Conservatives

Posted on '08 Election, Conservatives, Republicans

expand the message

The Economist, whose writers and editors mostly live in one of Europe’s many welfare states (that would be the UK), lectures our presidential candidates on how to keep businesspeople interested by talking about smaller government. They blame the socons for distracting the Republicans from talking about taxes, trade, and healthcare to talk about God, guns, and gays. I have an answer for the Economist: none of these Republicans (except possibly for Rudy and Ron Paul) actually believe in small government. They pander their little hearts out, because they know it’s a popular message for fiscal conservatives — making government smaller, and taking power away from government. Don’t think for a second that most of these candidates believe there should be less government. This is especially true of candidates like Mike Huckabee, a guy who is popular with socons and libs alike, who wants to use the power of the federal government to impose the Arkansan nanny-state on the federal level. I’m glad he lost weight, but it should not be the federal government’s job to make you stop smoking, eating fast food, or to make more healthy choices in your life.

There’s nothing wrong with talking about issues that resonate with the many social conservatives in the Republican base, but I think that the Republican party needs to broaden its message. The one thing that attracted me initially to the Romney campaign was that he was the only guy talking about education and health care, normally issues co-opted by Democrats. The Republican party should be a party that remains true to its values on “God, guns, and gays”, but we shouldn’t allow the only ideas on education, taxes, trade, health care, and poverty to come from the Democrats. The Democrats had 40 years to fix education and health care, and they still promise to fix them when their candidate becomes President. Maybe it’s time to find alternatives to what the Dems have been proposing. We should not allow issues that everybody cares about to be the primary domain of a party with more questions than answers.

The Republicans have been a distracted party, but this distraction certainly doesn’t come from wayward socons. It comes from getting too comfortable with power to constantly re-evaluate what’s working and what’s not working, and to come up with innovative ideas for reform and change that would really make a difference in our lives. I’m not talking about new government programs. What I’m talking about is ways to empower people, not politicians. We hear all the time from the left about people-powered politics. The frustration both left and right share is with the Washington establishment bureaucrats who have stopped taking risks, and politicians who have stopped listening to what the people want. The system enables this malaise, and that is why Newt Gingrich’s American Solutions is such a revolutionary concept. It allows ordinary people to have a voice and provide ideas for reform.

I’ve said all along that the dissatisfaction with the Republican presidential candidates is more about their lack of vision than any credentials they may lack with economic, social, or fiscal conservatives. They don’t have any big ideas to inspire the base. Maybe this will change closer to the election, but to keep the activists motivated, our nominee can’t just run as “Not Hillary”.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Posted on '08 Election, Conservatives, Republicans

the case for staying with the GOP

Frank Donatelli lays it it out here.

One sentence version: Any of the Democrats who would get elected as a result of a third-party candidate would be worse than Giuliani on the issues that are important to conservatives, including with Supreme Court nominations. Yup.

John Hawkins agrees:

The point is: the GOP is not perfect and it’s not ever going to be perfect, but if conservatives want to get our agenda enacted or to block the Democrats agenda, we need Republicans in office — and the more of them the better.

Does that mean we’re, “supporting the leftward shift of the Republican party?” No, it means that we’re acknowledging that the GOP is the imperfect instrument through which conservatives enact our agenda. It’s better to put Republicans in office and try to shape their behavior to our liking than to put Democrats into power and then pat ourselves on the back for our purity.

Hawkins also points out that the challenges should come in the primary process, whether it is a presidential race or a congressional race. We have every right to support challengers who we feel are more ideologically pure, or for the simple reason that the incumbent hasn’t been an effective representative for our interests. That’s where the presidential race is now. Everyone has their own pet issues, and none of the candidates are seen as the perfect choice. It comes back to something I have always believed and have written about previously…it’s always better to get most of what you want with Republicans than to get none of what you want with Democrats. That is especially true when we consider a potential Hillary-Rudy matchup next November.

While it makes sense to vote for someone like Giuliani over Hillary, I can understand why someone who doesn’t believe that Rudy’s the right guy wouldn’t want to donate money to him or to volunteer for his campaign. You can’t sell a candidate you don’t believe in.

Tags: , ,

 

Posted on '08 Election, Conservatives, Republicans

the problem with fred

I’m sure Fred Thompson is a good guy.  I’m also sure that there were many persuasive people telling him that he could be the one to save the GOP from Rudy McRomney, and no doubt Thompson is more conservative in some areas than the current top three.  But it’s fair to say that there was no way that Fred Thompson could be the savior of the GOP, or another Ronald Reagan, or the “one true conservative”.  His record in the Senate is mixed, and it resembles John McCain’s on illegal immigration and campaign finance reform, two areas where McCain runs into trouble with the base.

There are many objections I have to James Dobson critiquing possible GOP nominees, but I have to agree with him, and with what Quin Hillyer wrote in the American Spectator, when they suggest that Fred Thompson doesn’t act like he wants to be the nominee or to be President.  It’s an admirable quality in a candidate, I guess, not to look like they were planning their Presidential run for many years before taking the plunge. However, if Fred wants to continue to be taken seriously as a candidate, he has to start doing his homework on the issues of the day.  He can’t go to Florida and not know about the local issues (Terri Schiavo, drilling in the Everglades).  If he’s going to be an advocate for conservatism, he needs to know what he believes and why he believes it.  He can’t get by on Southern charm alone.  Ask Mike Huckabee how much money his campaign gets from his great personality and folksy speeches.

It’s not just the objection to Rudy, Mitt, and McCain that drives conservatives to look for someone else. All three men have flaws I can live with as the GOP nominee.  Conservatives are looking for someone with a vision, a new direction for our party, and a direction for our country.  We need someone who is bold enough to tell us the truth about where the Republican party has failed the people of this country.  We need someone who knows what is wrong and how we can fix the GOP. We want to be inspired with big ideas and someone with the kind of vision for change that Newt Gingrich has (only in a more electable package).   It’s no wonder that all of the candidates don’t quite measure up to those high standards.

Fred Thompson could be the guy who could unite most of the base,  but he can’t just coast through this process if he wants to be the nominee.

Tags: , , ,

2 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Conservatives, Republicans

exit strategy

After last night’s debate, I think Ron Paul needs to make a graceful exit from the presidential race. It’s not because his ideas aren’t worth discussing, although I think that it would be hard to make the case for eliminating the FBI and CIA post-911. He was right to point out that our intelligence agencies didn’t work as well together as they should have leading up to the tragedy of September 11 as well as the war in Iraq. That problem can’t be fixed by spending less money on intelligence, yet this is what Paul seems to be suggesting. And whether you agree with Ron Paul’s assessment of the Iraq war or not, I don’t think that Paul represents a realistic approach to dealing with threats to our national security in the Islamic world. That’s not where the Republican party is on national security and the war in Iraq, and the more he tries to sell his withdrawal plans, the less convincing he becomes. The prescription by Dr. Paul is the wrong one, and we need to seek a second opinion.

This isn’t about shutting down alternative points of view to the Republican front-runners. Ron Paul has had more than enough time to make his case to the voters of this country, and it’s time to recognize that he hasn’t managed to do that. Not only that, but he has become a punching bag for Giuliani and Huckabee, which can’t do much for his credibilty or viability as a candidate. I think we have heard enough from Ron Paul to decide that he isn’t the right person to lead our party in the next election.

Tags: , ,

1 Comment Posted on '08 Election, Conservatives, George W. Bush, Republicans

stand by your man (part 1)

Let me preface this by saying that there are many areas where conservatives believe that President Bush has disappointed them. The debate over McCain-Kennedy comprehensive “immigration reform” is the most recent example of this perceived apostasy, and it’s a great example of how tone-deaf the administration has become lately. We are also annoyed with the massive increases in federal spending that the President allowed to pass his desk. To some conservatives, there is a long list of Dubya’s sins, real and imagined, and they are ready to move on from this President. Our reasons are different than those of the Democrats. While acknowledging that he should be given all of the credit for his SCOTUS picks and some of the credit for our strong economy, we still find him lacking in other areas. Some of the criticism is unfair in this way: He never ran as a fiscal conservative. He was always supportive of making it easier for illegal immigrants to come here. We voted for the President, not because of these things, but because of Iraq and because we wanted conservative judges on the Supreme Court.

Bill Kristol believes that President Bush will be judged as a successful president. His argument almost convinces me, but even though I know that there have been some successes with the surge strategy, I’m just not buying his optimism on Iraq. He says that in order for a war president to be judged a success, the war has to be won. Many of us are discouraged with Iraq. Maybe we are buying in too deeply to what the MSM is selling. Maybe we are just being realistic about the obstacles the administration is facing in continuing the surge and trying to improve the conditions on the ground in Iraq. In either case, it’s an uphill battle to keep the Republicans from defecting to the Democratic side on the war, and it’s a continuing struggle to keep the impatience of the American people with the progress of this war from forcing those defections from those standing for re-election next time. I’m not rooting against the President. I want him to succeed, not because it validates me, or neocons, or because he would have a better legacy. I want Iraq to succeed because that would mean the terrorists and insurgents have failed there.

Maybe we are asking for too much in our presidents and in our presidential candidates. After all, none of the Republican presidential candidates currently in the field are as committed to reducing the size of the federal government as the average conservative is. They don’t have any new ideas on Iraq, Iran, or North Korea, and they would not implement anything different from what Bush has done so far. On the other hand, Romney, Giuliani, and Fred are all better communicators than President Bush. Romney is probably the weakest of the three because of his tendency to sound wonkish when discussing anything. All I’m saying is that if conservatives intend to vote for a Republican for President in ’08 (rather than sitting the election out and giving the election to Hillary by default), that means that we will have to settle for someone who doesn’t fit everything we want. And that includes FRED.

3 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Conservatives, Republicans

questions and answers

This was one of the questions posed to the Republican presidential candidates Tuesday night:

We’ve lost 3,400 troops; civilian casualties are even higher, and the Iraqi government does not appear ready to provide for the security of its own country. Knowing everything you know right now, was it a mistake for us to invade Iraq?

(That’s not a loaded question is it?)

ROMNEY:

Well, I answered the question by saying it’s a — it’s a non sequitur, it’s a null set kind of question, because you can go back and say, if we knew then what we know now, by virtue of inspectors having been let in and giving us that information, by virtue of if Saddam Hussein had followed the U.N. resolutions, we wouldn’t be having this — this discussion. So it’s a hypothetical that I think is an unreasonable hypothetical. And the answer is, we did what we did; we did the right thing based on what we knew at that time. I think we made mistakes following the conduct — or the collapse of Saddam’s government.

GIULIANI:

Absolutely the right thing to do. It’s unthinkable that you would leave Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq and be able to fight the war on terror. And the problem is that we see Iraq in a vacuum. Iraq should not be seen in a vacuum. Iraq is part of the overall terrorist war against the United States.

The problem the Democrats make is they’re in denial. That’s why you hear things like you heard in the debate the other night, that, you know, Iran really isn’t dangerous; it’s 10 years away from nuclear weapons. Iran is not 10 years away from nuclear weapons, and the danger to us is not just missiles, the danger to us is a state like Iran handing nuclear weapons over to terrorists, so it has to be seen in that light, and we have to be successful in Iraq.

Just for fun…let’s look at what FRED! said about that question when Hannity interviewed him post-debate. His question was slightly different (whether we did the right thing invading Iraq).
THOMPSON:

Yes. Sean, what people don’t think enough about is what — if we had not gone into Iraq. You know, after defying the United Nations 17 times, after corrupting the oil-for-food program and the United Nations itself, Saddam would have been there — and defying the United States, of course — Saddam would have been there, the new king of the hill in that part of the world, with his murderous sons still putting people in human shredders, still a threat to his neighbors, still developing his plans for a nuclear capability.I mean, he had those plans. He had the technical expertise. Whether he had them on one particular day or not is almost irrelevant. Especially today, looking at what Iran is doing, he certainly would have had his hands or been working assiduously toward getting the capability of nuclear weapons. And that’s what we would have been faced with had we not done that. Going in there and deposing him was a good thing.

In some ways, it’s unfair to compare CEO Mitt to “America’s Mayor” or to Fred Thompson. They all know the right answer to the question, and all three have demonstrated that they get the war on terror. But in this one answer at least, Rudy and Fred get to the point faster. Romney may have all the right answers and he may be dynamite with a PowerPoint presentation, but that’s only a small part of what we are looking for in a nominee. Both Rudy and McCain personally connected with the audience Tuesday, and that’s the element Romney seems to be missing. As others have said, Romney was off his game in this third debate. Rudy won this third debate because he showed command of all the topics he was asked about, and in every debate performance, he keeps looking stronger and stronger (as long as the questions are not focused on those troublesome social issues)

Continue reading →

6 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Conservatives, Republicans

newt takes on the establishment again

From the New Yorker:

Newt Gingrich is one of those who fear that Republicans have been branded with the label of incompetence. He says that the Bush Administration has become a Republican version of the Jimmy Carter Presidency, when nothing seemed to go right. “It’s just gotten steadily worse,” he said. “There was some point during the Iranian hostage crisis, the gasoline rationing, the malaise speech, the sweater, the rabbit”—Gingrich was referring to Carter’s suggestion that Americans wear sweaters rather than turn up their thermostats, and to the “attack” on Carter by what cartoonists quickly portrayed as a “killer rabbit” during a fishing trip—“that there was a morning where the average American went, ‘You know, this really worries me.’ ” He added, “You hire Presidents, at a minimum, to run the country well enough that you don’t have to think about it, and, at a maximum, to draw the country together to meet great challenges you can’t avoid thinking about.” Gingrich continued, “When you have the collapse of the Republican Party, you have an immediate turn toward the Democrats, not because the Democrats are offering anything better, but on a ‘not them’ basis. And if you end up in a 2008 campaign between ‘them’ and ‘not them,’ ‘not them’ is going to win.”

I think Newt’s right about this. Republicans have been tagged with that label, and it’s going to be hard to recover from that perception. Congressional Republicans did not handle their responsibilities well when they had the majority, and voters recognized that last November when they handed over power to the “not them” Democrats. President Bush should share some of the blame for what happened in the November mid-term elections as well.  The President of the United States is supposed to be the head of our party, but instead he has abdicated that role to conservative talk radio and blogs.  It’s up to the grassroots activists to fight for a re-direction in Congressional priorities and the needed reforms to solve the problems we face as a nation, since no one in Washington D.C. has the desire to do that.

The question becomes whether Newt is the “not them” candidate for the Republicans in 2008. He certainly hasn’t been shy about criticizing Congress and the Bush administration. He has some fascinating ideas, and I would love to see a debate between Newt and Hillary, if only for the sheer entertainment value of such a confrontation. Maybe he’s been out of Congress long enough to be considered an outsider, but it will be hard for him to shake his controversial history while Speaker of the House.  I’m having a hard time believing that Newt Gingrich is electable, but it’s probably a mistake to underestimate his chances, especially this early in the presidential race.

Tags: ,

Posted on '08 Election, Conservatives, Republicans

defending ron paul (sort of)

It’s fashionable in Republican circles to bash Ron Paul for his non-interventionist views of foreign policy, and unfortunately for Dr. Paul, that argument doesn’t seem realistic based on the actions of Iran, North Korea, and others wanting to join the nuclear club. It also sounded too much like what the Democrats would have said if they were given the same question. That’s why Giuliani was able to score significant political points by condemning Paul’s remarks on 9/11.

Less worthy of discussion were Paul’s remarks on cutting the size of government. Every Republican running for President talks about reducing spending and the size of government, but when asked what they would cut, only Ron Paul had actually thought much about the subject. Wendell Goler asked him this question, and here’s what he said.

REP. PAUL: I’d start with the departments — the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security. We’ve started with — we’ve just — the Republicans put in the Department of Homeland — it’s a monstrous type of bureaucracy. It was supposed to be streamlining our security and it’s unmanageable. I mean, just think of the efficiency of FEMA in its efforts to take care of the floods and the hurricanes.

So yes, there’s a lot of things that we can cut, but we can’t cut anything until we change our philosophy about what government should do. If you think that we can continue to police the world and spend hundreds of billions of dollars overseas, and spend hundreds of billions of dollars running a welfare state, an entitlement system that has accumulated $60 trillion worth of obligations, and think that we can run the economy this way; we spend so much money now that we have to borrow nearly $3 billion a day from foreigners to take care of our consumption, and we can’t afford that.

We can’t afford it in the government, we can’t afford it as a nation.

So tax reform should come, but spending cuts have to come by changing our attitude what government ought to be doing for us.

You can disagree with him about foreign policy, but on spending and bureaucracy he’s exactly right. I’m not convinced that congressional Republicans still subscribe to Paul’s skepticism of the effectiveness of bureaucracy and the necessity of reducing spending (if in fact they EVER did). As we have seen, they excel at paying lip service to what they think we want to hear, and then proceed to feed the beast, feigning surprise that this government behemoth continues to grow. And somehow it’s all someone else’s fault.

Ron Paul says that we need to change our philosophy about what government should do. Hard to argue with that statement. We have given the responsibility to government to fix everything that ails our great nation, and that has been a huge mistake. Both Republicans and Democrats now believe in an activist government, and even some conservatives are buying into the myth.

Continue reading →

Posted on '08 Election, Conservatives, Illegal Immigration, Republicans

that didn’t go very well

This hasn’t been a good week for Senator John McCain and his pal Senator Lindsey Graham.  After McCain’s stronger showing at the 2nd debate, his campaign was on the rebound.  The timing of this announced deal on “comprehensive immigration reform” couldn’t be any worse for him, and standing next to Ted Kennedy and Arlen Specter talking about how wonderful bi-partisan deals are isn’t the best way to win over that already suspicious conservative base. It’s a great example of how out of touch with the conservative base McCain is, and how out of touch our senators and congresspeople are that they would not realize that there would be strong opposition to this immigration proposal.  Here in South Carolina,  we had an chance to voice that opposition directly to one of the senators responsible for trying to push this proposal through before we have a chance to examine it carefully.

I give Senator Graham credit for being willing to show up on Saturday at the South Carolina Republican convention and attempt to explain why he supports this legislation. But I believe he’s wrong on this, and so do most of the conservatives in attendance Saturday. That’s why he got such a negative reaction. Some of them consider this issue so important that there has been talk of finding a primary challenger for him when he’s up for re-election next year.  I’m not ready to sign on to that effort just yet, but that’s how seriously Republicans here take this issue.  I emailed Senator Graham Thursday to let him know that I was opposed to this bill, and I must not have been the only one, because he was noticeably on the defensive Saturday. He shouldn’t act so surprised that we booed him when he tried to convince us that this was the best deal we could get on immigration. If he didn’t completely understand the extent of our opposition when he walked into that convention hall, he understands it now.

We can also credit the “comprehensive immigration bill” with doing two other things: causing a minor scuffle between our senators Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham and providing an opportunity for Romney to indirectly hammer McCain, which he did.  Senator DeMint, to his credit, has called for further review of this bill and wasn’t afraid to challenge supporters like Senator Graham directly in his remarks to the convention.  That made for some awkward moments, since DeMint spoke right after Graham. On some levels, it is unfair to tag John McCain and Lindsey Graham as RINOs or apostates simply because they defend this flawed legislation.  On most issues of importance to South Carolinians, they are two of the most reliable conservative votes.  However, the problem with illegal immigration is one we take very seriously.  We see the lack of border enforcement now, and we can’t help but notice that only lip service is paid to current laws.  Supporters of this bill may very well be correct that there are penalties for law-breakers in this immigration bill, but when current law is not being followed, how can we possibly believe the government is up to the challenge of enforcing all these new restrictions? The short answer is: we don’t.

Continue reading →

2 Comments Posted on Conservatives, Illegal Immigration, Republicans

fight

If we really want to see the Republican party become more responsive to conservatives, we can’t jump ship. We have to stay in the party and work to keep them accountable for their actions. Conservatives haven’t won a lot of victories from the fighting we’ve been doing with Republicans in Congress and with the Bush administration. But we won’t get any more victories, even of the minor variety, if we give up and stop fighting for what we believe is the best direction for our country. Even the smallest spark can start a fire. We got the immovable to move when we stopped the nomination of Harriet Miers. Another “success” of the conservatives could be the furious debate we had about the Dubai ports deal. If we get enough people to care enough about the direction of this country and the direction of our party and to speak up about it, eventually Washington politicians will pay attention.

The leadership of the Republican party knows that there is no place for social conservatives in the Democratic party. They are confident that small-government types won’t find much to like about the Democrats’ approach to social programs and spending. They also know that what conservatives find lacking in the Republican party can’t be found in the Democratic party right now. They take us for granted, because they can. If our senators do not understand that a majority of Americans want a commitment to border-enforcement first before any concessions to illegal aliens are made, then they need to start paying more attention to what their constituents have been telling them. Maybe this immigration debate will cause more people to start paying attention to what Congress is trying to do, and at least some good will come out of this flawed legislation. Speak up. Speak louder. We have the attention of Congress at this moment. Let’s see what we can do with it.

Tags: , ,