What a pleasant change from the first Republican debate this one was. Yes, it was hosted by the EEEVIL Fox News Channel, but no objective person could accuse the moderators of throwing softballs at any of the candidates. The questions were pitched high and hard and some of ’em landed a significant blow on their targets. I would really like to see the Democrats face the same kind of abuse, but thanks to John Edwards’ tough stand against Fox News, it won’t happen. Speaking of John Edwards, he got a little smack from Mike Huckabee (with much applause): “Congress is spending money like John Edwards at a beauty shop”. HAHA. That will get him a few YouTube clips. Mike Huckabee looked just as strong in this debate as the last one, and I would like to hear more from him, including more on the Fair Tax.

My overall impression of the top three hasn’t changed, but I would rank them differently than last time based on their performance last night. Romney moves down to third. Solid but not spectacular showing. He also had one sound-bite type line where he says that McCain-Kennedy (the immigration bill) would be just as bad as McCain-Feingold. (I’m paraphrasing, but that’s the general idea.) He got the predictable “how conservative are you…REALLY”? His answer was a strong one, at least in my opinion. I think it’s a fair position to support 2nd amendment rights and also to support an assault weapons ban. I have no problem with people owning guns, and there’s a good argument to be made for that right. But I don’t see any solid reason why the average citizen should own any kind of assault weapon. That’s a reasonable restriction to have on the 2nd amendment. It also should be ok to oppose discrimination against gays and lesbians while still believing that marriage should be only between a man and woman. Neither of these issues should be an either/or proposition. He handled this question better in this debate than the last one. I liked what he had to say about Iraq, and he seemed to understand the broad scope of the GWOT. I’m still not sold on that “personally pro-life” line, but it sounds better to me than how Giuliani explains why he’s pro-choice.

McCain did well, even though I thought that his “drunken sailor” joke fell flat, especially when compared to Huckabee’s John Edwards crack. He didn’t have any memorable moments except for his attempted slap at Romney, after Romney criticized both McCain-Kennedy and McCain-Feingold.  In any case, I would put McCain in 2nd place.

Rudy gets the top spot, just because of his awesome smackdown of Ron Paul. The other candidates would have wanted to get this KO on Paul, who blamed the US for 9/11. Rudy got the fat fastball, and did not miss the pitch. He asked Ron Paul to withdraw that statement. Paul was given the opportunity to back off, and he did not. Video here. Even though I have strong reservations about Giuliani as a social conservative, he continues to impress in other areas, and that’s why social conservatives will continue to consider Giuliani as a potential nominee.

Continue reading →

maybe he’s not the conservative’s prince charming, but right now he’s saying all the right things.

“I’m not running for President to be somebody, but to do something; to do the hard but necessary things not the easy and needless things. I’m running for President to protect this country from harm and defeat our enemies. I’m running for President to make the government do its job, not your job; to do it with less, and to do it better. I’m running for President to defend our freedom and expand our opportunities. I’m running for President not to leave our biggest national problems to some unluckier generation of leaders, but to fix them now, and leave our grandchildren a safer, freer and more prosperous country than the one we were blessed to inherit; I’m running for President to make sure America maintains its place as the political and economic leader of the world; the country that doesn’t fear change but makes change work for us; the country that doesn’t long for the good old days, but aspires to even better days. I’m running for President of the United States, not a defeated country, not a bankrupt country; not a timid and frightened country; not a country fragmented into bickering interest groups with no sense of or dedication to the national interest; not a country with a bloated, irresponsible and incompetent government. I’m not running for town manager or school board member or corporate treasurer or surgeon general or head of the trial lawyers association or secretary of the local charity. I’m running for President of the United States, the most powerful, prosperous nation and greatest force for good on earth. And if I am elected President I intend to keep it so. Thank you.”

read it all here.

tags: john mccain, ’08 election

Getting involved on the grassroots level of politics usually means that, during that process, you end up meeting people who are very passionate about the candidates they are supporting and the party they belong to.  It’s necessary that there is diversity of opinion in a political party, and there is no possible way that everyone will always be on the same page. What worries me going into ’08 is that this passion will cause divisions between members of the same party who, after our candidate is selected in the primary process, could refuse to support that candidate because he might not pass all the ideological roadblocks that have been placed in his path.

There are folks that I respect very much who have decided to support several of the second and third tier candidates in the Republican field.  I also know several people supporting Romney and McCain whose opinions I value a great deal.  In the absence of a viable “true conservative” who is 100% in the Reagan mold, we have the current front-runners, who all have some problems with the conservative base.  During the primary process, it is absolutely fair to try to convince supporters of another candidate, like Romney, for example, to back a more conservative, but less viable candidate like Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, or Sam Brownback. I don’t think the conservative cred of any of those gentlemen is in question.  I will concede that to their supporters. But there are other considerations for the Republican nominee for President than just being conservative enough for the base.

There is a fight going on for the soul of the Republican party. Every group wants a piece. The SoCons  (or the religious right), the fiscal conservatives, those who are more liberal on social issues, and the “compassionate conservatives” who support excessive spending on programs that do not work and see no problem with allowing illegal immigrants who have broken the law to continue to do so…these are just a few of the constituency groups we have to deal with. This is a healthy debate to have within the party, and one could make a strong case that the Republican party has strayed from its roots. I don’t think you would get much argument from conservatives on that, especially social conservatives.

But I’m not ready to exclude candidates who have a good chance of winning the nomination / Presidency simply because they can’t check off on a checklist all the conservative hot button issues. There are others who feel the same way that I do about this, and none of us should feel that we are less of a conservative just because we may not be supporting the most conservative candidate in the field.  This is the message we are getting, whether intentional or not, from supporters of Huckabee, Hunter, and Brownback, and I just don’t think that this is the best argument to make to fellow conservatives.

There seems to be this fear that the Republican party will lurch inexorably left should Giuliani or Romney get the nomination. I don’t see this happening. Conservatives will always be part of the Republican party, just like liberals will always be part of the Democratic party. This won’t change.  The Republican party has had capable and worthy nominees for President not named Ronald Reagan in the past and the same will be true in ’08, whether the candidate is conservative or not.

Tags: Republicans, conservatives, ’08 election

the republican party almost lost their maverick back in 2001. you can characterize arlen specter and chuck hagel as apostates for their occasional straying off the republican reservation, but the one thing you can’t say is that they seriously considered leaving the republican party. (maybe we sometimes wish they would, but it hasn’t happened.) to be fair about it, the article doesn’t say that mccain would have become a democrat, but becoming an independent would have had the same effect on the senate.

this is a more serious flaw than romney supporting democratic candidates, or guiliani and his judicial picks. if mcain is bidding to be the “one true republican” then he’s got to come up with a good explanation for this. there doesn’t seem to be one. frustration with the republican party is perfectly normal, but the way to deal with that is not to look for an escape hatch. whatever his reasons were for having even preliminary conversations with the democrats, he risks being tagged a sore loser since this happened so soon after the 2000 elections. that charge is already out there.

mccain was in trouble before this story came out, and i don’t know what he would have to do to catch and pass giuliani in the polls. could it happen? sure, but he’s got a lot of work to do. it wouldn’t surprise me if romney passes mccain. if it happens, you can say you read it here first.

tags: john mccain, ’08 election

who are we, and why are we here? ross perot’s former running mate has the right question for conservatives. the first part requires a definition of our core — what we consider important values for a conservative. the second part requires an explanation of our purpose and vision — what we need to do to restore this ideology as a viable governing philosophy in DC. grassroots conservatives know what makes us who we are, but as far as getting the politicians to listen to us, well, we are still working on that part.

karen tumulty in time magazine:

Conservatives are in many ways victims of their successes, and there have indeed been big ones. At 35%, the top tax rate is about half what it was when Reagan took office; the Soviet Union broke up; inflation is barely a nuisance; crime is down; and welfare is reformed. But if all that’s true, what is conservatism’s rationale for the next generation? What set of goals is there to hold together a coalition that has always been more fractious than it seemed to be from the outside, with its realists and its neoconservatives, its religious ground troops and its libertarian intelligentsia, its Pat Buchanan populists and its Milton Friedman free traders? That is why the challenge for Republican conservatives goes far deeper than merely trying to figure out how to win the next election. 2008 is a question with a very clear premise: Does the conservative movement still have what it takes to redeem its grand old traditions — or, better, to chart new territory?

these are questions our future standard-bearers should answer. we will continue to wait until it happens, or until someone steals newt’s notes on the subject.

tags: ’08 election, conservatives, republicans

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: newt gingrich, ’08 election

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: newt gingrich, mario cuomo, cooper union debates

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: john mccain, social conservatives, ’08 election

ramesh ponnuru on romney and the abortion question:

I think we ought to be unsentimental about this question. Those of us who favor Romney’s position on sanctity-of-life issues ought to care less about its sincerity than about its stability. We ought to care about whether he will abandon the position, that is, not whether he truly believes it. Pro-lifers would win very few votes in Congress if every representative voted his conscience, after all. Presumably a politician is more likely to stick with a position if he deeply believes it; but it is too facile to say that having flipped before, a politician will flop again.

As a test case, I offer the first President Bush. He converted from pro-choice to pro-life, and many questioned his sincerity since the conversion dovetailed so perfectly with his political needs. I myself think that he genuinely became a moderate pro-lifer: But does the answer really matter? He was a steady friend of pro-lifers during his administration, vetoing one pro-abortion bill after another.

If a politician can’t project sincerity even when he is insincere—or worse, can’t do it when he really is sincere—then he is probably in the wrong business. The suspicious timing of Romney’s change of mind may end up dooming his candidacy. But in that case, the most likely beneficiary is John McCain, the sincerity of whose own pro-life convictions has been questioned, and we will have to answer the same questions about him.

if pro-lifers want to support a romney candidacy, that’s really the question we need to ask — whether romney’s current position on abortion will change if he is elected. his earlier interviews weren’t helpful in determining the answer to this. i think that that his apparent change of heart is genuine, but i can certainly understand why many social conservatives aren’t convinced.

dean barnett offers a similar defense of romney’s past record here.

social conservatives will never get everything they want. we have had some of the most socially conservative presidents and some of the most liberal-friendly oval office occupants. what has been gained by the social conservatives as a result of their endorsement of certain candidates? abortion is still legal, gay marriage now exists in several states, and congress couldn’t make any progress on that flag-burning amendment. isn’t it possible that the president of the united states might not have the ability to make any major changes, no matter what his personal beliefs may be on these issues?

the same is true for mitt romney. he was lucky to accomplish as much as he did in massachusetts with the opposition he had.

tags: ’08 election, mitt romney, abortion