Jonathan Martin, Mike Allen, and Jim VandeHei of The Politico set the table fairly comprehesively and fastidiously, I think, with respect to what is on the line for the Republican Party in nominating a presidential candidate (and ticket, I might add) for the 2008 election cycle. The immediate future of the party is undoubtedly at stake given all of the factors working against it to date, which is why I am not yet ready – absent campaign competition and more thorough vetting – to align behind a particular GOP presidential hopeful for 2008.
The good news, it seems to me, which the authors do not really touch on or explore, is that the Democrat Party is still bereft as a matter of manpower and ideology to tackle the serious challenges confronting America. Democrats have neither the leadership nor the vision to proffer solutions for our future.
Though Republicans find themselves behind in the race to shape public policy going forward, I am convinced that the Democrat lead can be overcome with bold and credible candidates and platforms. Think long and hard, and choose wisely, fellow GOPers.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
I think it is very clear from this story on Fox News that the GOP is in serious trouble.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,262398,00.html
I understand the rational for the perfect platform Republican, but if we really want to win in this very difficult political environment, we are going to definitely have to think outside the box.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
I read that piece this morning, and fully realized that people playing around with candidates other than Rudy right now are doing a real disservice to the GOP.
There are election cycles every 4 years to support your perfect candidates. Let’s make sure there is a strong GOP party for them to lead.
Rudy, save us from McCain, then save us from Hillary. And everything that would result from that.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Yeah, ok, but who saves us from Rudy?
March 29th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Matt: If you think we need saving from him, that’s what 2012 is for.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
It will come down to:
Do you want Hillary or Rudy?
March 29th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Well, David, I have to say that after reading that piece, I thought that people playing around with candidates other than Mitt right now are working against the party. He’s the one with the talents and skills necessary to refurbish and rebuild the old Reagan coalition.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
As Speaker Gingrich said the other night on The Charlie Rose Show, it is “painful” to contemplate what has gone wrong with the President George W. Bush administration, though my thought is that we will have to do so soon to prevent ourselves from replicating the problem and in order to overcome it. I might add that it is also “painful” to contemplate how the formerly Republican Congress has gone wrong and frittered away their majority and failed to pursue and implement conservative public policy.
Perhaps one reason I am not aligned behind a 2008 GOP presidential candidate yet is that I hear none of them talking about what needs to be done differently and better than this Republican president and the former Republican Congress. How can the country trust the GOP to lead if they will not admit to mistakes under the circumstances or proffer an agenda of change?
March 29th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
How exactly would I save myself from Giuliani in 2012 if he won the nomination? Is someone going to mount a primary challenge? I don’t do quixotic. If I did I’d be on the Draft Jeb Bush bandwagon, considering I like him better then anyone (including Romney) in the GOP field. This is my one chance to challenge Giuliani, a man who I believe will fundamentally alter the GOP (for the worse), and drop the ball on judicial nominations as we approach the moment of our greatest triumph. So no thanks. I’ll rely on 50 years of history with the more likeable, charismatic, candidate winning, and continue to ignore the impassioned assurances of some that Giuliani is the only conceivable answer to the universe’s great difficulties.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
marK, in all seriousness, the problem that I have with Governor Romney, though I agree that his managerial experience and record of results are impressive, is that I am concerned as to how someone who ostensibly failed to enthusiastically (if at all) support the Reagan Revolution in the early and mid-1980s qualifies as the person best equipped to rebuild it now?
March 29th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
“talking about what needs to be done differently and better than this Republican president and the former Republican Congress”
Good point Republius,
I believe that Rudy has the ability to clean up the mess in DC, just like he did in NY.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Matt, Jeb is terrific in most every way – better than his presidential father and brother (as both a politician, chief executive, and conservative) – but another Bush is simply a non-starter. Political family dynasties are problematic because of the baggage they bring to office in terms of debts and vendettas (as I hope we can point out if Hillary is the Democrat nominee), and in any event the Bush brand name would be too easy to beat in a November general election.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
TM, that could very well be – based on the track record of the Mayor as a terrific chief executive in one of the toughest jobs on the planet. But I think he had better start showing less deference to this administration and the previous Republican Congress and start articulating what he would do differently, because the Republican Party as currently constituted, I agree, is a mess needing to be cleaned up.
At the rate the Republican Party is going, their 2008 convention may be somewhat equivalent to the Democrat convention of 1968 – where the sitting president (George W. Bush) should not address it (just as Lyndon Baines Johnson did not address the 1968 Democrat convention after he dropped out of the primary race) for the sake of November electoral success.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
If Rudy wins I will write in my grandmother she would be much better President than he would.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Republius,
In 1980, I voted for the 1980 version of Ronald Reagan, not the 1960 version — the one that was still two years away from becoming a conservative Republican.
In 2008, will you be voting for the 2008 version of Mitt Romney, or the 1988 one?
March 29th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
JL, I do not mean to single you out, but it would be extremely helpful if Republicans who honestly would go to the extreme of failing to support their party’s nominee in the November general election would be specific when they post here as to why helping elect a Democrat president would be preferable and what prevents them from voting for certain Republicans.
I really do not like John McCain much, due to his abandonment of and contempt for important elements of the Republican Party at times and for his questionable temperament, but I would easily support him over any Democrat in November. If for no other reason, shifting the balance of ideology on the United States Supreme Court could be at stake.
Thanks.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
marK, in 1980 you and I voted for the 1980 version of Ronald Reagan, but Governor Romney probably did not. So I would find it much easier to vote for you than the Governor.
I am willing to allow for a candidate to change (as President Reagan did), but Governor Romney is going to need to articulate why he deserves the chance to rebuild a revolution he had the opportunity to support but did not in order to get my vote. Too many Republican candidates have campaigned one way and then voted another once elected in recent times for me to take such significant changes of heart on faith. I need to be shown that the Romney change is one of conviction rather than expediency, and to this point I remain skeptical. And I doubt that I am alone in this feeling among Republican voters.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Head-to-head polls of Rudy vs. Democrats proves there is no vast contingency of Republicans who will refrain from supporting him. He’s ahead of her and all Democrats– at a time the GOP is in the toilet.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Republius, in 1980, Romney was about 33 years old. If you believe anyone that voted against Reagan in their early 30s doesn’t belong in the GOP, you’re consigning the party to extinction. And with your stringent requirements, you don’t have a valid candidate. Guiliani isn’t a hard-core conservative, McCain has his Gang of 14, CFR, voted against two major tax cuts under GWB; FDT doesn’t have any executive experience; Gingrich managed to get his own party to depose him, let alone his own personal baggage.
Who is looking good to you at this point?
March 29th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Come to think of it, I also voted for the 1976 Reagan against Ford, not the 1956 version. That version was still a strong New Deal Democrat.
I have absolutely no problems with skepticism and doubts. I have to agree 100% with you on that. I remember Nixon very well. Even though I voted for him twice, I never liked the guy. There was always something about him that made me not trust him. He could be saying something that I totally agree with, but it would come across as insincere.
I had the exact same reaction to Clinton. Only once have I seen Clinton say something that I thought was sincere, and that was when he was announcing strikes against Iraq in retaliation for attempts on Bush Senior’s life. All the rest of the time, it almost hurt to listen and/or watch him.
Carter was sincere, but he was sincerely naive and foolish. A real sincere idiot.
I have studied Mitt very closely. The more I study him, the more I like him. I have watched and listened to a number of his speeches. Not once have I got that creepy feeling of not believing what was coming out of his mouth.
I have read what people who have worked closely with him have said. Almost all of them give him a good name. Dean Barnett is a very good example of this.
He keeps his promises. He kept a spreadsheet listing every single campaign promise he made running for Governor, and kept track of how well he was doing in fulfilling them. If a man does that, he is less likely to spout of promises he has no intention of keeping.
He’s the real deal. But don’t just take my word for it. Put some of that healthy skepticism to work and go study the man. I am fairly confident you will like what you find.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
[...] race42008.com » Blog Archive » The GOP Had Better Nominate The Right Presidential Candidate For 20… [...]
March 29th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
David B, with all due respect, those polls you are referencing are in the absence of debates, the candidates confronting each other with contrast ads in a campaign, and full media vetting of their records and backgrounds. Republican voters do not know close to all they will end up knowing about Mayor Giuliani, or any other GOP candidate, right now. So to make sweeping generalizations as to how Republicans will behave in November if Mayor Giuliani is the GOP nominee strains credulity.
What you are claiming may be the case, but it isn’t necessarily so given how early in the cycle we are. Let’s see where Mayor Giuliani stands among Republican voters after Alex Castellanos (the Romney media maven) and Stuart Stevens (the McCain media maven) run television ads showing the Mayor in drag, campaigning in Gay Pride parades, calling for public funding of abortion and legalization of partial-birth abortion, and endorsing Mario Cuomo for Governor of New York.
There is a lot of water to flow under the bridge before these polling numbers can be counted on.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Sorry to all you Rudy fans. It’s not a matter of whether he can win. It’s a matter of would I like him to win. And that answer is no. Rudy hasn’t shown me anything to indicate his mentality makes across the Hudson to my neck of the woods. And I suspect the average ‘middle America’ conservative feels the same way. Certainly, we need to put up candidates who can win. But not that one.
-Chin
March 29th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Republius: Cable news has been saturated with all the “socially liberal” aspects of Giuliani. In fact, that’s over 50% of what’s been said about the GOP race in the last 2 months. I don’t think you’ll find people are ignorant of it.
People use those types of facts to ascertain a President’s character, to judge how he’d act in an emergency. They’ve already seen Rudy face the strongest test, and saw the best example of leadership character they’ve seen in their entire lives.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
David B, Guiliani is lucky that his rivals haven’t gone negative yet. Just wait until he’s shown to be a flip-flopper, and watch his polls go the way of Kerry and Romney.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
I am curious to see how the average American will respond to Rudy once the dirt really starts getting thrown. I have my doubts, but on this one, I will reserve my final judgement to see how he is able to respond. The guy has no doubt built up a lot of good will, but I’m not sure how much, with blue collar people.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Fiugred this was relevant since Jeb Bush came up:
Romney gave a speech today and listed three potetial running mates: Jeb Bush, Newt Gingrich, and S. Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford. (here’s the link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070329/ap_on_el_pr/on_the2008_trail)…granted he also said it’s way to early to speculate on VPs.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
“and fully realized that people playing around with candidates other than Rudy right now are doing a real disservice to the GOP.”
Well there you have it. All other candidates running must be doing a greater disservice to the GOP since they are distracting GOP primary voters from Rudy. Off with their heads!
McCain, Romney, Brownback, Huckabee, should just pack it in & go home right? I can’t believe there is speculation that wild this early before we have had any primary debates!
March 29th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
What would you all think if Rudy made the main emphasis of his campaign this (alongside competence, tax-cutting and economic growth, and aggressively fighting the terrorists’ war with moral clarity):
Small town America is sick and tired of urban elites foisting their social policies upon all of American. And coastal metro voters despise social conservatives for winning some of the battles. It’s the source of the partisan red-blue deviseness our national politics are mired in. Let’s call an end to it by returning these issues to the states, where they belong, once and for all. Let each state’s voters do what they think is right for them.
End the bitterness, and free ourselves to focus on the economy, the budget, and national defense, when it comes to national politics.
Don’t you think that’d win overwhelming support from both the right and the left? 45+ states’ electoral votes, I’d say.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
JF, I am not advocating the withholding for support of GOP candidates who may not have voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980.
What I am advocating is that GOP candidates who failed to vote for Ronald Reagan in 1980 ought to be able to show that their change of heart is a matter of conviction rather than expediency, especially if they want to run to rebuild the Reagan Revolution.
The number of policy changes Romney has undergone does not convince me with the current evidence available that he is campaigning out of conviction rather than expediency at this moment. I think the burden is on him to show that he is a legitimate Reagan Republican under the circumstances.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
David B, I’m just guessing here, but I think that the liberals fear federalism as much as conservatives embrace it, so that probably won’t resonate with them, as attractive a stance as it is to us. In addition, it’s an unrealistic platform at this point. Good luck to Guiliani (and any other GOP candidate) if he touches the third rail, but it’s a recipe for an electoral loss.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
David B, sorry, but the news reports about Mayor Giuliani’s previously liberal views and rocky personal life are not going to crystallize the attention of voters like the negative ads Castellanos and Stevens will run. Surviving the former this far out from actual voting as opposed to the latter in the heat of a campaign when voters are really tuned in will be like the difference between night and day. Mayor Giuliani’s toughest days as a candidate are all ahead of him.
As to your strategy for Mayor Giuliani of relegating social issues to the states as a matter of federalism (or ducking them, is more what it feels like), that is a recipe for disaster in a Republican presidential primary in which conservatives are over-represented. Republican voters do and should care about character and morality issues. Otherwise, become a Democrat, where moral relativism thrives and reigns supreme.
And, as a practical matter (as so many have previously pointed out on this site), federalism may not solve some very important social issues. Depending on how the United States Supreme Court interprets the full faith and credit clause, one state legalizing same sex marriage could force all the other forty-nine states to have to recognize those marriages, even if their states prohibited such marriages in their own jurisdictions as a matter of law – after all, that is exactly how common law marriage, which does not exist as a matter of law in most states, currently works. If Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood were reversed and abortion reverted to the states to decide, plenty of Republican voters would still look to the President for leadership in reducing the occurrence of the procedure while many states were legalizing it.
The thought from some Mayor Giuliani supporters that he can run in 2008 while minimizing or ignoring social issues is pure fantasy. He could only do that running as a Democrat or Independent.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
JF: Liberals wouldn’t like it AS much, but he doesn’t need many of their votes. How is touching the “third rail” a recipe for electoral loss? You provided no explanation.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Republius, I have two points here: first, Reagan governed as a semi-liberal (signed into law sweeping abortion rights, and he also signed into law large tax increases), and then rhetorically shifted to the right. So you voted for Reagan on his word, not his actions, and to hold Romney to a higher standard doesn’t seem reasonable.
Second, where has Romney lied about something (e.g. promised something in a campaign and then did the opposite in office)? To me, conviction is less important than results, so if he promises something and his word can be trusted, that’s good enough for me. This is an honest question, perhaps you can direct me to an anti-Romney site that proves he’s a liar. I need more than the usual flip-flop label for different things he’s SAID, I want flip-flop on things he’s DONE vs. things he’s said. If the case is solid, then I probably won’t lean Romney anymore, but so far, I haven’t seen the case made.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
David B, the “third rail” is a term that’s been around for a few decades, so I thought it would be self-evident. You claim that if Guiliani advocated a government return to the hard conservative stance of economy and defense, he would gain huge popularity. The third rail refers to the entitlements, especially for the grasping seniors (social security and medicare). No politician has proposed reforming these programs (let alone eliminating them!) without suffering a huge loss in popularity. Thus, touching these subjects is as dangerous as touching the third rail in a railroad.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
If you want to talk about how candidates governed, there is no better example than how Rudy took a socialistic establishment that employed a large fraction of its residents and resembled a third-world country, and, slashed taxes, govt, and welfare rolls, until the city resembled a shiny capitalistic city on a hill.
While LOUDLY fighting liberals, more courageously than we’ve ever seen ANY elected Republican, EVER. Can you point to another example of who went to war with liberals, who held 90%+ of the legislative body, and won? Even an example against 50%?
March 29th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
JF: I didn’t say he should advocate returning THOSE to the states. At least not in the first election. I meant social issues.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
David B: Romney, with an 85% Democratic legislature. Please, we’ve gone over this so many times.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
David B, entitlements are a social issue. When did they stop becoming a social issue?
March 29th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Republius,
Romney has said he cannot remember a single instance where he voted for a Democrat in a general election. I’d imagine he’d have reasonable recall of all presidential elections. To be sure, he could be lying. To the best of my knowledge no one has asked him straight out if he voted for Reagan in 1980 or 1984. But I see no reason to disbelieve him. In the 1980′s Romney was a businessman, not remotely involved in politics. What Jimmy Carter would have had to offer a businessman of his calibur, I can’t imagine. But regardless, his statements on political matters didn’t begin until his first senate campaign. And his distancing himself from the Reagan administration during his senate campaign was hardly unusual, or, remarkable. His statement said something like, “I was an independent during the Reagan/Bush years. I’m not trying to return us to Reagan/Bush”. While hardly a ringing endorsement of the Reagan Revolution, it is not the fiery denouncement many would have you believe. Indeed, its akin to Chief Justice Roberts answering abortion questions by Diane Feinstein with “Roe is the settled law of the land and a precedent entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis just like any other precedent of the court”. In short, a meaningless deflection of a difficult question in front of a hostile audience. It only gains its meaning from the context surrounding it. For Roberts, the context was decades of legal analysis and disdain for similar decisions such as Lochner v. New York. And it was this type of context that left Republicans reassured and Democrats fearful. For Romney, it was campaign flyers (in general election) which showed him taking the straight down line conservative position in 24 of 25 issues. Now, you can call Romney’s deflections on issues such as these cowardly (I’d term them politically adept), but you can hardly call them a denouncement of the Reagan Revolution in any serious sense. But I think the fact that, on the vast majority of the issues in which he allegedly bucked the conservative line, his positions were considered(as shown by numerous news articles from the time periods) meaningless mush, while on a whole host of issues on which he took orthodox conservative positions, he was considered straight forward, is a fairly strong indication of his conservative instincts.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
But Republius, besides abortion, he really hasn’t changed all that much.
Gay rights: He has always — always been for civil rights (jobs, housing, etc.) and against same sex marriage.
Gun rights: He has always been for sporting and self-defense, against assault weapons. NRA gave him a ‘B’.
Fiscal issues: Since the late 1980s, he has been for cutting taxes and cutting spending. He saw the results of the Reagan tax cuts. He is smart enough to see what works. He implemented this as much as possible in Massachusetts. He turned the state around from a 3+ billion dollar deficit to +100 Million surplus. The Democrats in the Legislature said, “Great, let’s spend it”. They overruled every cut he made in his last years. As a result, the new Democrat Governor found a 1.3 Billion deficit waiting for him. Funny how those things work.
Defense: He has been for a strong defense. He has been supportive of George Bush on Iraq. Just last week on Larry King, he stated he was proud of Bush as President. This is when it is popular to distance oneself from the President.
Immigration: He has always been for legal immigration. When McCain/Kennedy was first being talked about, he hadn’t studied the matter thoroughly. So he said there were some good things in it. Within a month, he had determined there were better ways to proceed and has been against it ever since.
Just were do you think his has changed so much?
March 29th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
JF: Social issues are moral/lifestyle issues that are not primarily concerned with economics. God, guns, gays, etc.
Entitlement programs fall under economics. You have no division with the the economic-libertarian-conservative wing of the party on these.
And they’re not seen by swing voters as a matter of religious influence.
If you consider entitlements “social issues,” then you consider all domestic issues social issues.
The convention is that domestic issues are divided into economic/financial issues, vs. moral/religious/lifestyle issues. Which also explains why the GOP is made of two camps.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Some good points from the Romney faithful. Facts are certainly more helpful than rhetoric. I especially found compelling the JF point that we should compare the actions of the candidates rather than their words. The only problem with that is candidate Romney did not get a chance to act on his words from the campaign against Ted Kennedy for U.S. Senate because he lost. Had Romney voted as Senator for some of the things he campaigned on then his record would not be as conservative as it is now, though this is speculative and we will never know. I remain undecided, though I surely could support Romney as the GOP nominee.
Let’s see what happens when I report back next week on Hugh Hewitt’s new book about Romney, which I will be reading this weekend.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Republius (great moniker) asked a good question:
“…it would be extremely helpful if Republicans who honestly would go to the extreme of failing to support their party’s nominee in the November general election would be specific when they post here as to why helping elect a Democrat president would be preferable and what prevents them from voting for certain Republicans.”
In my view the Republican party is not an inherently moral force. The Republican party is a tool to implement good policy. So if I see a candidate who could _PERMANENTLY_ transform the Republican party’s policies in a very negative direction I am not going to support them over a worse Democrat. In my view it would be worse to win with a degenerate Republican party than to lose a good fight.
My standards for Republican candidates aren’t that stringent but already 2 Republican candidates have made my never vote list.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Okay, econ grad stud, let’s hear which Republican candidates are unworthy of your support as the GOP presidential nominee and why? Are they really worse than Clinton, Edwards, Gore, or Obama?
March 29th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Republius: Will you be reading Rudy’s book as well?
March 29th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Agreed econ grad stud. This is the case I make consistently against Giuliani. That its better to lose one election, then to lose a movement.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Econ grad stud: Why did you choose economics instead of theology or psychology?
March 29th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
David B, I guess we have to disagree on definitions, then, as I do consider most domestic issues to be social issues. However, I believe most people agree with me: it is no coincidence that the set of domestic programs that instituted social security, medicare, and civil rights was called “the Great SOCIETY” by LBJ, which implies it was (and is) viewed as a social program.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
So, the issue has been dropped: What if Rudy ran on moving the social issues to the states, to end the rural vs urban diviseness on moral issues, and let the country focus on economic issues and defense when it comes to national politics?
March 29th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
JF: I agree that social issues and economic issues are interrelated. But they are clearly separate beasts, with separate contingencies.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
None of the Republicans is worse than Clinton, Edwards, Gore or Obama. That’s why I wouldn’t vote for any of these Democrats. However winning one election at the cost of what we believe is a short-term perspective that I don’t hold. It is more important to me that the Republican party continues to champion some vital policies in future elections.
I’m confident that a conservative can still win. If I didn’t think that was possible I would consider compromising my standards for Republican candidates. I don’t want to get into a pro-____ versus anti-____ fight so I don’t think it would be helpful to disclose the two Republican candidates I don’t feel I could support in a general election.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
David B, I’m a very math/quantitative guy. Although I’m very interested in psychology (which is a cousin to economics) I felt the field was too subjective for my tastes.
As far as why not study theology? Well, I have but I don’t intend to make a profession out of it. There are too many theologians as it is.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
David B, I have read Mayor Giuliani’s book, “Leadership,” in addition to almost all of the biographies of him – both pro and con – including the newest one by Deborah Strober and Gerald Strober, “Giuliani: Flawed or Flawless? The Oral Biography.” I think there is a lot to be said for Mayor Giuliani as a Republican presidential contender. My point has been that he has significant vulnerabilities as a candidate that the McCain and Romney campaigns are going to come after hammer and tong. So I do not necessarily criticize Mayor Giuliani as a Republican standardbearer as much as I caution his supporters that the current Giuliani polling numbers could be soft.
And, yes, the idea of social issues being a matter of federalism for the states to decide is a non-starter politically as well as practically, I am afraid. Enormous numbers of Republican and Independent voters want their presidential candidates to lead on these issues.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Republius: Have you also considered Rudy may be immune from criticism due to the fact he’s already proven his character in crisis? And that such criticism may backfire?
Are you sure federalism is a nonstarter? How many Republicans really care about denying civil unions in Vermont, when they could be free of the policies of urban elites in all the states in which they have large enough numbers?
March 29th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Econ grad stud, I am burdened with training in the law (though I also have an MBA in order to be able to understand you quantitative and corporate types) and have studied the importance of appointing textualists who will reasonably interpret the Constitution to the United States Supreme Court. So I would support any Republican nominee for president over the Democrat on that basis alone, which is something I hope you will look at and consider. A great deal of damage can be done to the Supreme Court and thus the country in one four-year term depending on the vacancies in that judicial body.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
I’m not a lawyer so I am actually asking to find out as opposed to scoring a point: How can we tell if a candidate is likely to appoint “textualists”?
It seems to me that it is hard to judge whether a Republican candidate will nominate good or bad nominees. Again how many Supreme Court judges were appointed by Republicans?
So how can we tell who is likely to nominate “textualists”?
March 29th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
I don’t believe Romney has changed on any of the issues, in terms of his personal beliefs. I believe he was always pro-life, and simply learned that fudging on moral issues for the sake of political expediency is wrong and often loses you votes(he lost the Senate race).
Hugh Hewitt said that he thought somebody got ahold of him during the Senate race and convinced him a pro-lifer couldn’t win in MA. So he must have decided it would be better for him to turn into the half apple and win than for completely liberal Ted Kennedy to continue as senator. It is ironic that people accuse him of political expediency when that is what he has really converted from, by running on what he really believes in during the presidential race(after all, he admitted that he counseled people against getting abortions as a religious leader, and that was before he ran for Senator).
But the real irony is that social conservatives are expected to vote for pro-choice Giuliani against their conscience for the sake of political expediency, or getting the half apple instead of none, while we condemn Mitt Romney for political expediency on abortion! Talk about a double standard.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
David B, yes, I have previously posted that the negative ads I anticipate McCain and Romney running against Giuliani could backfire, but not for the reason you posit. I doubt Giuliani is immune from criticism, especially when things about him will be brought out that many voters do not yet know because they aren’t paying attention yet or reading this site.
I think the negative ads could backfire because citizens are sick of politics as usual and want to hear what candidates are for rather than what candidates advise voters to be against. They could backfire because citizens believe now is not the time for politics as usual in the face of global threats unheard of in history.
But I still foresee that the negative ads will appear and erode the Giuliani numbers, even if there is a backfire impact. The way this gets manifest in campaigns is that in terms of the positive and negative views voters have of candidates, the negatives of both the target (Giuliani) and the purveyor of the ads (McCain and/or Romney) go up and the question becomes whose negatives go up more.
As to federalism, I think the issue is gay marriage (not civil unions) vis-a-vis the full faith and credit clause (FFCC) of the Constitution, which says that the legal judgments and verdicts (which a marriage is) in one state must be recognized by all the other states. Again, the issue is akin to common law marriage. States that do not allow common law marriages must recognize the common law marriages that have been enacted legally in other states. Under the FFCC, depending on how the U.S. Supreme Court interprets it (and there are very few cases on point here), if a rogue state like Vermont legalizes gay marriage then the other 49 states may well have to recognize those marriages even if it is illegal for them to be performed in their jurisdictions. So if you leave gay marriage up to the states, one state could and ostensibly (under the FFCC) would decide it for all the rest. In that sense, leaving the issue up to the states is irresponsible.
I think states are going to have to recognize civil unions given the chaos in the courts that is and will be caused absent such law. Gay partners are going to cohabitate and sue for things such as survivor benefits, intestacy rights when their partner dies without a will, pension funds, medical coverage, etc. unless their relationships are recognized legally. How are courts supposed to decide those cases when the evidence is that the gay partners have shared everything as community property over a long stretch of time? Many states already allow gay adoption, which I am not for, so you better recognize gay couples for the protection of the children involved. I think that this horse has left the barn and we need to recognize gay couples under law without intruding on or eroding or changing the concept of marriage, which (I am sorry gay citizens) has always been an act between a man and a woman and is a sacrament in many religions.
So the issue could be the polar opposite of what you posit. States will be burdened by the social policy of rogue courts in other states unless traditional marriage is addressed by the federal government. And the only thing that may work is a constitutional amendment that codifies marriage in its traditional sense due to the FFCC.
In addition, I think there are a lot of conservatives who care about social and moral issues encountered by people of other states as a matter of citizenship and humanity. If one cares about the death penalty, do you only care about it in your own state? I doubt it. Your take ignores the entire existence of the religious right, among other things, which is naive bordering on terribly misguided as a matter of political analysis. Your theory assumes most Republicans are libertarians, which I see no evidence of.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
JF,
Second, where has Romney lied about something (e.g. promised something in a campaign and then did the opposite in office)?
The most obvious case is sex education vs. abstinence.
04/10/02:
03/10/05 (that’s five months post-conversion):
If that’s not doing the opposite, I don’t know what is.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
LJ,
Where did he promise to oppose abstinence-only programs. He said he “opposes them”, not that he would “oppose them”. The first is passive.
That took me all of 2 seconds to figure out. Really, LJ, you are so much more credible when you refrain from these spaghetti-at-the-wall anti-Romney opposition research blubs you pick up from who-knows-where.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
LJ, I’m a little unclear on that. Abstinence-only programs are not equivalent to sex education programs focused on abstinence. He said he support sex education, and he did. Where’s the lie? Besides, he took the conservative line in action, even if he didn’t in rhetoric (as per my point with Republius).
March 29th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Indeed, JF. Romney did not support, and does not support (to the best of my knowledge) abstinence-only programs. The programs he’s pushed in Mass are programs which place increased emphasis on abstinence, where there had previously been literally none. Awhile back I did research on this stuff, and might search for what I found later. But the lunatics who opposed Romney’s programs said something like “We don’t think abstinence is appropriate for this community. It’s not the message we wish to send”. They opposed abstinence, not merely abstinence-only programs.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Even better, LJ.
Once again, try to do some critical thinking on those opposition points you get on McCain’s opponents? Your posts are so much better when you do.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
I must say I don’t think a lot of people understand how powerful a speaker Giuliani is. with
the ability to totally hush a crowd. You don’t hear one glass tinkle or one fork clang. Example:
Before getting into the heart of what will surely become his stump campaign speech, Giuliani joked that as U.S. Attorney, he “was investigating the Sicilian Mafia,” and that during that time he couldn’t understand why he was never invited to dinner. Later, he says, he learned that news reports revealed there had been an $800,000 contract on his life and apparently neither his “friends” nor his enemies wanted to be around when and if someone tried to fulfill that contract. “Five years later,” Rudy cracked, “when I was just about to leave the U.S. Attorney’s office, another mafia guy put out a contract on me – Carmine Persico: we’d put him in jail for a hundred years and he took it personally – put out a contract to kill me and my assistant and the price was only four hundred thousand dollars. So, five years as U.S. Attorney and my value had been cut in half!”
The self-deprecating remarks drew loud laughter but served to indicate two things about the man: that he is not only accustomed to taking on the bad guys but he is also aware of, and comfortable with, the dangers involved; in other words: he can take the heat.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Peter: “I must say I don’t think a lot of people understand how powerful a speaker Giuliani is. with
the ability to totally hush a crowd.”
That’s the best spin I have ever heard about a speaker who puts his audience to sleep.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
I think splitting issues up into social versus economic issues is delusional.
If you think that the public sees Social Security, Medicare, and health care, as par graphs and pie charts, you need to get out and talk to people.
Sure for all the scholars and policy wonks the issues can be separated, but when you start talking about grandparents, children, and how a society takes care of those who are unable to take care of themselves (and I’m talking about the truly needy, and you talk about homeland security and having a strong defense, but you refuse to admit all the fraud and waste endemic in government contracting, well, you’re writing the winning game plan for the Democrats in 2008.
Take Iraq, there are a lot of veterans and their families really, really struggling to make ends meet, and then there is Haliburton and others, who are making the United Fruit Company seem humanitarian by comparison.
As William F. Buckley said in 2004, conservatism in 2004, isn’t the same conservatism of 1950, 1960, or 1980. Everything changes, and with ith ideologies must change, or they become irrelevant. The debate is, and will be, how the Republican and conservative ideologies should change to reflect the times we live in.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
When I saw the title to this post, the first thing that came to my mind was: Wow, this is going to have A LOT of comments. Kavon, did it beat all records???
March 29th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
marK you are such a pipe dreamer.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Romney is not the individual to rebuild the Reagan Coalition. Please! Romney is NO Ronald Reagan. And unfortunately, I am not a Guiliani or McCain fan either. Maybe Thompson will elivate the dialogue. It is hard to tell at this point.
I see where you are coming from Republius. No one on either side of the aisle is showing that they are indeed a leader. If Republicans want the White House in 2008 they need to show that they have real solutions for the challenges that face our country both here at home and abroad and those ideas just haven’t shown themselves.
Unlike the politicos running the campaigns, real people don’t live by polls and stats, and that is why I think there is a huge disconnect between the wannabes and voters.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
I meant elevate, not elivate. I am horrible at spelling and worse at using the spell checker. My apologies.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
KT,
It’s getting there. Guest blogger Matt, HeavyM, and me all have had posts with comments over or near 100 (I might be leaving another one out).
March 29th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
ReganRevolutionist, none of the candidates will “elivate” the dialogue at this point. Each candidate has his flaws, just as Reagan had his own flaws. The question each of us must ask ourselves is what are our priorities, and how do each of the candidates best address those priorities. This is not the time for depression. On the contrary, we have at least five candidates that could be a good president, and now we’re down to the level of deciding who will be a great president.
The Democrats will learn that Congress gets no respect in a showdown with the president (just look to the disaster that the government shutdown was for the GOP in 1995/1996). The GOP has a real shot at another term in 2008, so let’s listen to the speeches and study the pitifully thin policy platforms, and then get ready to take on the Democrats aggressively.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Another point I’d mention, in regards to Republius’s judicial comments, is that the nomination of textualists is far from a sure thing. Republican presidents have appointed William Brennan, Earl Warren, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter. Only 1 of those nominess has been anything approaching a judicial conservative (Kennedy) and he’s hardly a principled jurist. Textualism isn’t something that automatically springs from the loins of Republican presidents. Indeed, those presidents without an overarching and deep committment to textualism, have been overwhelmingly likely to botch nominations. As I noted in a previous post, Eisenhower picked his nominees for political reasons (based on regions of the country or political party). Nixon picked his nominees solely on the basis of their crime records. Ford picked Stevens largely on the basis of, well, personality. Bush I picked Souter because he relied to closely on the advice of unknowledgeable senators. Reagan on the other hand had a deep committment to judicial conservatism. And after his determination to appoint a woman passed, he sent up 3 out of 4 solid textualists. Bush II also had a great devotion to textualism and judicial conservatism. He too fell pray momentarily to the desire to nominate a woman, but found his way brilliantly otherwise. The idea that we ought to vote for the Republican nominee simply because of the judges issue is, well, peculiar and hard to justify on the basis of history. After all, there have been 3 Democratic appointments in the last 50 years. 1, Byron White, was a largely judicially conservative (though politically liberal) textualist. 1 has been a staunch liberal (Ginsburg). And one has been drifting ever so slightly closer to the center over the last half dozen years (Breyer). Not a sterling record to be sure, but hardly much worse then those of Republican presidents. Going back to the Roosevelt court produces even more luminaries. Felix Frankfurter, an excellent judicial conservative, and Hugo Black, a textualist extraodinaire (“no law means no law”) were among his appointees. Rudy Giuliani shows all the signs of the type of Republican president as likely to nominate a Blackmun as a Scalia.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Kavon thanks for the statistics!
March 29th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
So who has real credibility on the judges issue?
March 29th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Those candidates whose:
1). Political beliefs most closely align with the goals judicial conservatism is likely to reach.
2). Life experiences have instilled within them a deep respect for the proper role of the judiciary.
On the former, Giuliani clearly fails. On a whole host of issues from abortion to McCain/Feingold, to gun control, he has a vested interest in appointing judges who aren’t true textualists. The most his political beliefs will likely ensure is that we end up with a law and order type justice (barely a fraction of what goes into creating originalism, and by no means mutually exclusive with judicial activism). On the latter, Giuliani’s career has given him ample opportunities to become a champion for judicially conservative causes. He has never chosen to do so. His life experiences, and knowledge, has given him ample opportunity to develop a textualist philosophy. Judging by his opinion of Roe and articles on the subject (which essentially claim that, at best, Giuliani was an activist judicial conservative, who’s activism extended only within a narrow range of law and order cases). Who’s credible on the judges issue? Well, I happen to think Romney is, because 1.) His positions are conservative on all of great social constitutional questions, 2.) The Mormon religion has a veritable religious reverence for the constitution. But probably, the people with the most credibility on judges would be, in this order, 1.) Brownback, 2.) Newt 3.) Thompson, 4.) Romney, 5.) Huckabee, 6.) McCain, 7.) Giuliani
March 30th, 2007 at 5:15 am
Econ grad stud, at least in my opinion, the reality is that the federal judges issue is a red herring because we cannot know what kind of persons the candidate will appoint until they actually do so. This is just not an area where voters can review the candidate records to get the feel they need.
With all due respect, the Giuliani campaign has utilized this issue magnificently to argue rhetorically that he is a true conservative. But his own record of appointing judges in New York City is muddled and less than dispositive, so his stand comes down to trusting his campaign pledge and taking him on faith, as it is with all presidential candidates.
The one thing that strikes me in this area is that the candidates are being fed campaign lines by staff who have not thought the issue through, even if they are lawyers. As I have previously posted, read Justice Scalia’s “A Matter of Interpretation” (and you will not need to be a lawyer to understand and enjoy it). Scalia makes the cogent and compelling argument that we conservatives want judges who will be textualists (and stick to the language in the constitutions, statutes, and regulations they are interpreting and applying rather than gleaning some meaning not apparent from the mere words) that reasonably construe such legal texts. The terms “originalist” and “strict constructionist” sound nice to conservative voters, but they are practically problematic.
Who can truly glean the original intent of the framers of the Constitution or the drafters of statutes and regulations (and I can tell you from experience that there are as many different intentions behind laws passed in Congress as there are members voting for them)? And strictly construing legal texts may not make sense: The seminal case here is a fairly recent U.S. Supreme Court one applying a federal statute that mandated higher criminal penalties for the “use” of a gun in the commission of a felony. Okay. The defendant traded his gun for drugs in a barter deal. Under a strict construction of the statute, the defendant should be given the higher penalties for “using” a gun in the commission of felony. But, as Justice Scalia points out, it makes more sense to dissent as he did because any reasonable construction of the statute would conclude that trading a gun for drugs was not what common parlance would understand “using a gun in the commission of a felony” to be nor what the Congress and President had in mind when signing the bill into law. Using a gun in the commission of a crime more reasonably can be construed as discharging it or threatening someone with it, not bartering it – which would be the strict construction of the statute.
So I would be wary of this issue in evaluating candidates. The rhetoric is loose and the pledges they make have to be taken on faith in any event.
It seemed like we Republicans were okay here when candidate George W. Bush pledged he would nominate judges like Scalia and Thomas to the federal bench. But then he nominated Harriet Miers…
Finally, if Republicans and conservatives want to get specific information on how badly recent Republican administrations have screwed up in nominating justices of the U.S. Supreme Court (given that Kennedy, O’Connor, and Souter turned out to be much more liberal jurisprudentially than the presidents nominating them told us they would be, and there was a way Reagan could have gotten both Bork and Scalia on the Court), I heartily recommend the recent book, “Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court” by Jan Crawford Greenburg. It will make you cringe to hear about the mistakes Republican administrations have made in this regard, but we will be all the wiser for knowing about past failures so that these episodes are not repeated.
March 30th, 2007 at 6:44 am
Republius,
I’ve also read A Matter of Interpretation and I disagree with some of the points you’re presenting as Scalia’s. Scalia very much considers himself an originalist (though a Textualist first to be sure). But “original” isn’t original intent, but rather original meaning. Original intent is indeed a case of murky waters, but original meaning, at least in the interpretation of the constitution, is somewhat easier to discern. When Scalia says we ough not use original intent, or when you suggest that originalism is “problematic”, I think you’re referring to primarily the interpretation of statutes. Original anything is indeed fairly useless in statutory interpretation, for the reasons you’ve mentioned (thus the dismissal of legislative history).
March 30th, 2007 at 11:18 am
KT: “marK you are such a pipe dreamer.”
I am a little curious, though. Why do you think I am a pipe dreamer?
March 30th, 2007 at 11:26 am
ReaganRevolutionist: “Romney is not the individual to rebuild the Reagan Coalition. Please! Romney is NO Ronald Reagan.”
Of course MItt Romney isn’t Ronald Reagan. Who said he was? (To be honest, Ronald Reagan was no Ronald Reagan either, or at least not the mythical person so many have tried to make him.)
Mitt Romney is Mitt Romney. He will build his own coalition. You will find, however, that he will pick up a lot of the same people that made up the Reagan coalition. He will lose some, to be sure; but he will also pick up some others.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Reagan would not win today in this very tough political climate. Reagan ran in a very anti-Carter environment, almost the exact opposite of what we are facing today.
March 30th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Reagan would kick butt in any political climate because he was real. He said what he believed and he believed what he said. Ronald Reagan was a leader and that is the difference between him and all of the wannabes campaigning for our dollars and our votes–they want to be leaders, Reagan simply was a leader.
And marK for your information Ronald Reagan was indeed Ronald Reagan–knew the man well.