Mark Steyn writes an excellent editorial that goes along well with the questions I asked in my post below:
Rudy Giuliani was a brilliant can-do executive who transformed the fortunes
of what was supposedly one of the most ungovernable cities in the nation. But on
guns, abortion and almost every other social issue he’s anathema to much of the
party. Mike Huckabee is an impeccable social conservative but, fiscally
speaking, favors big-government solutions with big-government price tags. Ron
Paul has a long track record of sustained philosophically coherent support for
small government but he’s running as a neo-isolationist on war and foreign
policy. John McCain believes in assertive American global leadership but he
believes just as strongly in constitutional abominations like
McCain-Feingold.So if you’re a pro-gun anti-abortion tough-on-crime victory-in-Iraq
small-government Republican the 2008 selection is a tough call. Mitt Romney, the
candidate whose (current) policies least offend the most people, happens to be a
Mormon, which, if the media are to be believed, poses certain obstacles for
elements of the Christian right.
A lot of diversity amongst the nominee’s. Which can be a good thing as Mark points out by looking at the Democrat race:
Over on the Democratic side, meanwhile, they’ve got a woman, a black, a
Hispanic, a preening metrosexual with an angled nape — and they all think
exactly the same. They remind me of “The Johnny Mathis Christmas Album,” which
Columbia used to re-release every year in a different sleeve: same old songs,
new cover. When your ideas are identical, there’s not a lot to argue about
except biography. Last week, asked about his experience in foreign relations,
Barack Obama noted that his father was Kenyan, and he’d been at grade school in
Indonesia. “Probably the strongest experience I have in foreign relations,” he
said, “is the fact I spent four years overseas when I was a child in Southeast
Asia.” When it comes to foreign relations, he has more of them on his Christmas
card list than Hillary or Haircut Boy.~~~
Let me ask a question of my Democrat friends: What does John Edwards really
believe on Iraq? I mean, really? To pose the question is to answer it:
There’s no there there. In the Dem debates, the only fellow who knows what he
believes and says it out loud is Dennis Kucinich. Otherwise, all is pandering
and calculation. The Democratic Party could use some seriously fresh thinking on
any number of issues — abortion, entitlements, racial preferences — but the base
doesn’t want to hear, and no viable candidate is man enough (even Hillary) to
stick it to ’em. I disagree profoundly with McCain and Giuliani, but there’s
something admirable about watching them run in explicit opposition to
significant chunks of their base and standing their ground. Their message is:
This is who I am. Take it or leave it.
That last sentence spells out exactly what I respect about most of the Republican nominees. They don’t pander and change positions depending on which way the polls swing ala Clinton. They tell you how they feel about issues and that’s it. Either you agree or you don’t.
Now, on the other hand, the Democrats running really have no opinions on the issues it seems. They say they want the troops home but won’t vote to bring them home. They want an end to the war supposedly but vote to refund it every time. They don’t dare disclose how they really feel, and how they would really rule, because they know the nanny-state they want won’t win them the general election. So they hem and haw.
In the end the GOP have ideas. They have some serious intellectual and
philosophical differences and put forth some very valid arguments for their positions (excluding Paul of course) while the Democrats all think alike.
They don’t dare go against their base.
Now, is the differences among the Republicans a good thing?
There is an argument to be made that if a party is divided we could all fail. United we stand and all that jazz. In 2004 it was all about ensuring that a man like Kerry doesn’t get into power, in 2008 I’m praying the Democrat nominee is Hillary so we have a similar unity.
If not, the differences could spell doom.
See author page
Honestly, the differences spell doom no matter what. If Hillary wins we end up with socialism moving rapidly towards us.
But for most of the Republican candidates we’d just be looking towards having to regularly fight them as they tried to push through the stuff that the base doesn’t agree with. I’ve had enough of that over the last few years. I’m tired of it, and I really don’t want to spend the next four fighting with my own side. At least if Hillary wins the Republicans can probably band together to block the worst of her excesses. But when the bad ideas come from our own side it’s much harder to block.
That’s really why I got on the Fred bandwagon a long time before he even announced – he was the only potential candidate I saw that I thought might have a chance that wouldn’t doom me to spending the next four years fighting with the leaders of my own party.
It is worth reading an excellent post over at American Thinker on this subject
Like the say read the rest, it says a lot
The problem with that American Thinker post, though is that I just flat don’t believe most of the Republican field. Giuliani nominating conservative Justices? Not a chance, we’d end up with Souters as about the best possible case, because he’d be looking for people with zero paper trail, and trying to evaluate them on ‘feel’ and his feel is not mine, nor is it most of the Republican base.
Romney? Can anyone honestly say they know what he believes? He professes whatever he needs to believe for whatever office he’s currently running for. But his history of getting along with the liberal legislature in Massachusetts means that he’s probably not the guy to have on the ticket if we’re not going to get either the House or the Senate.
Disagree completely with you Skip.
I believe he would appoint conservative justices. As far as his history goes he, along with Mitt, had to choose judges from a list given to him by a advisory committee, controlled by Democrats. He would not have to do that as President. As far as a President goes that is one of the more important aspects of his job. That and protecting this country from our enemy. On those two fronts I would support Giuliani wholeheartedly.
To allow Hillary the Presidency in the hopes that the Republicans could stop her socialist agenda is ludicrous. Completely insane.
As far as the American Thinker post goes, I don’t see it. Every Republican candidate has spelled out how they would govern and on which side of the issues they come down on. You may not the like all their stances but they have been pretty straight forward. Which is what Mark Steyn was writing about.
Just like how Giuliani hasn’t minimized his beliefs about abortion, but has declared that he’ll do what he can to support abortion rights.
Y’know, or not.
Minimized, how so? He didn’t support a ban on abortions then, and still doesn’t.
Sounds like minimizing to me…yeah.
You may not like his stance on the issue but he hasn’t backed down from it either.
JustADude,
Linking to the leftist propaganda site “mediamatters” automatically negates any points you think to make. Just reading their leading stories lets me know where the latest brain-dead Salon troll “talking points” come from.
That said, no matter who the Republican nomination is, that person, by the fact they are not part of the treasonous, absolute power seeking Socialist-democratic Party puts them head and shoulders above Hillary, Obama, or whomever the left wants to trot out.
Also, Republican candidates have been asked tough questions on policy and the “hows” of their positions. NO leftist candidate has ever been asked a question approaching difficult on their campaigns. Real leadership is not about answering puff-ball questions on youtube, but dealing with issues where the solution is correct, but may not seem “popular”. No leftist candidate has ever dealt with such issues.
I really don’t get why anyone would think that that someone who isn’t conservative in any way, shape or form would nominate conservative judges, regardless of what he says. I mean, saying “Given the chance I’ll appoint judges that mostly disagree with me” is really hard to believe, and yet that’s what Giuliani is saying. When I hear him speak of strict constructionists, I always think “I do not think those words mean what you think they mean”. Do I think he’s lying? Sort-of. I think he’s using that politician’s gift to convince himself he’s speaking the truth, even though it isn’t.
This election is important, really important. But the one after it will be as well, and all the ones after that. And I figure that those will be lost, for awhile if we discourage the base, or convince them to go elsewhere.
That was the point of the American Thinker post, ChrisG. The author was linking to mediamatters.org to highlight what he meant by “smear tactics”. JustADude was linking to American Thinker, not mediamatters, to make his point.
Yea Skip, just dont vote. This same argument was used for the 06 elections. Most of us tried to tell you what would happen, you wouldn’t listen. Every thing we told you would happen happened, so just keep your argument of fighting our own to your self. I would much rather fight our own and have a chance than to lose and fight for our very lives.
Amazing that someone would bring up the 2006 elections in this context. For months before the elections we kept telling the Republican establishment “stop that or you’re going to lose, badly”. And, of course, they didn’t believe us. After all, where else would we go?
We know how that turned out. And I’m sorry that by raising the same warning flags well in advance of the 2008 elections that I’m offending you.
I held my nose and voted Republican in 2006. And barring McCain getting the nomination I’ll likely do it again in 2008. But I fear for the party. It very well may be headed for a disaster that will take a decade or more to recover from.
Skip: I had a face to face meeting with McCain here in SC ten days ago.
I asked him directly why conservatives should support him when he compromised on issues like: A. the gang of 14 on judicial nominees, B. highlighting the “torture” issue right before the 2006 elections and C. Flip flopping on immigration.
If I had more time I would have thrown in D. the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform debacle.
If you can hold your nose and vote for McCain it’s fine by me. But unless you are willing to say you will support the eventual GOP nominee don’t ask me to give any further consideration to anything you have to say.
We’ve all had to hold our nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. In case you are not old enough to remember, it was that way in 1980 when Reagan ran against Carter. Even during the primaries Reagan was denounced by some as not conservative enough, or too many Hollywood friends, or for signing some liberal legislation when he was Governor of California.
The bottom line is that ANY Republican (except Ron Paul who is NOT a Republica) is better than a Democrat. And if you sit this one out as some did in 2006 you will have only yourself to blame for a mess that is a hundred times worse than Reid and Pelosi in charge of Congress.
Michael in MI, JustADude,
I see now what you were getting at. My apologies.
Love that. It’s been the same with President Bush: What you see is what you get. And they’re willing to stand firm and transparent on their core beliefs.
Phew! With that big lead-in, Skip, I was afraid you were going to announce you were a Ron Paul Reverist.
McCain’s the only non-Paul candidate I cannot vote for under any circumstances (and in the staggeringly unlikely circumstance that Paul got the nod I’d probably vote for him anyways since he’d veto every single thing congress passed).
But the reason I can’t vote for McCain is simple. You cannot reward behavior like his. It’s simple economic theory. Incentives work. If you incentivize the behavior he had over the last couple of decades then you’re going to see dozens of less-principled politicians doing it, because they’ll see the benefits of press adoration and no downside. I believe the long-term damage of a President McCain would be far greater than the short-term damage of another President Clinton. The country survived Carter and it gave us Reagan. Your call may be different, and I don’t begrudge that of anyone.
Oh, and I disagree strongly with the apportionment of the blame for 2006. When, well in advance, one party says “If you’re not going to stop doing ‘A’, I’m going to do ‘B'”, and the other party says “I don’t believe you would do that” and keeps doing ‘A’, and then ‘B’ happens both parties share in the fault.
That’s exactly what happened in 2006. And I fear it’s going to happen again, because the Republican leadership didn’t learn the correct lessons from 2006. They thought they lost because they weren’t enough like Democrats – they lost because they’d lost their way.
And apart from a few individuals in the House there’s not much sign they’ve found it yet.
The bottom line is that ANY Republican (except Ron Paul who is NOT a Republican) is better than a Democrat.
Ah, now I understand your pledge better. Since you’re allowed to define ‘who is a Republican’, *of course* you can pledge to support the Republican nominee! Hey, I can play this game too: I’ll claim that Rudy Giuliani is not a Republican. Now I can safely pledge to support the Republican nominee! Maybe Skip can excommunicate McCain; then he can get on the bandwagon too.
As has been mentioned, Thompson seems to best fit the bill of a conservative. Pro-war, pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-illegal immigration, small(ish, but they’re all “ish” but for Paul) government…the only problem for the Republican primary is getting everyone to know about him. And he comes without McCain-Feingold, personal issues (Rudy), or past liberalism “forgotten” (Mitt) for baggage. As kind of a social liberal (pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage – hey, I live right next to SF, whaddya expect?), I’m a little more in line with Giuliani, but that just means I would be fine with a Rudy-Fred/Fred-Rudy ticket when the time comes. I’d guess the same would apply to a lot of people.
More on-topic – I agree in the main with Steyn’s point. The Republicans have huge amounts of variance, while the Democrats have a sort of industrial-line feel to them – you can change the paint, but the underlying machinery is the same. They have different feels to their campaigns (Obama has the “bipartisan unification” feel, Hillary the “Battle the EEVIL Rethuglicans for life!” feel, Edwards the “wut?” feel), but on the important stuff they stand just about united, counting on disgust with Bush (perpetuated by the misrepresentations and fabrications of the MSM) to sway the balance with people outside the base, while uniformly supporting the base on the issues so they can get max turnout from them.
As for the debate over “which conservatives won’t you vote for?”, they’re fringe candidates anyway, why bother? Well, McCain isn’t quite a fringe candidate…but enough conservatives were alienated by his stunts as Senator that he won’t make the nomination. A list of Republicans I’d definitely vote for:
Mitt Romney
Fred Thompson
Rudy Giuliani
Those I wouldn’t vote for:
Ron Paul
Those I’d be leaning against/undecided on:
John McCain
Tom Tancredo
Mike Huckabee
Of course, for me this is all academic, since I won’t be eligible next year, but it’s fun to contribute to the discussion. Happy Thanksgiving all!
bbartlog: So you’re saying Ron Paul is a Republican? If so, why did he run for President as a Libertarian in 1988. (he only got .47% of the vote)
Get over it. There are REAL choices here. Not perfect ones, but not nutty delusions like Ron Paul.
Math: You left Duncan Hunter off the list. He’s about as real a conservative as Fred Thompson. But Fred certainly has more charisma, and that’s not saying a whole heck of a lot as measured by his campaign so far.
I’ve been disappointed by Fred. I expected more. I liked him when I met him, but he does seem to ramble.
Skip: I wouldn’t vote for McCain in the primary either. If you read my post on his visit (posted here somewhere, or at Mike’s America) you’ll see that McCain as very upfront: He told me to tell all of you that if you disagree with him because of his participation in the gang of 14 etc, then don’t vote for him.
I found that refreshing and certainly didn’t seem to be telling me what he thought I wanted to hear which is the impression I got from speaking with Romney.
Now, let’s see…. who does that leave?