Republicans

Posted on '08 Election, Conservatives, Republicans

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: , , ,

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, Republicans

doom and gloom

And now this word from the folks at NRO…

Rich Lowry says all the republican candidates suck.

Jonah Goldberg assures us that yes, in case you weren’t sure, Reagan is still dead. Not to pick on Mr. Goldberg, but apparently it’s not true until someone other than me writes it.

Deroy Murdock tells the stubborn social conservatives to shut up — of course Giuliani is not a threat to them. I’m not likely to take any politician on faith, even Giuliani. Even though Giuliani is considered more ‘authentic’ than Romney, he doesn’t get criticized half as much for similar shifts to the right on guns and abortion. It’s a curious thing. I guess being the Hillary-killer is enough to cause this collective amnesia about Rudy’s socially liberal past. I guess the difference is that Rudy has never attempted to be a social conservative and that he seems more honest about his differences with us. We seem to have resigned ourselves to the possibility of Giuliani being the Republican nominee.

Depressed yet?

Read more from Townhall. Mona Charen gives a few reasons why Republicans are doomed in ’08.

Wow.

Fortunately, there is always that eternal optimist, Bill Kristol, who tells Republicans to lighten up because there is still hope for us. I wish that I shared that optimism.

Tags: , , ,

Posted on '08 Election, Republicans

where has this guy been?

In a New Hampshire speech,  John McCain, shall we say, seriously questions Mitt Romney’s authenticity.

Courtesy of the Corner:

I don’t usually do this but I’m going to depart for a moment from the issues I want to talk to you about today.  One of the other Republican candidates made an extraordinary statement yesterday.  Former Governor Romney yesterday proclaimed himself the only real Republican in this race.  As we all know, when he ran for office in Massachusetts being a Republican wasn’t much of a priority for him.  In fact, when he ran against Ted Kennedy, he said he didn’t want to return to the days of Reagan-Bush.  I always thought Ronald Reagan was a real Republican.

When Governor Romney donated money to a Democratic candidate in New Hampshire, I don’t think he was speaking for Republicans.  When he voted for a Democratic candidate for President, Paul Tsongas, I don’t think he was speaking for Republicans.  When he refused to endorse the Contract with America, I don’t think he was speaking for Republicans.  And when he was embracing the Democratic position on many major issues of the day, I don’t think he was speaking for Republicans.

So you’ll understand why I’m a little perplexed when Mitt Romney now suggests that he’s a better Republican than me, or that he speaks for the Republican wing of the Republican Party.

I think I’ve gotten to know the people of New Hampshire pretty well.  I know that before I can win your vote, I have to win your respect.  And to do that, you expect me to be honest with you about what I believe.  You might not always agree with me on every issue, but I hope you know I’m not going to con you.  The most important thing we have in this life is our self-respect.  And I’m not going to trade mine for anyone’s vote or for any office.  I’m going to tell you what I believe and let the chips fall where they will.  I’m confident New Hampshire Republicans feel the same way about your self-respect as I feel about mine.

Ouch. That’s the kind of message that can resonate with people.  That’s McCain’s strength as a candidate.  He is authentic.  You know where he stands.  Unfortunately, he stands opposed to conservatives on issues like illegal immigration and campaign-finance reform. He has burned a lot of bridges with us, and this is what is keeping him from being a factor in this presidential race.

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, Republicans

michigan debate wrap-up

Nobody won this debate. Giuliani and Romney were at their best when discussing specifics on economic issues. Romney scored with his Michigan-specific message, and the mention of Governor Jennifer Granholm’s flawed economic strategy for Michigan certainly wasn’t wasted on his audience. Giuliani did look relaxed and comfortable in the format, but he didn’t say anything that was anything new than the previous debates. Romney still looks like he’s trying to be someone he’s not. (Huckabee, maybe?) He is the CEO, the executive type who has a 10 point plan for everything, and when he tries to freelance too much and act like he’s the guy next door, he can’t pull it off.

The crowded stage hurt Fred Thompson because it was impossible to give him as much time as the rest of the top three. I don’t know about the rest of the undecided Republican voters, but the jury’s still out on Fred as far as I’m concerned. He stumbled a bit out of the gate, but he did pick up his game as the debate went on. Mitt Romney really doesn’t do himself much good trying to pull off those canned jokes, and his apparent jab at Fred didn’t draw any blood, because Fred deftly deflected it: “and I thought that I was going to be the best actor on this stage”.

If Fred Thompson continues to improve on the stump and in these debates, I believe that this will hurt Mitt Romney. For all Mitt’s strengths, he still doesn’t connect on a personal level with Republican voters. That’s something I’m not sure he can fix. The argument for him is that we don’t necessarily need someone running the country who we would want to have a beer with, we just need someone who can run the government well. I think Mitt would be that kind of President, but I am not convinced he can get past the Republican primaries or even if he does, that he can beat Hillary.

Rudy was ok, McCain was ok, Romney had a few good moments and a few minor gaffes, including his comments on consulting lawyers to determine when congressional authority was needed to go to war with Iran. Fred was disappointing. Sure this was his first debate, but he has no one to blame for that but himself. Folksy charm won’t be enough. Thompson needs to go toe-to-toe with the frontrunners by laying out specifics, and he didn’t do enough of that in this debate. He earned a second look, but those who say that he did enough to get into the top tier must have different standards for that than I do.

Tags: , ,

Posted on '08 Election, Republicans

good idea

The New York Post sez that NBC should replace the not-so-objective Chris Matthews as a moderator for Tuesday’s GOP debate.  I see no problem with this. Chris Matthews is a clear partisan.  He cannot be objective and fair, and the candidates will be subjected to a bunch of really stupid pointless questions that they will feel obligated to answer.  I hope that the candidates will call him out when he steps over the line, because that would be good TV.  If Rudy’s smart, he will be the one to take advantage of the opportunity.

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: , , ,

Posted on '08 Election, Republicans

enough

I get the frustration with the Republican candidates currently running for President among the social conservative types.  Every single interest group has some bone to pick with the top three – Rudy, Mitt, or Fred — so nobody is happy with those choices.  If only Brownback, or Hunter, or Huckabee only had more money — the social conservatives would rally around one of those candidates and they would be happy. Maybe the situation will change with Huckabee, but I just don’t see it happening for any of the other so-con approved candidates.

As a social conservative myself, I have reservations about Rudy Giuliani as far as what kind of judges he would nominate to the Supreme Court.  I am also concerned that his stormy personal life may become an issue later on in the campaign, although I’m not sure why Hillary would want to start that kind of discussion if she’s the Dem nominee.  What is working in Rudy’s favor is his record in NY, as well as his leadership on 9/11. The latter is the main reason many social conservatives have given him their support.  I haven’t decided to support Rudy yet, although I might change my mind later on.

My concern with Rudy is partially based on the reasons I have already given, and also based on his limited executive experience.  It’s not that successfully managing New York City is a small achievement. He can rightfully boast about his record there.  But what else is there?  What other items on his resume can he point to to show that he has the right stuff to be President?  I hate to say this, but without his remarkable leadership on 9/11, Rudy Giuliani wouldn’t even be in the discussion for President of the United States.

That said…

I am disgusted by the spoiled, whiny, look-at-me-I’m-still-important, leaders in the Christian right community who would support a third party candidate if Rudy is the Republican party nominee. It’s a bad idea. Don’t they realize that if the social conservative vote is further split, Hillary wins?  As long as Rudy doesn’t win…right? They don’t speak for me, and they don’t speak for many social conservatives who share their moral values.  Power doesn’t just corrupt politicians. It corrupts religious leaders as well.  I am concerned that the church has forgotten its mission: to bring the message of Christ to a lost world. It’s not our job to pick presidential candidates.

Like I said, I’m not sold on any of the top three, including Fred, and it’s hard for me to imagine donating money or time to any of these campaigns right now.  But if Rudy is the nominee, he’s still better than Hillary. That will be enough for my vote.

 

2 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Republicans

rudy scores

The Democrats had to know that their direct and indirect shots at General Petraeus wouldn’t work in their favor. They allowed their hatred of Bush to cloud their judgment during their questioning of the general. One would expect the Democrats to act in a more mature fashion than a political advocacy group such as MoveOn.org. Perhaps our expectations are too high for these bitter partisans. There’s nothing Congressional Democrats won’t do to prove themselves worthy of the favor of the anti-war left.

Rudy Giuliani seized the opportunity to denounce the ad by MoveOn calling Petraeus a traitor, and he is running a counter-ad in the New York Times. This is one case where a brilliant political move and a necessary challenge to the anti-war left can be accomplished with one ad. MoveOn needed to be called out on this, and none of the Democrats were willing to challenge them. All of the Republican candidates were quick to praise Petraeus and the Bush speech, and they said all the right things. But it is Rudy who has taken the fight to the Democrats, and that’s one more reason why he continues to lead in the national polls.

Tags: ,