Romney’s Log Cabin letter ishere.
His opponent was Ted Kennedy.
Wait, so this is your pitch as to why conservatives should be EXCITED by the prospect of McCain??? That he’ll fail to advance their agenda? And McCain, unlike Bush, also has a track record of what many conservatives feel is a betrayal on key issues from gun control to abortion.
Maybe I just don’t understand the whole “born again” process or whatever it is that Romney went thru to have his change of heart on the two hot-button social issues of the religious right. But if he can repackage himself as the candidate they can rely on to be steadfastly and actively against abortion and SSM, maybe there is such a thing as a miracle after all.
The essential problem non-religious right, non-neocon Repubs have is how to break the lock that these two groups have on power in the Repub party. Until that happens, you’re screwed. Doesn’t matter who the candidate is.
From my understanding of the political space in the U.S., this is what a succesful Republican candidate would look like:
- Strong fiscal conservative. For low taxes, lower deficits.
- Strong on defense, but with a more cautious view towards interventions.
- Less emphasis on ‘family values’ - for stem cell research, agnostic on gay marriage, refuses to make such issues the centerpiece of a campaign in any case.
- Wants to uphold conservative values primarily through the market - school vouchers, for example. No ‘big government’ conservativism (“No Child Left Behind”, etc).
- Leans more libertarian than authoritarian.
- An intellectual who comes across as smart. Republicans are tired of the ‘dumb guy’ label on their candidates
- Strongly pro-growth, free trade, less regulations
- Embraces technology. In touch with what’s happening in science and technology.
Look at the issues that hurt Bush the most. Clearly he’s on the wrong side of the stem cell debate - his position is a minority one even among Republicans. The Harriet Miers debacle hurt him badly among conservatives. Conservatives hated the prescription drug benefit, moderate Republicans were annoyed by the time spent on the Terry Schiavo mess. His big-spending ways have really hurt him. There’s a lot of dissatisfaction about the Iraq war, but that doesn’t mean people were against the invasion. A lot of the disapproval for the handling of the war on the right comes from people who think Bush wasn’t aggressive enough. A lot of conservatives assumed that Iraq would be used as a wedge to start putting serious pressure on Iran and Syria. A lot of them were annoyed when Sadr was surrounded - and released. I think there would be a lot of support from a candidate who says, “I’m not going to attack countries until I know there’s absolutely no other way to achieve our goals. But by God, if I do commit the military, I’m going to give them everything they need to win. There will be no half-measures, no ‘strategic pullbacks’, no disengagement on any terms other than complete surrender and disarmament of the enemy.” Conservatives generally believe that war is absolutely the last resort, but once you’re in one the only correct course of action to take is to fight it with everything you’ve got to bring about the fastest conclusion possible compatible with your war goals.
Bush also lost fiscal conservatives with his steel tariffs and big deficits. They were totally frustrated by his unwillingness to veto a single bill, and when he finally did, it was a stem cell bill that most conservatives see as a small side show.
Basically, conservatives want Reagan back. Jay Danforth said it well when he said that in the Reagan administration, Republicans spent all their energy on issues of tax policy, regulatory policy, defense, and other weighty issues. Today’s conservatives sit around arguing about flag burning, stem cells, the ten commandments in government buildings, Terry Sciavo, gay marriage, and other ultimately trivial issues, while casually passing bloated budgets stuffed with earmarks. They’ve been horrible.
So what candidates are out there that might fit this bill? Precious few. Perhaps someone we haven’t heard of yet. Of the known Republicans who fit the mold, I’d say Fred Thompson could really energize Republicsans (there are already several ‘Draft Fred Thompson’ movements afoot). Newt Gingrich is another one, but I don’t know if he’s still seen as damaged goods from the beating he took in Congress. He’s probably the one I like the most. And he’s said that he’ll be exploring a candidacy in the fall - he’s waiting to see if a clear front-runner emerges from the current pack. He knows that his chance is to come in as the last-minute outsider to ‘save’ the party if by October the current crop looks like a bunch of losers.
From your lips to the Ears. Oh, please, please, please let it be Newt!
Now, Universe, I know I haven’t been a very good pantheist…
No, that’s what a Republican candidate that you would support looks like.
Now, I think a Republican like that could be successful, but it would have to be right person. Arnold meets all those criteria, and he’s been quite successful in CA. But could someone who wasn’t already Arnold freakin’ Schwarzenneger be successful in the same way? I think it would be very, very difficult. Look at Jack Kemp-- he never had any success in presidential politics, and he fits that bill pretty well, too.
Frankly, I think the guy who comes closest to that description, and who has the best chance in '08, is still McCain. But he’s got an anchor tied to his leg right now by the name of “Bush”. Not only has been a solid supporter of the Iraq war, but all those campaign blurbs he did for Bush in '04 are going to come back and haunt him in '08. Maybe he can rise above that, but it depends on how badly things are still going in Iraq a year from now.
Well, he did get the VP nomination in '96, but I gather you count that as not being successful. (He managed to do well enough to get the second spot on the ticket, but didn’t get elected, so it’s hard to count it as success or failure.)
I think that’s correct. The problem is structural - it’s impossible for a Republican to win the Presidency without sweeping the South, and you can’t sweep the south without seriously placating the religious right. And it’s impossible to win the nomination under the current primary system without getting serious support from the religious right.
This problem exists for Democrats too. Their base is fractured, with the ‘netroots’ types who are becoming increasingly powerful being far to the left of the mainstream.
The biggest danger for the Democrats in the next election is that they’ll have a clear front-runner before the Republican primaries come up, and that front-runner will be so unpalatable to the religious right that they’ll start caring more about the electability of the Republican candidate than true religious-right bona fides. I could see Guliani squeaking through that way. Let’s say he’s 10 or 20 points ahead of the field in popularity before the primaries, and Hillary Clinton is the clear Democratic favorite. You’re going to get a lot of religious conservatives saying, “I really don’t like Guliani’s social policies, but I sure don’t want President Hillary, so I have to vote for the guy with the best chance to win.”
Then you put Rudy up against Hillary in the general election, and you’ve got a real race.
Then there’s the other scenario - BOTH sides pop extreme candidates out of their respective primaries, and the door opens for a third-party candidate. Not that I think a third-party candidate could win, but I think there’s a chance that the next election could see a stronger third-party candidacy since John Anderson back in 1980. Someone who could take down 20% of the vote. If someone like Fred Thompson or Gingrich or a Democrat of the Bill Clinton centrist type (say, Bill Richardson) headed up a credible third party and got the support of a lot of DLC and blue-dog Demcrats and disaffected libertarian-leaning conservatives, it could make for quite an interesting race.
No, I don’t consider getting the booby prize in politics to be a success. And it didn’t do Dole any good, either.
No, that’s not how it works. The time when a Republican has to play to the religious right is during the primaries, not the general election. Religious voters have been such a force in the primaries that Republicans who aren’t willing to kiss the collective ring of the God squad get weeded out at that stage.
Once you get to the general election, anyone with an “R” behind his name has a good shot at sweeping the South.
I thought about whether or not I was projecting too much of my own beliefs into that, but I don’t think so. I was honestly trying to think of issues that have hurt Bush, and ones that have polled well among Republicans. For example, there is clear support for embryonic stem cell research among Republicans. Bush hurts himself with his own party with his stance. When you look at how Republicans typically want their policies enacted, there is always stronger support for the more libertarian solution. School vouchers are very popular with conservatives. Huge increases in public funding for education to achieve the same goals, not so much.
And while most Republicans are not in favor of gay marriage, my reading of the climate says that they’d rather just ignore the issue or allow some loophole that creates a compromise. As an example, remember the furor over gays in the military? Clinton read the situation the same way as I’m seeing the gay marriage debate - the religious right would have strongly opposd a specific regulation that forced full recognition of gays in the military. But ‘don’t ask - don’t tell’ was ultimately fine with them. They didn’t want to persecute the gays in the military, they just didn’t want the institution itself changed in a fundamental way. That’s also why most Republicans favor civil unions - a way to give gays all the legal benefits of marriage while still being able to save the institution of marriage itself from change.
These are not even my positions. I’ve got no problem with gay marriage. Bring it on. But conservatives disagree.
Free trade has always been a winning policy position, except among special interests. Democrats have a big problem with trade unions, and Republicans have a problem with farmers and some big industries, but the rank and file of the Republican party is pro free trade.
If you asked the average Republican to state in ten words or less what they believe in politically, they’d probably say, “Low taxes, less government, strong defense, family values”. Find a candidte who can draw the best balance between all of those, and you’ve got a good candidate. The problem is, as always, the base.
I agree with you that McCain is probably the strongest of the bunch right now. He’s also got the best chance of getting through the primaries. And if he picks the right running mate, he could be a formidable candidate. Someone younger, with big ideas and strong conservative credentials. I’m not sure who that would be right now.
McCain’s biggest liabilities are: 1) he’s a Senator. It’s very hard to get elected from that background. 2) Age. He’ll be the oldest candidate in history if he makes it. I’m not sure the public really wants another old leader - Bill Clinton was supposed to have ushered in the new generation into politics. McCain is a bit of a throwback. 3) McCain makes mistakes. He has a temper. I could see him saying or doing something that blows up in his face. 4) His record is such that liberals can attack him from the left, and Republicans can attack him from the right. He can be painted as a doctrinaire conservative in lock-step with the religious right, and he can be painted as a flaming liberal. He has a strange track record. Handled right, that could be an advantage. It could show that he’s his own thinker, than he’s willing to go against his own orthodoxy, etc. We’ll see.
I think this is pretty much it exactly. Both Bushes are failed Reagans (though honestly, the cult of Reagan seems to have really started gliding over the reality of Reagan, which included things like “changed my mind” tax hikes and softening things towards Russia that play directly against the myth that Reagan was really so different from the Bushes, or really so perfect for conservatism as remembered today)
Yeah: that’s the sort of interesting dark horse candidate I think will have to emerge at this point.
I think this was the guy the quote called an adulterer, which is nothing to scoff at given that he was a particularly lurid one rivaling Bill Clinton. Given his legacy of the impeachment, the “dating a young Congressional aid 23 years his junior while still married to his second wife and then handing her divorce papers as she was recovering from surgery on her cancer” thing that came to light since is not exactly the sparkling clean slate of a brash up and coming Presidential candidate. This is pretty much the same rock that Hillary has around her neck, except in Hillary’s case, at least the candidate herself wasn’t the one seen getting blowjobs in the back of his car from someone clearly not his wife.
So, when was the last time a Republican like that won the nomination. But I see that spoke- beat me to the punch. You’re talking about what a successful candidate might look like in the general. We’re talking about the primaries.
I think McCain could overcome all those things easily by getting Schwarzenneger to endorse him. I wonder if Arnold will try to pick a favorite in the CA primary…
No, he’ll be the oldest President when first inaugurated or when first nominated, as Reagan was 73 at his second inauguration. McCain is a bit more than three years older than Reagan during his first term, but he won’t break the biggest records unless he gets two terms.
(Getting two terms would also mark the first time there have been two successive two-term Presidents from the same party [excluding Jefferson/Madison/Monroe, since there was only one successful party at that point].)
You must be using a definition of “conservatives” that excludes the neocons.
Remember, that’s not really what this thread’s about. It’s about conservative disenchantment with the GOP field to date, so it’s about the political space in the GOP. And it’s especially about the more conservative side of that space.
With that in mind, I think your list is way off.
Low taxes, yes. But concern for deficits has mostly been a lip-service thing (or a rhetorical bludgeon to hamstring Dem initiatives) since Anderson left the party in 1980. The ‘responsible’ wing of the party is a minority.
I don’t see this either. The grassroots GOP seem to view foreign policy mostly as a bar fight. If it doesn’t work out that we can win by bloodying the other guy’s nose (like in Iraq), then the response will be either (a) we need more freedom to punch more people in the nose (even if they’re the ones we came to rescue), or (b) let’s forget about this fight, and move on to the next one; surely we can win that one by punching the other guy in the nose.
In some other world where the sky is green, perhaps.
The religious conservatives love big-government conservatism. They want to outlaw abortion and hamstring birth control all across the U.S.A. They were the ones who wanted to slap “In God We Trust” on every school.
Maybe the sky is yellow in this world.
I don’t think the more conservative wing of the GOP is worried much about this. They just want their causes promoted; they’ll believe Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck are underrated intellectuals if they need to think they’re smart.
That’s the money base. The voting base can get as protectionist as anybody. (Nothing like living in South Carolina for five years to bring this home. If they still have a textile industry, they want it protected. If not, they wanted it protected while they still had one.)
Some are, some aren’t. Many are continually very afraid of the newest technology because it’s a new way for Hollywood and pornographers to corrupt their kids that they have no idea what to do about.
I think this is a damned if you do, damned if you don’t issue for conservatives: do you piss off the more conservative half of the party - your base - or do you piss off most of the country?
Because she wasn’t regarded as a true conservative.
I don’t see that.
Again, they’re outnumbered.
No. A number of already-dissatisfied commentators have tried to paint him as a librul because he spends, but that’s about the extent of it. If he wasn’t an all-around fuckup, few on the right would be bothered by his spending.
I think this supports the bar-fight view of how the conservative rank-and-file (hell, plenty of conservative bloggers and third-rate pundits too) view foreign policy.
They should vote Dem.
Which explains why conservatives are dinosaurs: they’ve got no clue. The enemy in our current war swung at the bottom of a rope a few weeks back. Now our problem is with all those people we came to rescue. The words don’t match up with reality.
Bullshit. For my entire lifetime, American conservatives have always been more bellicose, ready to fight whether it was clear it was necessary, wise, or whatever.
They’re called ‘Democrats.’
Not really. Reagan wouldn’t be bellicose enough nowadays. He wouldn’t be religious enough, and all those religious wingnut causes wouldn’t really mean that much to him. The party may genuflect to his memory, but conservatism has moved on past where he was. If he were around today, the ‘true’ conservatives would regard him as a bit of a RINO.
Newt! Newt! Newt!
(OK, I’ll stop, you’re right, totally uncalled for…)
Dunno about successful, but that’s a damn good platform, Sam.
I’d still be a Dem if that was the GOP platform, but I wouldn’t feel that the fate of the Republic - and perhaps the world - was at risk if such a party were in charge.
I mean, it sounds like a mapping of the GOP ca. 1970 onto today’s political landscape. That party could actually be entrusted to run a hot-dog stand.