If you’re looking for a Republican equivalent to Edwards and Obama, i.e. handsome, young (or able to project such an appearance,) charismatic, charming, and photogenic, I’m sorry to say I think you’re out of luck.
Even with the 18-25er’s disintrest in politics, the G.O.P. is most un-hip among the circles of today’s youth. In my opinion, which is surely shared by thousands, it represents the old-guard gray-haired political elite, opposed to the holy trifecta of youthful vigor: loose sex, marijuana and rock’n’roll (or rap.) And as long as they have moral ideologues representing it, they won’t garner sympathy from today’s youth. What does that mean? Fewer young, energetic, attractive Republicans. Sorry!
2008 will be interesting. If Bush wins in 2004, I honestly don’t see any way the Republicans will nominate Cheney in 2008. In fact, I could see Cheney resigning after the midterm elections in 2006.
However, I really don’t know who the Republican field might consist of in 2008. A Bush loss might make for some interesting feuds between the social and economic conservatives in the GOP.
I still think we’re going to see the Republican party go a bit farther right before it swings back to center. For example, when Arlen Specter won the nomination for Republican senate candidate here in PA (of course, he is the incumbent), over the more right wing Pat Toomey, a lot of people were up in arms about how the “liberal” Specter is a traitor and how Santorum had no business endorsing him, etc.
When someone like Arlen Specter is seen as “liberal”, I think they’ve still got a ways to go before you can get more John McCains. (Especially considering the appeals to the homophobes).
I’ve only skimmed the article so far, but this week’s Time magazine has a high-profile article on the growing Republican student presence on college campuses.
We’re talking in circles on this point. Nearly every state voted for Reagan. The fact that MA, or any other state voted for him isn’t indicitive of anything.
Let me get this straight. Your position is that the party affiliation of Romney wasn’t a factor in the election. This is so absurd that I don’t even know what to make of it.
Ha! You made a good point. It makes sense and everything. I’d congratulate you, except at this point in the thread I think this is merely a coincidence rather than by design.
The fact that Howie Carr is on the air is easy to explain. His show is focused on “the hacks”. He gets inside of all the corruption and stupidity of the local government. There is a lot of material for him, so his show does well. The fact that he tends to be conservative isn’t his big selling point.
Jay Severen is a libertarian, not a conservative. His hatred for Bush is surpased by his hatred for Kerry, but not by much. He’s far from a right wing pundit. Sure, the folks who listen to him aren’t liberals, but a lot of his audience IMHO is a backlash from living in such a liberal state. It’s very common around these parts to meet another Jay listener and hear him express how nice it is to finally meet another like minded person.
Now it’s sounding like you do admit the party affiliation matters in Massachusetts elections. Do try and decide on an argument and stick with it for the whole post, won’t you?
So, in this discussion of rising stars, we should not discuss any black, or female, or mormon persons at all? I would doubt if the OP would agree with you.
So, only about 20% of the US population considers themselves liberal. However, when you look at Massachusetts this number more than doubles to 44% who self identify as liberals. Sounds like “liberal Massachusetts” rings true after all.
By an overwhelming margin of 44-43. Yep, no doubt about it, there’s proof positive.
I suggested that you find some actual studies, with working definitions of the words, looking for how many people agree with those positions, as a good way to get some objective ranking. You provided self-identification, which means jack. Nobody is talking in circles except you.
Further, your lack of knowledge of the state’s political history further back than the last decade is most certainly relevant to the quality of your assessments, hardly an ad hominem. Apparently there’s no point in trying to explain further that here a Republican can be an insider or a liberal, and a Democrat an outsider or a conservative, either.
The idea that yet another rich white male social conservative could be a future Republican “hero” is good for a laugh, though. Did Howie and Jay tell you that?
I don’t wanna get in the middle of an exchange (which, interestingly enough, is precisely what I’m doing), but wanted to point out that if the Republican party is looking for someone to lead them out of the forest planted by the RR, then Sam Brownback (R-KS) is definitely the wrong person to do that.
Sorta like choosing Kit Bond (R-MO) to lead the temperance movement, if you catch my drift.
Don’t worry, GLW, there’s no exchange going on, not anymore, based on debaser’s last “contribution”.
Yes, all these mentions of currently nationally-known Republicans misses the point - they got there by being part of the RR, or at least so willing to go along with it that they can never be credible opponents of it.
So there’s no good, specific answer to the OP question - the person has to be someone we don’t know about, practically by definition.
So I give you “Big” Jim Thompson, former governor of Illinois.
Until recent months when the Illinois Republican Party has gone bat-shit insane (our most recent gov going to the big house, and importing Alan Keyes since apparently there is no Republican to run for Senator in this entire state), Illinois had a tradition of moderate Republican governors who could get a lot of cross-over votes.
Unfortunately, Big Jim is making a lot of money as managing partner of a law firm (though he did get some press serving on the 9/11 Commission). He clearly didn’t want to run for Senator, but maybe if the moderates can get the party back… I’m from a family of yellow dog Democrats, but I voted for Big Jim a couple of times and would do so again.
Correction: only about 20% of the US population identify themselves as liberal. There appears to be no data indicating the accuracy of these self-identifications – someone who considers himself a “moderate” but holds traditionally liberal views (pro-environment, pro-separation of church and state, etc.) would not be considered liberal by this method.
As George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” has taught us, what someone identifies himself as is not necessarily the same as what they are.
If James Thompson isn’t too old, then George Voinovich of Ohio isn’t, either. A former governor, LG, and big-city mayor (cleaned up Kucinich’s mess in Cleveland), good administrator and good person, fiscally responsible (one of only 2 GOP Senators to object to Bush’s tax cut for the rich, for instance). Except that they both are, like essentially every other prominent Republican moderate. They aren’t the future - a young moderate would be, but are there any who haven’t thrown in the towel and gone to the Democrats?
debaser, sounds like you’re itching to throw in a counterexample. Might as well tell us who it is - *if * you have one, that person might well be the answer to the OP’s prayers. If you don’t, there’s your “cite” right there. When come back, bring argument. (Did you know Jay Severin lives on Long Island, and only *pretends * to be a Bostonian for his talk show?)
Yep. This again. The poor ignorant people are too dumb to realize that they are all actually liberals, even though they claim not to be.
BTW, I’m an athiest (pro-seperation of church and state) and I’m pro-environment (as opposed to anti-environment?) so I guess that makes me a liberal too, huh?
Well, you made the claim, so it’s up to you to prove it. Lets start with say, everyone in Bush’s cabinet. They would certainly qualify as prominent Republicans. I’ll concede that Ashcroft is part of the RR. Try making a case for the rest of them.
Believe me, I’d be the first one bitching if the RR was taking over the country. But it just isn’t happening. They’ve been totally marginalized. Bush gives them lip service and that’s it. The one victory they can claim in this administration would be partial birth abortion ban. Although I’m against it, most Americans are not. That law is well within the mainstream.
A big reason for the Republicans success in recent years is that the party has moved to the center, IMO. Republican conventions from years back had extremists like Falwell speaking at them. This convention will be full of moderates. The more the Democrats keep moving farther left, the more they will keep suffering at the polls because of it.
He pretends nothing. He talks about his house on long island on the air. Although I think he has a house in Maine also. He does a show that focuses on the national political scene. He doesn’t do a “Boston” show like Howie Carr does. What did you think? That I’d cry a river because you know something about Jay that you thought I didn’t? It must drive you nuts that he’s the number one show in the Boston market.
Moderates like Santorum, Hastert, Romney (yeah, they’re not gonna make gay marriage a casus belli or anything…moderate all the way here), and Michael Reagan?
