Republicans: We need a hero

[Debaser]

@ElvisL1ves

debaser, “liberal Massachusetts” is a myth, like “Taxachusetts”, albeit a cherished one among your faction

Not quite. In MA democrats outnumber republicans by a 3:1 margin. cite. BTW, who is “my faction”?

(Reagan won it both times, FYI).

This stat is meaningless. Reagan won in nearly every state in the country (save a handful) in both of his elections. cite

The division here at state level is insider/outsider. Romney got elected as an outsider with a clean image, not because of or in spite of his party affiliation, and remember that Kennedy cleaned the floor with him in his Senate campaign.

Yes, and no one was saying that Romney was elected because of his party affiliation. However, the point is that if Mitt could convince MA voters to vote for him, despite the fact that he is a republican, than he could do the same thing elsewhere.

If he wants to go national, he needs some accomplishments to point to other than the Salt Lake Olympics, and those aren’t in evidence - which is due to the office having little real power, but he knew that coming in.

This thread is about the future of the party. We’re discussing rising stars. The fact that people in question lack certain experience isn’t relevant.

We’re on our 4th consecutive Republican governor, “outsiders who will clean up the mess”, incidentally, the last 3 having quit in frustration after trying to buck the system instead of work with it. Romney’s making similar noises after a similar tenure in office.

Yes, it’s quite amusing that even a state full of Democrats is forced to admit their failure by electing Republican governors to counteract the numerous failed liberal policies.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Debaser

Not quite. In MA democrats outnumber republicans by a 3:1 margin. cite. BTW, who is “my faction”?

Ah, I see. You think “liberal” is synonymous with “Democratic”. Bet you think Republican=conservative too, don’tcha? That illustrates which faction is yours too, btw.

This stat is meaningless. Reagan won in nearly every state in the country (save a handful) in both of his elections.

What do other states have to do with Massachusetts voting patterns?

Yes, and no one was saying that Romney was elected because of his party affiliation.

Other than the person who elbowed you aside in mid-post, took over your keyboard, and finished it with “Yes, it’s quite amusing that even a state full of Democrats is forced to admit their failure by electing Republican governors to counteract the numerous failed liberal policies.”

This thread is about the future of the party. We’re discussing rising stars. The fact that people in question lack certain experience isn’t relevant.

He’s been governor for 2 years, head of a large, highly-international, and clean Olympics program, CEO of one of the best-known LBO firms, and son of another major CEO who was also a governor and a Presidential candidate. He is certainly not “lacking” in any relevant experience, just in accomplishments in his latest office.

Yes, it’s quite amusing that even a state full of Democrats is forced to admit their failure by electing Republican governors to counteract the numerous failed liberal policies.

Snicker. Come and visit sometime. You may have trouble with the concept, but the first of the series, Weld, won as the moderate-liberal against the moderate-conservative Democrat Silber. After, that is, Silber revealed himself as a major asshole during the general election campaign, while Weld kept his pleasant image - one he kept throughout his tenure in office, in which he went along with the system. He was re-elected as the insider (i.e. one able to get things done) who still wasn’t corrupted. Cellucci got and stayed in office as long as he did because he didn’t rock the boat either, but did have an air of corruption, and the Democrat he ran against, Harshbarger, had too many rough edges.

Romney, as you’ve already been informed, won as the outsider (against a Democrat who advertised her insiderness as effectiveness - that approach often works, too), not as the Republican - you claim that will work nationally, but there’s little basis to believe it other than hope. His Mormonism is uncharted territory nationally as well - the only Mormon candidate who’s even tried a Presidential run AFAIK is Orrin Hatch, and you know how far *he * got.

[dalej42]

It is interesting to note that on every single Republican ticket since 1976, there has been either a Dole or a Bush.

If Bush loses in 2004, the Republicans may very well have to find some fresh blood. I’m sure Pataki will get some notice.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@ElvisL1ves

Ah, I see. You think “liberal” is synonymous with “Democratic”. Bet you think Republican=conservative too, don’tcha? That illustrates which faction is yours too, btw.

Spot on. Massachusetts is liberally (ha!) besprinkled with conservative Democrats and moderate to liberal Republicans. The “Massachusetts liberal” monolith is a myth. (Well, perhaps except in the People’s Republic of Cambridge… ;))

He’s been governor for 2 years, head of a large, highly-international, and clean Olympics program, CEO of one of the best-known LBO firms, and son of another major CEO who was also a governor and a Presidential candidate. He is certainly not “lacking” in any relevant experience, just in accomplishments in his latest office.

Count me as one liberal who had hopes of Mitt doing a decent job as governor regardless of his party affiliation, who’s been less than impressed by his overall effectiveness, and immensely pissed off at the anti-gay posturing he’s injected into his lunge for national recognition.

Snicker. Come and visit sometime. You may have trouble with the concept, but the first of the series, Weld, won as the moderate-liberal against the moderate-conservative Democrat Silber. After, that is, Silber revealed himself as a major asshole during the general election campaign, while Weld kept his pleasant image - one he kept throughout his tenure in office, in which he went along with the system. He was re-elected as the insider (i.e. one able to get things done) who still wasn’t corrupted. Cellucci got and stayed in office as long as he did because he didn’t rock the boat either, but did have an air of corruption, and the Democrat he ran against, Harshbarger, had too many rough edges.

Romney, as you’ve already been informed, won as the outsider (against a Democrat who advertised her insiderness as effectiveness - that approach often works, too), not as the Republican - you claim that will work nationally, but there’s little basis to believe it other than hope. His Mormonism is uncharted territory nationally as well - the only Mormon candidate who’s even tried a Presidential run AFAIK is Orrin Hatch, and you know how far *he * got.

An elegant summation of the situation here.

[RTFirefly]

@dalej42

It is interesting to note that on every single Republican ticket since 1976, there has been either a Dole or a Bush.

And the trend could continue, given the high name recognition of both Jeb Bush and Liddy Dole.

If Bush loses in 2004, the Republicans may very well have to find some fresh blood. I’m sure Pataki will get some notice.

Perhaps. But here’s my take on it: Pataki’s been governor of one of our largest states for nearly a decade, and it’s a state that’s only 2 states away from Maryland, where I’ve been living for the past 6 years.

Given that I’m a political junkie, and all I really know about Pataki is that (a) he’s governor of NY, and (b) he’s a bit more moderate than your typical GOPer (I couldn’t even tell you if he’s young or old), I’m thinking that if he had the talent to hit the big time, I’d have heard a bit more about him by now.

Besides Jeb Bush, who (judging by his iffy approval ratings down there) has been having a spot of trouble in FL, the strongest GOP up-and-comer I can see on the horizon would be Sen. George Allen of Virginia. Was governor of VA from 1994-98 (and in the US Congress and VA house of delegates before that, back to 1983), then edged Chuck Robb to win his Senate seat in 2000. Can do the Bush balancing act (true-blue pro-business, pro-tax-cut conservative, well-liked by the fundies, yet can convince moderates that he’s basically OK) without reminding anyone of George W. Bush. He’s 52 years old, so he’s a potential Presidential nominee in 2008, 2012, or 2016. He’s a talented politician. He’s also the son of the late Rams and Redskins football coach George Allen.

[Debaser]

@ElvisL1ves

Ah, I see. You think “liberal” is synonymous with “Democratic”. Bet you think Republican=conservative too, don’tcha? That illustrates which faction is yours too, btw.

I never said the two are synonymous. However, it stands to reason that a state where democrats outnumber republicans by a three to one margin is more “liberal” than other states. If that measurement isn’t valid, then what would you suggest?

What do other states have to do with Massachusetts voting patterns?

You pointed out that Reagan won MA twice. I just pointed out that since Reagan won basically everywhere, this doesn’t mean anything.

Other than the person who elbowed you aside in mid-post, took over your keyboard, and finished it with “Yes, it’s quite amusing that even a state full of Democrats is forced to admit their failure by electing Republican governors to counteract the numerous failed liberal policies.”

I was referring to the pattern of a liberal state electing four republican governors in a row. It’s quite a stretch to imply that I believe Romney was elected because of his party affiliation. It’s obviously a factor in the election, but not the reason he was elected.

Snicker. Come and visit sometime.

I get Jay Severen and Howie Carr on my radio dial. Yeat.

You may have trouble with the concept, but the first of the series, Weld, won as the moderate-liberal against the moderate-conservative Democrat Silber. After, that is, Silber revealed himself as a major asshole during the general election campaign, while Weld kept his pleasant image - one he kept throughout his tenure in office, in which he went along with the system. He was re-elected as the insider (i.e. one able to get things done) who still wasn’t corrupted. Cellucci got and stayed in office as long as he did because he didn’t rock the boat either, but did have an air of corruption, and the Democrat he ran against, Harshbarger, had too many rough edges.

You really believe that in a state where a republican can barely even get elected as a state rep, where both senators and all US reps are democrats, where democrats outnumber republicans by 3 to 1, you think that is just a series of coincidences that has left us with several republicans elected in a row?

Romney, as you’ve already been informed, won as the outsider (against a Democrat who advertised her insiderness as effectiveness - that approach often works, too), not as the Republican - you claim that will work nationally, but there’s little basis to believe it other than hope.

So what? Obviously, Mitt wasn’t going to present himself as a republican to the voters. That would be in conflict with his goal of, well, winning the election. But, it’s silly to think that it wasn’t a factor.

His Mormonism is uncharted territory nationally as well - the only Mormon candidate who’s even tried a Presidential run AFAIK is Orrin Hatch, and you know how far *he * got.

Yes, but this thread isn’t just about possible future presidential candidates. At least, that’s not the way I read the OP. It could include any future leaders in the party. It’s not right to discount somone simply because they don’t fit the mold of past presidential candidates.

[Debaser]

@EddyTeddyFreddy

Spot on. Massachusetts is liberally (ha!) besprinkled with conservative Democrats and moderate to liberal Republicans. The “Massachusetts liberal” monolith is a myth. (Well, perhaps except in the People’s Republic of Cambridge… ;))

To this I will agree. All MA residents aren’t liberal. However, I don’t think that the “liberal Massachusetts” label imlies that all residents of MA act as a monolith. Certainly no reasonable person believes this. But, looking at the state as a whole, MA is much more liberal than the rest of the country.

Ted Kennedy doesn’t even need to campaign and he keeps winning elections here! He’d get laughed off the balot in most states.

[spectrum]

@dalej42

It is interesting to note that on every single Republican ticket since 1976, there has been either a Dole or a Bush.

Going back farther, aside from 1964, Richard Nixon, Bob Dole and one of the Georges Bush has been on every Republican ticket since 1952.

Scary.

[ElvisL1ves]

Eddy, thanks for the props. To look back further at other recent GOP or conservative governors, there’s Frank Sargent, who got elected as a liberal environmentalist when that was quite avant-garde, and also worked with the system. Then there’s conservative Democrat Ed King, who defeated the first-term Dukakis/Kerry team during the busing crisis. As his campaign manager said afterward, “Basically, we put all the hate groups into a pot and let it boil.” That’s one that should never be forgotten - that shit can happen here, too. When we realized it, we dumped him and his cronies and put the Duke back in (Kerry was in the Senate by then).

@Debaser

However, it stands to reason that a state where democrats outnumber republicans by a three to one margin is more “liberal” than other states. If that measurement isn’t valid, then what would you suggest?

Some actual study data based on working definitions of “liberal”, “moderate” (don’t forget that), and “conservative”, obviously. As for party affiliations, you must be a youngster not to remember when the names weren’t that connected.

You pointed out that Reagan won MA twice. I just pointed out that since Reagan won basically everywhere, this doesn’t mean anything.

And I pointed out that it means MA isn’t as different as you think. Was it that hard?

I was referring to the pattern of a liberal state electing four republican governors in a row. It’s quite a stretch to imply that I believe Romney was elected because of his party affiliation. It’s obviously a factor in the election, but not the reason he was elected.

It isn’t “obviously” even a factor.

I get Jay Severen and Howie Carr on my radio dial.

I play audiobooks when I want to hear fiction coming out of speakers. BTW, the fact that those people have an audience sufficient to keep their shows on the airs is also evidence against MA’s “liberality”

you think that is just a series of coincidences that has left us with several republicans elected in a row?

Not at all. Remember what I just said about the fault line being outsider/insider.

Yes, but this thread isn’t just about possible future presidential candidates…It’s not right to discount somone simply because they don’t fit the mold of past presidential candidates.

Fitting the “mold” of past *winners * is obviously appropriate, though.

[SteveG1]

Anyone with a bit of common sense, who can turn the Republican party into what was described by Eisenhower back in 1956, a party that includes instead of divides, and does not stick its nose in peoples personal business. Oh and for the miltary industrial complex Ike warned about, just change it to government corporation complex and warn about that. Other than that, how about the simple unvarnished truth once in a while? It would be so refreshing for once to see a politican who had the grit to admit “I screwed up” once in a while instead of yelling about the parrot not being dead or blaming some fall guy because he himself didn’t do his homework.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

One think the Goppers are going have to realize if they really want a broadly appealling candiadate is that they need someone who’s going to disengage from the religious right. The more society progresses, the more of an anchor the religious right is becoming on the GOP.

[ShibbOleth]

@RTFirefly

And the trend could continue, given the high name recognition of both Jeb Bush and Liddy Dole.

Is it really Liddy Dole? I always thought it was Libby, but could be wrong. Maybe she had it changed because of the connotations? Also, while I’m on a mild hijack, is George Allen as big a prick as his brother down here seems to be? Yeah, we’ve got an Allen in Tampa, his name is Bruce and he’s the one that Gruden brought in to replace the beloved Rich McKay. His MO so far has been to bring in very expensive and very old ex-Raiders and for some inexplicable reason bash Bill Clinton in the press. Which isn’t normally part of the GM responsibilities.

[Revtim]

Looking for a hero in a group of politicians is like looking for a lottery ticket at the bottom of a septic tank. There’s a slim chance of it being there, but you’ll likely drown in shit before you find it.

[PatriotX]

@Diogenes the Cynic

One think the Goppers are going have to realize if they really want a broadly appealling candiadate is that they need someone who’s going to disengage from the religious right. The more society progresses, the more of an anchor the religious right is becoming on the GOP.

As long as they remain motivated voters, they aren’t much of an anchor.

[Sam_Stone]

Republicans like going to the Entertainment Industry well. In that spirit, I give you President Selleck.

[Starving_Artist]

Although he is certainly intelligent and photogenic, I don’t know if Selleck has the drive and savvy to make a good president, Sam. I’d be for repealing the natural born citizen clause and electing Schwarzenegger if I was gonna go for a celebrity president, even though he is only sort of a Republican.

[jayjay]

Eh. Tom Selleck played a gay man in In and Out. There’s no way the GOP will let him run for prez…

[PatriotX]

@Revtim

Looking for a hero in a group of politicians is like looking for a lottery ticket at the bottom of a septic tank. There’s a slim chance of it being there, but you’ll likely drown in shit before you find it.

Hero is relative.
It’s more like looking to the qurters that the 8yr old swallowed last week. You know that they’re in there, you just wish that they’d float to the top on their own.

[Sam_Stone]

Oh, I don’t know either. I was throwing him out there mainly for shock value. But don’t underestimate him - he’s written some op-ed for National Review and other conservative publications that were quite good. And I loved it when the actor’s union threatened him for giving free publicity to National Review. His response was to write a letter to the editor of National Review, offering his free services any time they should ask. Heh.

[jayjay]

@Revtim

Looking for a hero in a group of politicians is like looking for a lottery ticket at the bottom of a septic tank. There’s a slim chance of it being there, but you’ll likely drown in shit before you find it.

Politics has, proportionately, more people wielding shovels looking for that damn pony than any other human activity.