Republicans

8 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Republicans

new hampshire results

It’s Hillary beating the juggernaut Obama and McCain dealing a second straight silver medal to Mitt Romney. You might have been able to predict McCain’s win over Romney, and maybe even Huckabee over Romney in Iowa, but the media got it all wrong about the Democrats/independents in New Hampshire. I would like to believe that Hillary’s win wasn’t because she got all weepy one day about how hard it is for a woman running for President. (You know…there’s an easy way to handle that — just drop out and let Barack have the nomination.) Maybe it’s just because I don’t like Hillary, but every time I see the clip of her crying, it annoys me instead of making me feel sympathetic toward her. It’s easy to figure out why McCain won, but he’s no frontrunner — at least not with conservatives in this country. The Republicans still don’t have a frontrunner.

Romney may be a terrific businessman, but he has yet to close the sale with voters. It’s true that he has a lot of money and has put together a great organization in many of the important primary states, but it’s hard to see how Romney wins the nomination if he loses Michigan. South Carolina is hardly a sure thing for Romney, even though he has a lot of support here. There is also a lot of support for Huckabee and some for Fred Thompson. Huckabee has enough momentum with his win in Iowa and surprising third-place finish in NH to be a serious threat.

Those predicting a McCain win in South Carolina may be underestimating the strong anti-McCain sentiment around here as a result of his positions on a variety of issues, mainly his views on illegal immigration. So I think it’s between Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee. Why not Romney? I don’t get the impression that South Carolina conservatives completely trust his conversion on social issues or his commitment to the 2nd amendment, based on his record on guns in Massachusetts. I think Huck wins SC, and I hope I’m wrong. I can’t see conservatives here supporting McCain or Romney for the reasons I’ve previously mentioned. It would be an upset for Fred if he pulls it out, but I just don’t see how it’s possible.

As for me, I haven’t decided who I will vote for next weekend, but it’s not going to be Huckabee. Like I said before, he’s not ready for the job.

Tags: , , ,

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Republicans

the state of the race

Congratulations to Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee on winning in Iowa. It was a well-deserved win for each of them. Mitt Romney got a second-place finish out of his millions. He’s not dead yet, but he has some work to do to stay in this race until the end, especially if he loses New Hampshire. The Iowa results aren’t the end of the story. Hillary isn’t going away. Mitt isn’t going away. Fred is still alive…and his third place result showed that there are some conservatives who aren’t willing to settle for Mitt and Huck just yet. McCain might win New Hampshire, and if that happens, while it would be another setback for Romney, it still indicates that nothing will be decided this early in the primaries.

There are glaring deal-killing flaws in McCain and Huckabee (in my view anyway). McCain’s sins against conservatism are many, and the negatives outweigh the positives, especially on illegal immigration. Even if he has heard the voice of the people and decided to emphasize border security as a first priority for immigration reform, we can’t trust him not to cut deals with the Democrats whenever it is politically convenient. That’s his record. That’s what he has done in the Senate.

There are many things to like about Mike Huckabee as a person.  Christian conservatives love his boldness about his Christian faith and that he is pro-life.  We appreciate the fact that he is willing to allow his faith to influence his decisions, both personally and politically.  He would make a great pastor for a megachurch.  If he had a daytime talk show on TV, he might even draw a crowd there.  But are we seriously going to nominate Mike Huckabee to represent all Republicans as our nominee for President of the United States?  He’s not ready for the job now, and I don’t think he would be even if he had four more years to prepare for another run at the Presidency.

Continue reading →

Posted on '08 Election, Republicans

there was a debate today?

Yes…if you want to call that a debate. Again I ask, what are these presidential candidates trying to hide by having these afternoon debates?

Anyway…

Top three: Romney, Fred, Giuliani. Romney is strong as a policy wonk. Talking about economic issues rather than social issues allows Romney to play to that strength. I linked to National Review’s endorsement editorial yesterday. It looks like Romney read it thoroughly and tried to make the same argument for his nomination as they did in that editorial. Wise move. Fred looked great in this debate, but he needs to look more awake during the candidate introductions. Little things like this matter because of the narrative that’s already been written about Fred. It’s easy to like Fred when he is on the attack. Conservatives like criticism of the NEA’s role in our educational system. Another Fred highlight was when he refused to play along with the climate change question. We need to see more of Fred the fighter. Unfortunately, it may have come too late for Fred to have a realistic shot at the nomination. Giuliani didn’t do anything to hurt himself, and had some good answers. I just don’t remember what they were.

Shouldn’t have shown up – Alan Keyes. The Des Moines Register did him a huge favor (or maybe they were just obligated to include him under their own criteria). In either case, he didn’t take advantage of the opportunity, instead blaming the moderator for shutting him out of the discussion on several occasions. When she did allow him to speak, he filibustered during his time and didn’t give straight answers to any question that he was asked. There’s a good reason he’s only polling around 2% in Iowa.

Made CNN’s debate look good — the debate moderator and the Des Moines Register. She didn’t give the candidates enough time to answer questions. She didn’t ask follow-up questions when necessary. She also lost control of the debate several times.

In there somewhere — Huck, Hunter, Tancredo, Ron Paul. The good thing for the new Iowa leader is that the moderator didn’t allow enough time for direct shots at him. Huckabee continues to coast along without getting very specific on policy issues, and breaking out more new catchphrases and one-liners won’t make him look any more serious as a potential President. It’s hard to see how Huck can maintain his lead with all of the increased media scrutiny he has been getting lately.

I’m not sure if those who took the time to watch this debate changed their minds about their preferred candidate, but those supporting Fred had to like what they saw from him today.

More fun with Iowa debates tomorrow when it’s the Democrats’ turn to answer questions.

Tags: , , ,

Posted on '08 Election, Republicans

a big endorsement for romney

Mitt gets the support of National Review.

This shouldn’t surprise anyone, especially based on the discussion on The Corner over the past year or so. It’s no secret that editor Kathryn Lopez is a big fan, but it must have been hard to reach a consensus on this, since there are others at NRO who are openly supporting other candidates.

An excerpt:

Uniting the conservative coalition is not enough to win a presidential election, but it is a prerequisite for building on that coalition. Rudolph Giuliani did extraordinary work as mayor of New York and was inspirational on 9/11. But he and Mike Huckabee would pull apart the coalition from opposite ends: Giuliani alienating the social conservatives, and Huckabee the economic (and foreign-policy) conservatives. A Republican party that abandoned either limited government or moral standards would be much diminished in the service it could give the country.

That’s one question I’ve always had about Rudy Giuliani.  Can he win enough blue states to make up for the loss of some red states usually solid for Republican nominees? I don’t know the answer to that question. He might be able to do it, but there are no guarantees.  On the other hand, I have more doubts about a Huckabee candidacy than I do about Giuliani’s bid. Right now the fiscal and foreign-policy conservatives see Huckabee as a serious threat to their worldview if elected. With all of the foreign policy challenges we have, we can’t afford to have a rookie making those decisions. He has the same naive belief in the power of diplomacy as many of the Democrats.  The most optimistic view of Huckabee’s record on spending is that it is a mixed bag of tax cuts and tax increases.  We don’t know which Huckabee we will get as President — the tax cutter or the tax hiker.  But his faith in government is disturbing, and it’s enough to keep the fiscal cons off of the Huckabee bandwagon.

There is no question that a Giuliani or a Huckabee nomination would split the conservative base in the way the National Review editorial describes.  Republicans need a united base in order to have a fighting chance against the Democratic nominee. Of course, the threat of a Hillary presidency is scary enough that Giuliani could overcome the loss of some social conservatives. But we should acknowledge the possibility of such a split in the base when deciding on our nominee.

Tags: , , ,

1 Comment Posted on '08 Election, Republicans

romney’s speech

Read it all here.

Watch it here.

I’m going to pull some excerpts from his remarks and make a few comments on the parts of the speech that stuck out when I read them.

Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate’s religion that are appropriate. I believe there are. And I will answer them today. Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for President, not a Catholic running for President. Like him, I am an American running for President. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith. “Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.

This may be an unpopular view to some religious conservatives, but Romney is absolutely right. Being a Christian, or a Mormon, or a person of any other faith should not be a qualification or disqualification for public office. It certainly doesn’t speak to a person’s ability to govern the country, as Jimmy Carter has shown us. Mike Huckabee is a a great guy. We all agree on that. He is someone who agrees 100% with all of the social conservative issues. He’s not the guy I want as President, because he has the same kind of faith in diplomacy as the Democrats. Huck should be working on getting some serious foreign advisors, and he should have someone on his staff read and brief him on the latest NIE, so he is prepared when reporters ask questions about it.

But back to Romney…he’s the guy I see as someone who will surround himself with experts who can give him the best advice, from domestic/economic policy to foreign policy. He did this as a CEO, and that’s been his pattern throughout his business career and his political career. That’s the kind of approach to government I want to see in a President. While it’s important to have a nominee who shares our values, it’s just as important to have one who can handle the job of being President. That’s why given the choice between Romney and Huckabee, I’m still going with Romney.

Here’s more of his speech:

As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America’s ‘political religion’ – the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your President, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs.

Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.

Romney should be given credit for saying that he would not change his religious beliefs to win an election. He says that Americans do not respect “believers of convenience”. He’s right. They don’t. Neither do social conservatives. The problem many conservatives have with Romney has more to do with conveniently-timed conversion on other issues than it does about his Mormonism. They don’t trust him because they don’t believe that he has deeply-held principles about anything, and that he would say anything to get elected. They think that Romney is one of those who would “jettison their beliefs” for political advantage. I’m not sure that making promises not to change on his Mormon faith addresses those concerns.

There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.

This is what Romney should have said at the debate, or a shorter version of what he said here. He appeared to be blindsided by the question about the Bible, and he kept repeating “The Bible is the Word of God”, hesitating on whether he should add anything else to that answer. It is a strength of our nation, not a weakness, that we have such diversity in our religious beliefs. That’s something our country has always had from its inception. He goes on to give examples of that diversity, and to explain what people of all religious faiths have in common.

I love this part in particular. (If Romney wrote this himself, the man is gifted with words…)

I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims. As I travel across the country and see our towns and cities, I am always moved by the many houses of worship with their steeples, all pointing to heaven, reminding us of the source of life’s blessings.

It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it’s usually a sound rule to focus on the latter – on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.

We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

This speech hit many hot buttons for a conservative audience. The idea that separation of church and state also means that the state can’t interfere with the free exercise of religion — that’s an article of faith for most social conservatives. He even indirectly mentioned the “war on Christmas”. There is much to like about this Romney speech, but I’m not sure if he wins any converts from Huckabee by it. Maybe he doesn’t have to. If the goal was to make Romney look less scary to everyone else, then mission accomplished.

Tags: ,

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Republicans

low expectations

The best argument for Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani is that Hillary (or Rudy) would be the candidate most likely to beat the other in a general election matchup…at least you would think so from the press coverage they get. Republicans are told that Giuliani is the only Republican candidate who might possibly be able to beat HER.  Because of this “fact”, we shouldn’t care about his lack of social conservative credentials or his messy personal life, or that being mayor of NYC doesn’t automatically qualify him to be president of the United States.  We might be giving up a whole bunch of red states to (maybe) gain a few blue ones if Giuliani is our candidate.  That’s ok with us, as long as we have a chance to beat Hillary, right?

There is no great love for Hillary out there as the Democrats’ preferred candidate. The netroots gravitate toward Edwards, or one of the other “no chance” candidates.  Those disenchanted with the status quo or Washington insiders have their guy in Obama.  But until that debate where we saw Hillary stumble just a little bit, many of us bought into Hillary’s inevitability as the Dem nominee. It’s still difficult to see how Obama can gain enough ground to knock her off, but several wins in early primary states, such as Iowa, can throw a monkey wrench into Hillary’s coronation plans. 

Obama does have the opportunity to pull this off as Democrats start to doubt that Hillary is their strongest possible nominee. That’s the whole point of all these increasingly sharp attacks on Hillary’s experience (or lack thereof) — to make them doubt her viability.  Maybe it will work.  Maybe not.  Hillary has experience where it counts with Democrats — successfully fending off Republican attacks.  This should be enough to get her to the Democratic nomination.

Is this the kind of contest we want?  Would we be satisfied with a contest between two candidates each party nominates by default?  Wouldn’t we rather nominate candidates with the best vision for the country, and the two people who we feel have the best ideas to solve the country’s problems?  Hillary and Rudy may be those two candidates.  But we don’t seem to care much about vision and ideas, just as long as our candidate is the most electable. It’s the most practical way to look at the election, but there’s no joy in the choice.

Jason Zengerle explores the electability argument further in New York Magazine.

1 Comment Posted on '08 Election, Conservatives, Republicans

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: , , ,

11 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Republicans

reagan’s appeal

Mark Levin explains what we are missing in the new Reagan wannabes.

Reagan helped build and lead the modern conservative movement. That can’t be said of any of the current Republican candidates. He helped give it substance and voice. He fought the Left in Hollywood. He was an outspoken Barry Goldwater supporter when Goldwater was fairly unpopular with the general public. He took on Gerald Ford, challenging him from the Right. Indeed, his candidacies in 1968, 1976, and 1980 were all ideologically based. And he obviously won in 1980 as the most conservative candidate in modern history. And both as a candidate and president, Reagan constantly spoke of conservative principles, as he had since the mid-to-late 1950s. He was not a recent convert. He used his position to educate the people about government’s limits. But he also understood, like Edmund Burke and many others, that changing half a century of liberal government would take time.

So, while he couldn’t succeed in every respect as president, and would reach compromises now and then, he tried to push the massive ship of state in the right direction. And he had many successes (too many people focus on the setbacks). He left a legacy that could have been built upon by his successor, but it was not.

That’s it. That’s where Giuliani, Romney, McCain, Huckabee and others can’t duplicate Reagan — the leadership he showed, not only as President, but as someone who not only believed in conservatism and was willing to fight in the arena of ideas. You can’t buy that kind of resume. You can’t be converted into it. You can still believe in conservative principles to varying degrees, and still not have the ability to fight for and advance those principles as Reagan did while he was our President.

Most of our top tier candidates are more than capable of leading the country in the right direction, but as far as finding a new leader for conservatism, you won’t find one of those in the Republican presidential candidate pool. Maybe we need to look somewhere else for that person, and be willing to settle for someone who won’t exactly be the kind of leader that Reagan was. The future of conservatism is not in the hands of any of these men, or in the hands of the Democrat contenders. So it won’t be lost no matter what happens in the next presidential election. We just have to fight a little harder if Hillary wins.

Tags: , , ,

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Republicans

embrace the nuance

Michael Medved explains why Rudy is different than Hillary on abortion.

Consider, for instance, the key differences between Giuliani’s platform and those of the leading Democratic candidates. Giuliani has committed to preserve the Hyde Amendment, banning taxpayer money for abortions; the top Democrats urge repeal and favor federal funding. Giuliani applauded the recent Supreme Court decision upholding a ban on partial-birth abortion; all leading Democrats condemned it in harsh terms. The former mayor supports tougher rules requiring parental notification (with a judicial bypass) for underage girls who seek abortions; Clinton and Barack Obama oppose such legislation. Most significant of all, Giuliani has specifically cited strict-constructionists Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and John Roberts as his models for future justices of the Supreme Court — and all three of those jurists have signaled their support for allowing states more leeway in limiting abortions. The top Democrats regularly express contempt for the conservative jurists whom Giuliani admires, and worked against the Alito and Roberts nominations.

I will note, however, that Rudy’s position on federal funding of abortions has changed over the years. But I think there’s common ground to be found here on the abortion issue, especially when pro-lifers consider the alternative. The pro-life community has a moral problem with abortion, and even though most Americans don’t agree with banning abortion entirely, both sides should agree on reasonable limits to the practice. That’s where social conservatives who consider abortion one of their main concerns can accept Rudy Giuliani as the Republican nominee, because there are significant distinctions between his pro-choice position and that of any of his Democrat opposition.

Tags: , , ,

Posted on '08 Election, Republicans

romney’s problem

Patrick Ruffini:

Romney should resign himself to the fact that he won’t be able to out-conservative Thompson or Huckabee on issues.

But he does have unique qualities that make him a more appealing choice than the other conservatives in the field on other grounds. In short, his path to the nomination is to out-conservative Rudy Giuliani (and only Giuliani) and out-executive and out-bio Thompson or Huckabee.

In all the ads we’ve seen so far, where is Romney the incredibly successful businessman — the most successful one in North America according to Jim Cramer? Romney the father of five? (this one’s only made the occasional cameo before social conservative audiences). The guy who was home with his wife doing his HBS homework while George Bush was out partying? (Okay, go light on the last part in the primaries.) Or the guy who saved the Olympics?

These were all the inspiring reasons why a one-term Massachusetts governor could run for President to begin with, and instead we get awkward metaphors about three-legged stools and blue vs. black suits.

He’s right.  We are not hearing much about Romney the businessman, Romney the family man, or the guy who saved the Olympics.  All we hear are assurances about Romney’s new conservatism.  He can pass himself off as more conservative than Giuliani.  But Giuliani will always be more authentic than Romney, because he is honest about his differences with social conservatives on gay marriage and abortion. Even though Romney has conservative views now, that is not his strongest argument for the Republican nomination. His strongest argument is his resume, and he is not using that to his advantage in this race.

Romney isn’t the most conservative guy in the race, whether he came by those views in a genuine conversion or a politically convenient one, and he does himself no favors trying to sell that concept.  Sell the resume, not the conservatism.  That’s the only way he can get past all the other candidates.

Tags: , ,