Republicans

6 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Conservatives, Republicans

leave mitt alone

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

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

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

Posted on '08 Election

hard to defend

I hear the argument that Republicans need to increase their reach online so that we can get our message out to more people. I agree with that. There is an undeniable benefit to the organization of the lefty netroots community that has been translating into real votes for their Democratic candidates. We saw some of this in the 2006 election. However, these CNN/YouTube debates are not the best way for Republican candidates to achieve this goal. Those of us who are plugged in to conservative blogs and other alternative media recognize CNN’s bias for what it is. The average American may not get how slanted CNN has made these debates. It is damaging CNN’s credibility even further when they do not take the time to check if those asking questions have an agenda to push, or whether they are even undecided voters. There’s nothing wrong with Democrats asking questions of the Republicans. The format allowed for people from both parties to ask them questions. CNN should have allowed more questions from Republicans than Democrats, since we are the ones who will pick our nominee. That’s not what happened here.

CNN never hesitated to name the affliation of Grover Norquist (who is hardly an impartial observer in this debate) to his Americans for Tax Reform. With just a little homework on their part, they could have found out about the Democrats asking questions without any disclosure of their affliations with Hillary, Obama, and someone belonging to a union supporting John Edwards. This is a joke. A bad joke. If the Republicans decide to boycott CNN from now on, I would support that completely.

As for the debate itself, I don’t know who won. The fireworks between Romney and Giuliani was quite entertaining. But I’ve stopped keeping score. There were no winners in the audience, because CNN totally abdicated its responsibility to run an honest debate for the Republicans.

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, 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: , ,

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, 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: , ,