance reform in the past. He was never going to be another Reagan, and we need to quit looking for one. But what he did have is the willingness to fight for conservative principles, and the conviction to make us believe that he was one of us and had always been one of us. He wasn’t afraid to challenge the media on their stupidity, and to challenge Michael Moore on his flawed view of health care. Conservatives find that a very attractive quality in a candidate.

The Fred fascination was only partly about Fred himself. Conservatives feel that the Republican party establishment has shifted to the left, as far as being more accepting of illegal immigration and bigger government/reckless spending. We are trying to push back against the direction Washington Republicans want to take this party, and Fred was somebody who I thought would do that. It was more than just saying all the right things. Any candidate can do that. But Fred was the most believable based on his past record.

Tags: ,

thanks fred

Huckabee and his people are blaming Fred Thompson for their second-place finish in South Carolina.

Anyone else notice that we aren’t seeing much of that smiley positive Huck lately? Fred took quite a few votes from Huck, and I’m proud to say that I contributed to that effort. It wasn’t enough votes to get into the top two, so that was probably Fred’s last stand in this race. But if all he did was switch the focus back to conservative principles (and derail Huck), it was more than enough. I don’t regret voting for Fred, and I don’t think anyone else does either. I don’t do strategy votes. I vote for the person who I believe would be a good representative of our party and of conservative principles when facing off against the Democrats in November.

I don’t care that Fred being in the race may have helped McCain. That wasn’t intentional on my part (or on Fred’s). There are many good reasons why I couldn’t vote for McCain, no matter what his numbers were against the Democrats. I also don’t like the idea of independents and moderates choosing the Republican nominee. Those two groups are giving McCain an unfair advantage in a primary process that should ensure that the nominee is picked by the majority of the REPUBLICAN party. I hope that’s the way it turns out in the end.

I know that the delegate count is the all-important number, but to call McCain’s 3 point victory over Huckabee a sign that he’s now the frontrunner — forget it. He got 33% of the vote here. Huckabee got 30%. That means quite a few people voted against those two. Unfortunately, it wasn’t enough to keep McCain from winning. The problem is that the anti-McCain vote was divided between Huck, Romney, and Fred. Fred was unable to sell himself as THE alternative, and as long as conservatives couldn’t decide on one guy to represent them, this is the result we get.

Please, fellow conservatives, do not blame us for this result. We did all we could to stop it. Now it’s up to the other states to find us an acceptable nominee.

Tags: , , , ,

right said fred

gc sign2.jpeg

It’s real people. Fred is here in South Carolina. He had an overflow crowd of very enthusiastic FredHeads today at the local Golden Corral, and there are similar reports of this all across the state. Unfortunately, not many of us actually heard his speech. This sort of dampened the mood, but I’m not sure that those who came hadn’t already made up their minds for Fred. There were some technical issues with the microphones, and I heard that every time they tried to turn it up, it was interfering with the media’s cameras and mics. So…another thing to blame the media for. 🙂 What the people heard, they really liked. Fred knows the issues of importance to SC, and he didn’t hesitate to hit on those themes. I’m feeling very confident in the ability of the local folks to understand which candidates are the best fit for our state, and to ultimately reject McCain and Huckabee. More on that later.

fred with the press2.jpeg

An NRO reader writes in to the Corner:

My son and I just returned from the Fred lunchtime rally at the Golden Corral Buffet & Grill in Rock Hill, SC. His bus rolled in at noon from Spartanburg where he had already done a rally and some national TV. The crowd was large and enthusiastic. A York County Republican official told me they estimated there were far more than 500 people there. Unfortunately the sound system would have been better for a group of 100— it was difficult to hear him from very far back. Those who could hear were very pumped up and loud as he hit his key points. When he was through speaking he was mobbed for a long time by fans and signed autographs on FRED08 signs, DVD’s of “Hunt for Red October”, and anything else people asked him to sign. Fred was gracious and my son pointed out on the way home that he sure didn’t look or act like a guy who doesn’t enjoy campaigning. He finally made it back out to the motor coach and headed for our county seat, York, SC for another event before heading to Columbia for a 6PM rally. He’s campaigning hard here in SC and had a very enthusiastic, large crowd at lunchtime in Rock Hill.

After Fred left, I went back to get something to eat. There were some Fred fans still hanging around at that point, and I talked with one of the guys at length about his impressions of the Republican field. He said something interesting that completely goes against the MSM narrative. About McCain, he said that he’s the kind of guy who will stick his finger to the wind to decide what to do next. We need a President ready to make tough decisions, and he didn’t see McCain as that kind of guy. Before this conversation, I bought into that conventional wisdom of the tough, decisive McCain who would defy the odds and earn the forgiveness of South Carolina conservatives.

I then asked about Huckabee and Romney. He said that Huckabee’s Arkansas record did not do much to recommend him as a Presidential candidate. He didn’t trust Huck, and good for him. He also said that he thought that Romney was more liberal than Rudy Giuliani. That’s something I hadn’t heard before, but it confirms my suspicion that not everyone has bought into the Romney conservative conversion. I’m not sure how representative this man’s view is, but I don’t think this is a unique view.

Like I said before, the local folks are plugged in and well-informed on the issues and the candidates. I am confident they will vote to reject McCain and Huckabee, and maybe even vote for Fred. But I’m making no predictions about the rest of the state. Not every Republican here is a conservative.

Tags: ,

bush the second

There’s another compassionate conservative who wants to claim the title of the new and improved version of George W. Bush — Mike Huckabee. Huckabee has those valuable social conservative credentials. He’s pro-life, pro-gun, pro-family. He’s also very personable. People like him…and why not? What’s not to like about a Southern Baptist minister with a gift for gab and enough folksy sayings to fill a daily calendar? I have no doubt that he would put a high priority on originalist SCOTUS picks and that he would push for a Federal Marriage Amendment. Unfortunately, those with the view of government’s role in our lives that Dubya and Mike Huckabee share can’t possibly commit to responsible spending or small government. The reason I don’t trust Huckabee on spending is not just because the Club for Growth and CATO panned his Arkansas record.

Jennifer Rubin(NRO)(emphasis mine):

He was not the poster child for smaller government. During his tenure, the number of state government workers in Arkansas increased over 20 percent. Under Governor Huckabee’s watch, state spending increased a whopping 65.3 percent from 1996 to 2004, three times the rate of inflation, and the state’s general obligation debt shot up by almost $1 billion. As Grover Norquist quipped, “We like chubby governors and skinny budgets. Not the other way around.” The massive increase in government spending is due in part to the number of new health programs and expansion of existing ones, including ARKids First, a state program to provide health coverage for 70,000 Arkansas children. Spending on ARKids alone increased 69 percent over a five-year period. Huckabee says it is worth it. He proudly states: “ARKids First is without a doubt, the program I am most proud of. This provides health insurance to tens of thousands of children who didn’t have access to health care before. Instead of a total government approach, this requires deductibles and copays and therefore some personal responsibility. Children can’t learn if they are sitting in class with a toothache, fever, or they can’t see the chalkboard.”

Those are some scary numbers for fiscal conservatives who have been disappointed in President Bush’s recklessness on government spending. Bush seems to be getting the message too late, but at least he’s going in the right direction now. With Huckabee, you don’t really know which Huckabee you will get as President — the one who cut taxes and who was named a “friend of the taxpayer” in his first term, or the one who massively increased government spending and the number of state workers. That’s something to think when trying to decide whether Huckabee is the right guy to put in charge of the bloated federal bureaucracy we already have in D.C.

The similarities with Bush don’t stop with spending. Huckabee is also sympathetic to illegal immigration, just like our President. He is saying all the right things about securing the borders, no amnesty, etc…but when he defends giving in-state college tuition to illegals with good grades, that’s something that might raise a few eyebrows with those opposed to any kind of benefits for non-citizens, even if it was the parent, not the student, who broke the law. He says that his proposal asked those students to apply and become citizens in order to get the tuition reduction, but it’s not clear whether this was a requirement or simply a request. I’m not saying that any of the other presidential candidates are much more solid on illegal immigration. I’m just surprised that so many social conservatives who also care about illegal immigration choose to gloss over Huck’s conflicting views on the subject.

If you liked the Bush presidency, then Huckabee’s your guy. It’s all a question of priorities, I guess, because there isn’t one candidate out there who can make us all happy.

Tags: , , ,

second look

Let me be clear about this: I don’t see John McCain rebounding enough in the presidential race to knock off Romney or Giuliani. He has burned quite enough bridges to make more than a few enemies along the political road. His dogged stubbornness to defend stupid policy like campaign-finance reform and that misguided illegal immigration bill is the main objection conservatives have with him. He is also seen by some as arrogant because of this. Not exactly the perfect Republican messenger.

That’s the case against him.  Let me attempt to make the case for him.

McCain is a bona fide fiscal conservative.  If we want someone who has always been committed to reducing government spending, John McCain fits that description. When he calls for spending cuts, he has credibility because he’s done it many times and he has fought pork projects every time they pop up in a bill. I think McCain is being overlooked as a small-government guy because of our focus on the more outspoken Ron Paul and Rudy incessantly talking about his NY tax cuts.

McCain is a bona fide social conservative, if by that you mean pro-life.  He’s always been pro-life, no conversions, no fudging it, nothing like that.  Sure he’s not totally with us on gay marriage, but his overall record in the Senate shows that, as he says, he is a reliable conservative vote on the family issues that count to the social conservatives.

McCain has solid military experience.  He served in Vietnam.  So did John Kerry (if you hadn’t heard).  If that qualification was good enough for Senator Kerry, why wouldn’t it be for John McCain?  He can speak with authority on the military and on national security matters, because he knows what needs to be done to keep our military strong and to respond to future threats against our country.  If national security and the war on terrorism is the main concern of the base, why would you consider this a strength of Giuliani and leave McCain out of that conversation?

Giuliani isn’t the only one who can claim that he has taken unpopular positions, and never wavered from them.  McCain can also make this claim.  We may not like some of McCain’s policies and proposals (campaign finance and illegal immigration), but I believe that he’s closer to everything we want in a candidate than Rudy Giuliani is. If we are trying to elevate Huckabee or Thompson, or to a lesser degree Romney, on the basis that they are currently pro-life (and Rudy is not), then we should take a second look at John McCain.  He brings the pro-life record, fiscal conservatism, and a solid military background as just a few pieces of his presidential resume, and it’s a resume that we should take a closer look at before rejecting him as a Republican nominee.

As I said, I think the die has already been cast against McCain, but we should give him another look before we settle for Rudy Giuliani.

Tags: , , ,