But beneath the surface, the relationship between the Washington veteran and the Republican Party rising star is more complex. Mr. Sanford didn’t endorse anyone during the primaries this year, after having co-chaired Sen. McCain’s bitter battle in South Carolina during the 2000 race. He brushed off requests for support by the McCain team at least three times, according to people familiar with the matter, including a period last year when the campaign was at a low.
The snub could cost him his chance at the vice presidency. “Loyalty is a big, big commodity in McCain-land,” said a McCain aide familiar with Mr. Sanford’s involvement….
Shortly after Mr. Sanford was re-elected governor in 2006, the McCain campaign began seeking his support for 2008. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), who is close with both men, led the effort. McCain supporters were optimistic.
But the endorsement never came. In the spring of 2007, Mr. Sanford says he told the campaign he would not be offering his official support….
In January, after Sen. McCain won New Hampshire and was facing off in South Carolina against Iowa victor Mike Huckabee, the campaign again asked for Mr. Sanford’s support. Even though the time commitment to campaign with Sen. McCain would be minimal — maybe a week — Mr. Sanford still refused. At the time, the cluttered Republican field still lacked a clear front-runner. “I already gave my word,” to voters about not endorsing, Mr. Sanford said.
Sen. McCain won South Carolina without his support.
Mr. Sanford’s endorsement finally came earlier this month, after Sen. McCain had accumulated enough delegates to claim the nomination.
A McCain strategist now says the relationship between the pair is “cordial” at best. Mr. Folks predicted he won’t get the VP spot: “He missed his opportunity.”
Read the whole thing:
March 29th, 2008 at 9:17 am
I think SC unemployment rate knocks Sandford out more than anything.
March 29th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Rubbish. Powell still hasn’t officially endorsed, and I’d bet dollars to donuts Powell was and is higher on the veep list than Sanford ever was. Besides, what does Sanford offer to the ticket? SC isn’t a battleground state as far as I know.
March 29th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Sanford is a reliable conservative, I believe. While he may not be “fully” vetted, he has been vetted quite a bit. He would probably shore up Southern conservative voters who have been somewhat suspect of McCain’s support for illegal immigrants.
March 29th, 2008 at 10:05 am
It won’t be powell – at least not if McCain has any brains.
What does a 72 year old moderate offer the Republican party in four or eight years? He’s not Conservative enough to unite the party, he’s not young enough to be an heir apparent, and, to my knowledge, he has no strong electoral pull in any particular battleground states.
March 29th, 2008 at 10:10 am
The problem with Sanford is that, while he does shore up Conservative support, he does very little electorally. The South was almost certain to go red. There are two battle ground regions this year – the great lakes region (OH, WI, MI, MN, PA, IA), and the West (NM, NV, CO).
March 29th, 2008 at 10:13 am
read and weep act blog:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/colin_powell_most_valuable_endorsement
March 29th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Kiss any thought of getting any of the Constitutionalist vote goodbye, John.
March 29th, 2008 at 10:55 am
That doesn’t surprise me – Colin Powell IS a widely respected figure. But do we have any reason to believe that he would help in any particular swing states? Romney, Pawlenty, even Crist – they all give us reason to believe they could help in at least one state. Powell, well, doesn’t.
Even if he did, what does he do for the future of the party? He isn’t going to run in four or eight years from now, nor is he the kind of person who could be put in charge of an effort to gain more senate or house seats.
March 29th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Sampo I think the more interesting facts are the other statistics in that poll.
Collin Powell, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, New York Times all have (50%)or more NO impact if they endorsed.
Ted Kennedy and Rush have the highest less likely to vote for if they endorsed because they are polar opposites.(46%)
March 29th, 2008 at 10:59 am
“Kiss any thought of getting any of the Constitutionalist vote goodbye, John.”
You mean all the Ron Paul nuts who think that if we just pull all our troops back home and say “please Mr. Terrorist, don’t hurt us” that we will be fine?
I hate to tell you, no, actually, I’m happy to tell you, that that vote is both extremely small, and extremely ill-informed.
March 29th, 2008 at 11:06 am
That Sanford refused to endorse McCain in the primaries after fighting hard for him in 2000 merely suggests that he has a learning curve and some integrity. Sanford is a principled, rock-solid conservative….and that’s what he would bring to the ticket. The fact that I like Sanford alot is tantamount to saying that he has no chance whatsoever to be on the ticket.
March 29th, 2008 at 11:14 am
I’m sick of Republicans putting loyalty ahead of competence and capability when it comes to appointments. Pick the person who can do the best job, not the person who sucks up the most.
March 29th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Novak says Rob Portman is high on McCain’s list (take it for what it’s worth). I don’t know much about Portman, but Novak makes a good case:
“Portman’s background is legislative (House Republican leadership), executive (George W. Bush’s Cabinet), diplomatic (U.S. trade representative) and economic (Office of Management and Budget director). He comes from a swing state (Ohio), is young enough (52) to contrast McCain and conservative enough (89 percent lifetime American Conservative Union rating).”
March 29th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Portman is a good Hippocratic Oath Candidate. I doubt he makes much of a difference in whether or not McCain holds Ohio – but he probably won’t hurt McCain. That might be good enough.
March 29th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Act #10,
Yeah, Act, that extremely small and ill-informed bloc of Ron Paul nuts that garners 5-20% of the Republican primary/caucus vote and was pushing 10% of the Republican vote nationally when GOP presidential polling ceased a few weeks ago.
But I fail to see how Constitutional non-interventionists are any more nutty than you neocon nuts that believe we can annoy the Muslim world into submission, or that since the terrorists clearly attack us because of our freedoms, we can stop terrorist attacks if we destroy our freedoms here at home.
March 29th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Name a freedom that has been “destroyed” here at home. The freedom to talk to terrorists on the phone? The freedom to carry a knife onto an airplane?
And do you honestly believe that we would be better off if Saddam Hussein was still the leader of Iraq? Do you honestly think we would be better off if one of the most dedicated anti-americans was free to conduct negotiations with anyone who came knocking, asking for money or space to prepare attacks?
March 29th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Is Portman someone who would make a strong nominee in four years?
March 29th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Act #16,
We’re destroying our freedom against warrantless searches and seizures, freedom of speech, freedom of habeas corpus, freedom of sovereignty and self determination, and we’ve already utterly demolished some of the most important and overlooked freedoms, such as the freedom to truly own the fruit of our labor and the freedom to circulate our own money.
Whether or not we’re “better off” with or without certain other leaders in power around the world is completely irrelevant. The fact is, pre-emptive war is unjust, infringement upon another nation’s self determination and sovereignty is immoral, and undeclared war and the inflationary fiat sillymoney is unconstitutional.
March 29th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
inflationary fiat sillymoney that finances it* rather
March 29th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
>”Is Portman someone who would make a strong nominee in four years?”
(shrug) I guess so — his qualifications as noted in the Novak article would seem to indicate so.
But frankly, who cares? You have this fetish about creating an “heir apparent”, but nobody else on the face of the earth gives a rat’s rear end about it.
March 29th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Novak has a piece out saying Rob Portman is at the top of the list in the McCain camp.
March 29th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
“Whether or not we’re “better off†with or without certain other leaders in power around the world is completely irrelevant.”
NOT WHEN THOSE LEADERS HAVE AND WOULD ATTACK US OR OUR INTERESTS AT THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY. Saddam attacked Israel, he invaded Kuwait, he threatened Saudi Arabia, he gassed his own people, he caused a war with Iran that threatened global economic security (not to mention cost the lives of how many U.S. sailors), and he tried to assassinate a United States President.
—
“The fact is, pre-emptive war is unjust, infringement upon another nation’s self determination and sovereignty is immoral”
Not when it is done to save lives. I will remind you that when we invaded, we beleived Saddam had chemical and biological weapons, and was seeking nuclear weapons. Would you have prefered us to have been right, and for Saddam to have gotten the bomb?
—
“We’re destroying our freedom against warrantless searches and seizures, freedom of speech, freedom of habeas corpus”
Those freedoms are only legally binding for U.S. citizens – not foreign nationals calling into the country, or Afgan jihadis locked up in gitmo.
—
“freedom of sovereignty and self determination, and we’ve already utterly demolished some of the most important and overlooked freedoms, such as the freedom to truly own the fruit of our labor and the freedom to circulate our own money.”
What the Hell…?
March 29th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Bob, its important for us to have an heir apparent – someone who can run in four or eight years when McCain is done, or the times comes to challenge a sitting Democrat.
Do you honestly want another messy and divisive primary like we’ve seen this year? All of the divisions have still not been healed – not to mention the fact that we got screwed with a moderate as the nominee who is ideologically closer to the Democrats on immigration, the environment, campaign finance, and God knows what else.
March 29th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Act #22,
Are you really that out of touch with reality? Saddam Hussein had neither the capability nor the intention to attack us when we invaded Iraq. I know it’s tough for us to wrap our minds around when we’ve been brought up from Day 1 believing we have to be the nanny of the world, but foreign wars, civil wars, border disputes, and crimes are tragic, but they’re NONE OF OUR GOVERNMENT’S BUSINESS.
Pre-emptive war and violation of other nations’ sovereignty and self determination “saves lives”? What the hell kind of newspeak is that?
Well, apparently they’re not legally binding for even US citizens anymore, because the President now has the power to indefinitely detain, without trial, anyone whom he deems to be an “enemy combatant.” Bye bye habeas corpus. And under the PATRIOT Act, federal agents can now write their own search warrants without judicial authorization (bye bye freedom against warantless search and seizure) and if you receive one of these self-written search warrants, you’re not allowed to tell anyone about it, not your spouse, not your best friend, not your priest, not your lawyer, not even a judge in a federal courtroom (bye bye freedom of speech).
That’s the typical response to issues of economic liberty. What so many Americans don’t understand or care to understand is that money and economics are at the root of EVERYTHING. When we allow our economic freedom to be demolished, every other kind of freedom inevitably follows. According to the 16th Amendment, the federal government now owns everything you produce, 100%. They OWN us. They LET us, out of the goodness of their heart, keep some of what we produce, but if they wanted to, they could take it all. If the government owns everything you produce, the government owns your ability to live, and it owns you. It’s making the claim that it has inherent dominion over you, your body, and everything you do, and that it’s “loaning” some freedoms to you out of the goodness of its heart. When you allow a government to make that kind of claim, you’ve passed the Rubicon.
March 29th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Act Blog,
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but our primary process is designed to avoid “messy, divisive, primaries”. For one we have winner-take-all states, which allows a candidate to close the door far sooner then they otherwise might. The proportional primaries you’ve demanded in the past, even with an “heir apparent”, almost inherently lead to messy primaries. Anyway, historically this year’s Republican contest has been absolutely milquetoast in terms of divisiveness and messiness. 80′ was a divisive primary. I’ll take the 2008 level of Republican divisiveness every single election.
March 29th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Any person who believes that Americans are in more danger from their own government than from the enemies of this country doesn’t deservee the to be made relevent by an actual debate.
—
I’ll give you that Saddam didn’t have the weapons we thought he did – but we had no reason to suspect that he didn’t have them, or that he wouldn’t use them. He tried to assassinate Bush I, he invaded Kuwait, he bombed Israel. At every turn, that man was a threat to America, its allies, or its interests.
Did he have the intention to attack us? I don’t know – but lets just say that Saddam isn’t someone who you give the benefit of the doubt to. As for the capability to attack us, he certainly had the capability to help the terrorists attack us, and if you think that THEY wouldn’t put an Iraqi-made suitcase nuke or dirty bomb in the middle of time square or Los Angeles, you really are a fool.
March 29th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
>”Do you honestly want another messy and divisive primary like we’ve seen this year?”
I would love to have nomination processes like this every four years. If you think this was “messy and divisive”, I suggest you read up on political history. This was a rather calm and easy-going campaign. Of course candidates took shots at each other — that’s what they’re supposed to do. But nothing really serious and irreconcilable happened.
>”All of the divisions have still not been healed…”
Most have, according to the polls. The vast majority of conservatives and Republicans are backing McCain. I think you may be projecting here.
March 29th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
You’re right, its kind of a balancing act – you want to have a good nominee who represents the values and positions of the party (McCain does not on many of the major issues), and you want to have a short and painless primary.
Yes, I support requiring all states to have porportional delegate allocation and closed primaries, and maybe that would lead to a longer primary season, but with an heir apparent – someone who recieves all the support from the Republican higher-ups, someone who is already groomed and prepared to be the nominee, this would be avoided.
We went for more than a year without a clear picture of who our nominee was going to be – and its only by a few % points in FL or CA that we are not still in a battle. That is dangerous. It hurts the party’s chances in November, it makes the party look like fools next to the oppostion.
March 29th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Sure, there have been worse primaries in the past – 1968 for the Democrats, 1976 for the Republicans, 1980 for the Republicans, but there have also been primaries where we have been far more certain of the nominee. 2004 For the Republicans, 2000 for the Democrats, and so on.
March 29th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
>”It hurts the party’s chances in November, it makes the party look like fools next to the oppostion.”
What planet are you on?
March 29th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
“What planet are you on?”
This one.
Look at the Democrats – they are in the middle of an extended primary season, and not only has it hurt their chances in november by pusing both candidates to the brink of unacceptability, but it has turned them into the party of chaos and fighting in the face of the GOP (I say again, its only be the skin of our teeth that we are not in the same spot).
March 29th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
I’m sorry, I misunderstood. I now realize you were directing that comment to the Democrats. Yes, you’re right — they need to fix their nominating process.
March 29th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
So your solution is for us to copy the Dems’ process?
March 29th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
“I say again, its only be the skin of our teeth that we are not in the same spot”
I’m not sure that’s true. I think the winner-take-all system mitigates that. had the Democrats used winner-take-all, Hillary would have been crowned the nominee long ago.
I don’t think our primary system is perfect – far from it – but I like winner-take-all. A rotating primary – where different states vote first every four years would be more fair. I never liked the idea of handful of quirky farmers in Iowa having an oversized role in selecting our nominee.
March 29th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
2004 for the Republicans was not an “heir apparent” it was an incumbent, there’s a difference. 2000 for the Dems didn’t work out well, did it?
Did the Reps have an “heir apparent” in 2000? No, I thought not. Who won?
March 29th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
McCain should be angered by Josh Romney’s badmouthing of McCain’s principles.
(Desert News story– Google it !)
He cannot be on board with McCain’s priniples, but can his Dad’s.
Josh should keep his idiot mouth shut, if his father is going to be
pathically begging for the VP slot.
I will find the link – post it.
March 29th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
***** sorry typo principles
March 29th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
yeah. Look, if both parties were always certain to go to the conventions, there wouldn’t be a problem. But the fact is, 2008 was a rare election – usually, the sitting party has an heir apparent, and there is a decent chance that, 40-50% of the time, that is going to be the other guys. I don’t want to wake up one year and find the party facing a known-from-the-start nominee while being locked in a long primary fight, nor do I want to find us stuck with a nominee unrepresentative of the party, or who is too liberal on major issues.
Here is what we need:
- closed primaries, with deadlines for party registration at least 100 days in advance of the voting (to prevent non-party members from screwing up the primaries).
- allocation by % – no more winner take all, no confusing district systems, if you win 60% of the vote, you win 60% of the delegates.
- a fixed primary schedule set by the party, one that has somthing like five states (though I would allow IA, NH, and SC to keep an early spot) voting per week, with the smallest states first, and the largest states last.
Those would ensure that the nominee is representative of the party and that most states get a say.
March 29th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
act-blog,
But historically, “heir apparents”, in this that you’re referring to, are a decidedly mixed bag. Nixon was an “heir apparent” in 60′, and lost. It took him 4 years wandering in the wilderness, building connections in New York, campaigning for Republicans vigorously as a leader of the party on his own merits, to become the sort of candidate that could win a national election in 68′. Heir apparents are politically and, even if initially successful, never truly become the leader’s of their movement. Where are our Trumanites today? A fair portion of them now identify as Republicans. The Democratic Party acts as if Truman never happened, in terms of the political legacy, despite his increasing public reputation. Where are our George H.W. Bush Republicans now? They’re practically non-existent, despite his increasing public reputation? And what about George W. Bush Republicans, the ultimate “heir apparent”? Will his name favorably grace the lips of Republicans a decade hence? Heir apparents are politically weak and historically unimpactful on the future of the movements they seek to lead. And this is one of the problems ailing the modern day Republican Party. Ever since Reagan (a man who led a movement before he led the party), we’ve trotted out an endless series of heir apparents, with an attenuated connection to the movement, and without the blood sweat and tears that comes from clawing your way through a political thicket. And thus we’re still defining ourselves in reference to Reagan.
This is one of the reasons I’m hopeful for a McCain presidency, because despite his 2000 run, he was never the establishment candidate, and his political odyssey has been just the sort of pathway that leaders have taken in past; Leaders being the operative word, not politicians who happen to occupy a chair where a movement ought to sit. I too expect, that if McCain wins in 2008, his VP will more then likely be our nominee in 2012. But, I have decidedly mixed feelings about this; for all the talk of divisiveness, there’s little that can replace the power of BECOMING a leader of a movement, rather then being crowned. So I hope our VP, whoever he is, does more then follow the traditional routine of a VP candidate. I hope he takes the short time the American people allow him, to try to win their hearts; to step beyond the limitations of his office and position. I don’t think that’s possible, at this stage, with Romney. And I don’t think it’s likely with any VP. But, it’s worth a try, and it’s better then meekly accepting the label heir apparent by default, rather then out of sincere effort.
March 29th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Act #26,
“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” — Abraham Lincoln
Wait. You’re really going to say that we had absolutely “no reason” to even “suspect” that Saddam didn’t have WMDs? How about the UN weapon inspections that consistently gave Saddam a clean scorecard? I’ll admit, it was very hard for us, as the general American public, to believe Saddam didn’t have WMDs after the months of fear mongering and the incessant propaganda campaign our government and the media’s talking heads in its pocket foisted on us (I was among the war’s supporters), but there was ample proof available to the policy makers of this country that Saddam did not have WMDs, posed no threat to us, and could no longer even pose a threat if he wanted to.
The man was never really a threat to America. He was a tinpot dictator of a little third world country. The “Saddam tried to assassinated Bush Sr.” conspiracy theory is riddled with holes. It was never cited as an official reason to go to war, and only vaguely referenced by W a couple of times. Saddam understood the consequences of an assassination of a US president, and that was never really on his agenda. His goal was trying to lift the UN sanctions, and he had always shown a willingness to be an ally of the United States, both before and after the Gulf War.
Furthermore, Iraq’s attacks on Kuwait and Israel were foreign disputes that were none of our business.
But just so I can get this straight… Curtailing and demolishing Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms at home, while resorting to unconstitutional, undeclared, pre-emptive war to immorally violate another nations’ right to self determination and sovereignty all because some sketchy intel says that someone else MIGHT have the intention to POSSIBLY try gain the ability to help some other group of people (who were his enemies, with whom he was not even on speaking terms) attack us is justified how?
Call me a nut, but I say President Jefferson’s “Commerce with all nations, alliance with none” motto sounds pretty wise after wading through the above logic.
March 29th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
act-blog,
Gore is another perfect example of my theory. An heir apparent, who failed, because his pathway insured that he would never LEAD the movement. Only now, after some considerable rehabilitation, a mythical narrative of thievery (Bush STOLE the election), and a series of doomsday predictions has Gore managed to become a genuine leader of the Democratic Party. He went off into the wilderness and made himself anew.
March 29th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
“I never liked the idea of handful of quirky farmers in Iowa having an oversized role in selecting our nominee.”
Its not optimal, but the three early states provide for a fair mix of Conservative and moderate (and would still if NH was closed, since its GOPers are still mroe moderate), social issues, economic issues, and military issues.
Besides, I don’t think you could make a primary plan work if you ticked off all the early states.
March 29th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Well, Gore DID win the popular vote, so its a little hard to say that he failed. Got unlucky is probably a better way to describe Gore’s fortunes.
As for the “never lead the movement thing” well, its a fair point, and that is why you have to make sure that the heir is representative of the party. But the argument can’t be made that our system got us a nominee more representative of the GOP than any heir apparent would have been.
March 29th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
I like the idea that’s being floated for future Democratic primaries; regional primaries after the “early states”. I.e, Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada vote. Afterwards, you have maybe 8 days spread out over the next few months, with 8 regions of the country. Michigan, Illinois, and Minnesota vote on one day. NJ, PA, CT, and MA vote on another. These regions rotate, in terms of when they’re held, from one election the next. Within those confines, state parties can hold whatever sort of contest they want; winner take all, proportional by district, or proportional statewide. Open or closed. Primary or caucus. “Super-delegate” types, or no.
March 29th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
>”Well, Gore DID win the popular vote, so its a little hard to say that he failed.”
Or, putting it another way: He lost.
March 29th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
I don’t like the idea of regional primaries, because I believe they would leave certain issues out in the cold each cycle. The south votes largely on social issues, the midwest and northeast on economic issues, and so on.
I think you have to have a system where states from multiple regions vote at once to get the kind of balance that a good candidate should have.
March 29th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
act-blog,
“But the argument can’t be made that our system got us a nominee more representative of the GOP than any heir apparent would have been.”
Actually, it can. That’s sort of the point of democracy. People vote. They elect someone. Afterwards, the “will of the people” (re: a representation of a plurality of their views) has been done. If that’s not true, at least broadly speaking, then Democracy is a colossal failure. Given your fondness for crowning people, I’m not sure you’d disagree. It’s true that Open primaries and winner take all elections change the calculus somewhat, to the extent that you’re looking for a nominee that best represents the combined views of voters who ONLY vote for Republicans. But, even here you’re not on terribly solid ground. McCain won Republicans (leaving aside independents) in NH. He won them in Florida (where it was a closed primary). He only lost this group, by 1%, in South Carolina. Or do you further want to exclude Republicans who don’t identify as conservatives from our nominating process? Maybe party bosses? Maybe with the slogan “Bring the Republican Party back to 1964!”?
March 29th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
“McCain won Republicans (leaving aside independents) in NH.”
But I don’t leave aside independents. McCain only won this parimary season because of the independents and democrats – two groups that should never have been allowed to vote in the first place.
These are party primaries – and they should be determined by the MEMBERS of that party. Democrats should vote in the Democratic primary, Republicans should vote in the Republican primary, and Independents should lie in their own bed when they decide to sit out our party process.
March 29th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Given that we live in a two-party system and third party candidates are never viable in a national election I don’t agree that Independents should be excluded from our primaries. Independents pay taxes. Independents serve in the military and Independents grow our economy just like everyone else. Just because we have a two-party system doesn’t mean that 1/3 of the electorate (and growing) shouldn’t have their say in primaries.
March 29th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
act-blog,
You misunderstood me; I meant to say that McCain actually won registered Republicans in NH. As it turns out though, the exit poll has Romney winning registered Republicans 35-34. But, then again, the exit poll has McCain at 36% when he netted 37% in the actual primary. So it’s not at all clear that McCain “only won because of independents and Democrats”. In fact, statistically there’s probably something like a 40-45% chance that he won registered Republicans in NH, and 40-45% chance that he did the same in South Carolina.
March 29th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
I’m OK with either loose closed primaries (where Registrants can switch their party affiliation up to, say, a week in advance) or strict “open” primaries (where you can temporarily declare for a party on the day of). I oppose to completely closed primaries (where you have to switch your affiliation months in advance). Heck, I’m still a registered independent because, if we happen to have closed primaries at some point, in a blue state I want to have the flexibility to vote for a “good Democrat” in the primary, if the R doesn’t have a chance. But, I’m a Republican. Honest. When I voted for Romney on February 5th, proudly and happily, and as a registered independent, I wasn’t trying to sabotage our party, or drive it away from it’s ideals, or some such nonsense.
March 29th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
“Independents pay taxes. Independents serve in the military and Independents grow our economy just like everyone else…”
…and they willingly sit out the party system, fully aware of the consequences.
In any case, I’m not aiming to exclude independents, but to have registration changes well in advance of the actual voting. What I’m really trying to avoid is what we saw in New Hampshire – where indepndents were going to vote in one party’s primary by a large margin, but when the candidate they supported looked like he had won before the ballots started flowing, they all decided to vote in the other primray.
If Independents see an ideology or a candidate who they really like 100 days before the voting, fine, they can register for that primary and stick to their choice. I don’t like the concept of “my favorite candidate is X(D), but he looks like he is going to win anyway, so I’ll vote for candidate Y(R) instead.”
March 29th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
act-blog,
Of course if you’re right, then those independents in NH who handed McCain the state, saved us from a runaway Obama victory in the primaries and entirely united Democratic Party.
March 29th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
But they also prevented us from getting a strong conservative candidate who would have been more representative of the party as our nominee.
Also note: its entirely possible that if Romney had won in NH, he would have become the nominee just as fast as McCain. Remember, McCain bet everything he had on New Hampshire. If he had lost there, he would have dropped out. Romney would still have won MI, NV, WY, and then gone into South Carolina, where its likely that he would have won or come in a close second to Huckabee, gone into Florida, won there, and then swept all but a few Southern states on Super Tuesday.
Yeah, the Democrats might have gotten their nominee faster, but so what? We still would have, and our nominee would have been a much better candidate.
March 29th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
>”But they also prevented us from getting a strong conservative candidate who would have been more representative of the party as our nominee.”
And would have lost. Face it, Romney can’t connect to real people — that’s why he lost virtually every primary he was in.
Every poll throughout the primary season showed him getting creamed by Obama and Clinton (and Edwards). Even if they went all the way to a floor fight in Denver, I have no doubt the Dem nominee would wipe the floor with Romney.
March 29th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
You can’t prove that. Firstly, for all of your talk of “connecting”, Romney got thousands of times the votes of Rudy, and nearly as many votes as McCain. As for “lost nearly every primary he was in”, he won only two fewer states than McCain before he dropped out. Finally, there was a long time between when we would have won the nomination and the general election, more than enough time for all this mess about Obama to come out, and more than enough time to expose himself to the 50% of the country who still didn’t really have a clear idea about him.
But lets even assume that he had lost. So did Goldwater, and he is still credited as being a major figure and leader of the conservative movement (though he probably couldn’t be considered the same today). At least if Romney had been the nominee, win or lose, the party would have had it’s multi-decade leader, its direction, its person to look to for the next few cycles.
What do we have in McCain? A 72 year old moderate who will provide no long-term base for the party, and who is strong on about two issues – the war and spending, thats it, and who probably has at least a 50% chance of only running for one term.
March 29th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
>”At least if Romney had been the nominee, win or lose, the party would have had it’s multi-decade leader, its direction, its person to look to for the next few cycles.”
What’s scary is that you probably honestly see Romney as a visionary leader of the Goldwater type. To paraphrase Bentsen, I knew Barry Goldwater, and Mitt Romney … geez, I can’t finish, I’m laughing too hard.
That’s okay, go on with your Mitt-worship. The rest of us will deal with the real world.
March 29th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Yeah, I think that, just like he had in business, just like he had in Massachusetts, just like he had in the olympics, and just like he had during the campaign, he would have continued to be a great, skilled, respected, revolutionary leader in the White House.
Yes, Romney changed positions. So did Reagan, so did Bush I, so did McCain, and many others. Romney provided no evidence as to why his conversion shouldn’t have been taken seriously.
In any case, he couldn’t have been any worse than McCain will be.
March 29th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
I’ve skipped the second half of the conversation, because I was so appalled at Josiah’s reading of the 16th Amendment. This is a BIG problem with the supposed “Constitutionalists” who flocked around Ron Paul – their ideology has no bearing whatsoever on what the Constitution or any particular law actually says, but instead they make up meanings so they can complain about conspiracies, or trammeled “liberties” that never existed in the first place. It’s fantasy, pure and simple.
March 29th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Act blog,
While Romney would’ve been a good nominee, comparing him to Goldwater seems like a bit of a stretch.
March 29th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
I wasn’t trying to compare the two – I was just making the point that you don’t have to win the election to become a major and lasting force in your party. Gore didn’t win, Goldwater didn’t win, Reagan didn’t win in ’76.
March 29th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
McCain is P E T T Y.
March 29th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
All of the divisions have still not been healed…â€
To the extent we have divisions, its not because of the primary process. They are because McCain is awful on immigration and global warming taxes and has spent several years routinely taking shots at conservatives. He could have run unopposed in the primaries and it would have made little difference.
March 29th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
A rotating primary – where different states vote first every four years would be more fair. I never liked the idea of handful of quirky farmers in Iowa having an oversized role in selecting our nominee.
Jay Cost has an argument for why its good to have the same early states each time. He’s a big defender of NH and Iowa because he points out the folks there are *used* to vetting candidates and tend to be politically more savvy and participatory than in most states.
I like your system except I think IA, NH, and SC should still go early as long as they meet some pre-set voter participation percentage.
March 29th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Portman is not interested in being McCain’s VP http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/02/mccains_vp_list_portman_doesnt.asp
March 29th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Grandma T: The article is considerably less definite than the headline: “He didn’t take himself out of contention, but instead shifted the conversation to talk about his interest in running for Ohio governor or a U.S. Senate seat…”
March 29th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Seriously, I think this comes down to two men: Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty.
March 29th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
For the first time in awhile, I’m getting the sense that, not only might Pawlenty accept the VP spot, but that he might be fairly interested in the job. In the past he’s been fairly definitive about his lack of interest, but he’s said some things of late that sound like typical “I’m interested, but I’m going to play humble” comments. Also, why in the heck has no one seriously mentioned John Hoeven as a potential VP choice? I was reading about Pawlenty going to North Dakota yesterday (for some reason), and Hoeven obviously came up. On closer inspection, I noticed that he’s a young, two-term Roman Catholic Governor with 86% approval ratings. Additionally, he’s the former CEO of North Dakota’s largest bank, giving the much vaunted “economic experience”. Now, I don’t know much about his political views, other then the fact that he was apparently a Democrat just 4 years before running for Governor (something that doesn’t necessarily mean much in true red North Dakota), but he seems like someone that at least deserves a place on the short-list. Granted, he seems intent on running for a third term this year, but couldn’t we, you know, convince him not to?
March 29th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
What about Huckabee for VP? Huck’s army is still praying and waiting for their miracle.
March 29th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Just speaking for myself, but I could not stomach Huckabee. Obviously, I’m not going to not vote for McCain because of it, but I’d be really upset.
Luckily, I’m not in the least worried about it — I can’t imagine McCain selecting him.
March 29th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
BobH,
Ditto on all points. Huck has real appeal to certain types of blue collar voters, but he utterly turned off the entire business and fiscally conservative wing of the party in the process, and seemed to have astounding problems winning Catholics. If McCain wants blue collar voters, there are better options. Pretty much any option would be better.
March 29th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
I followed a link from the Portman article Grandma T pointed to. It’s from February, so it’s dated, but it lists a bit of data on each of 24 possible VP candidates.
http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/02/john_mccains_top_22_potential.php
March 30th, 2008 at 1:19 am
mccain is 71, so you have to ask yourself, can you picture a commander in chief portman? nope. pawlenty? nope. sanford, crist? nope, nope.
in the end i think there are only two veep picks that actually add something or win a state or a demographic, and thats gov. mitt romney and sec. condoleezza rice
March 30th, 2008 at 5:03 am
PnGrata #59,
The right to own the fruit of your labor is a liberty that has never existed??? I never thought I’d see the day when such a thing would be said in seriousness. The fact is, my reading of the 16th Amendment is the same as everyone else’s. I read the 16th Amendment as saying that the federal government is authorized to tax 100% of the fruit of your labor, which they now are. The only reason we get to keep 70% or whatever percentage of the fruit of our labor is because the government LETS us. That’s the implication. If a government claims the authority to take everything you earn and everything you produce, then it is claiming the authority to determine whether or not you can live, and thus, it is claiming that it owns you. And if a government claims authority over your life and ability to live, it’s no large step to claiming authority over what you can say, what you can do, where you can go, etc. At this point, the government is no longer the protector and guardian of rights inherent to us as human beings, but rather the owner of human beings who loans certain liberties out to us out of the goodness of its heart.
That is dangerous.
March 30th, 2008 at 9:58 am
I’m praying its not PAwlenty. He might be a good guy, but McCain needs someone with economic experience on the ticket, and, to my knowledge, Pawlenty has little. The biggest issue in this election is going to be the economy, and it critical that we have someone who actually has some credibility on the issue.
The Democrats are already attacking McCain for not knowing about the economy, and Pawlenty wouldn’t do anything to help us in that area.
March 30th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Question – What does Barack Obama know about the economy? And what makes him more knowledgable on the subject than John McCain?
March 30th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Nothing, but if all we have is two candidates who know nothing, who are just going back and forth, the Democrats win because they represent something different than what we have now. If we actually put someone on the ticket who can be considered an authority on the issue, who has unquestionable knowledge, then we can turn the argument back on the DNC without looking just as bad.
March 30th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Yeah, I’m with Sanford. Stand on principle. No endorsing libs this cycle, it’s too critical.
March 30th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
act-blog,
We can turn back the Democratic in other ways. I’ve spent a series amount of time researching old articles about potential VP’s in the last few days, and I have a good sense of what sort of campaign Pawlenty ran in 2002, how he was perceived, etc. I have, I think, an excellent sense of the 2002 race. And a couple things come out; first of all, Pawlenty challenged the establishment Republican in 2002. Practically the entire party was backing the other fellow. Who happened to be….a successful businessman. He won the primary narrowly, on like the 10th ballot, and then easily rallied his opponents troops in a general election. So, even in a Republican primary where they’re prone to like businessmen and the like, Pawlenty had enough “economic” cred to triumph.
And the Minnesota GOP is fairly unique among Republican Party’s in reliably blue states in that there’s a fairly sizable faction of awfully conservative folks. I live in NJ, which is arguably less blue then Minnesota historically, and our GOP doesn’t have any strain of conservatism. I was forced to choose between a pro-choice, pro-legalization of drugs, pro-universal health care, pro-global warming, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control Republican and a pretty much equivalent Democrat in my congressional race. And I live next to a military base, and in a “red” county.
Pawlenty, in contrast, managed to get to the left of his opponent on abortion because he actually favored some exceptions (rape, incest, etc), and generally ran to the right both in the primary and the general. As best as I can gather, despite it’s limited success in state politics (before Pawlenty anyway), the Minnesota GOP is a surprisingly conservative organization.
Another thing came out as I examined the race; Pawlenty made of the most of his blue collar background. There were numerous articles I found, where folks said things like, “I feel like he cares about my troubles, and can help solve them”. Again, whether you like to believe this or not, this is a MUCH more valuable ability then business experience during troubling economic times.
Second, of all it’s simply untrue to state that Pawlenty doesn’t have experience with economics, or that this isn’t his focus. In the first interview I could find after his election, he responded, when asked why he won in the very first question “People wanted to return to the comfort food of politics. There’s some bread-and-butter issues that people want to know that their leaders are focused on. That starts with jobs and the economy. That was a proxy in our campaign for “how are you going to deal with the state budget issue,” but it’s broader than that, too _ it’s about how we will deal with job growth and economic development.” Job growth. Economic development.
He’s focused on that for 6 years. Furthermore, he’s taken more overseas trips to promote trade and business then any other governor in the country. He notably took a trip with a 200 person business delegation to negotiate trade with China, something which has been a real focus of his. If you narrowly define economic experience as “business experience”, then sure Pawlenty doesn’t have any. But, then the vast majority of our presidents had no economic experience. If you define economic experience as it’s been traditionally been defined, Pawlenty has as much as any Governor in the country (save perhaps Romney), and more then a good majority of our past presidents.
March 30th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
“If you narrowly define economic experience as “business experienceâ€, then sure Pawlenty doesn’t have any. But, then the vast majority of our presidents had no economic experience. If you define economic experience as it’s been traditionally been defined…”
I’m defining economic experience as actual hands-on experience in the economy, and unless the Republicans want to engage in a nasty fight between two people with no actual business experience, arguing about economic plans, and trying to say the other is unqualifed,that is the kind of experience the VP must have.
You are confident about Pawlenty’s chances, that’s fine – I’m pretty confident about Romney’s. There is a long history of nominee’s choosing VP who were either their major primary challenge, or who balance the ticket in therms of experience, ideology, or location, not so much a history of nominee’s choosing loyal supporters.
In all the areas VPs are usually choosen on, Romney defeats or ties T-Paw.
PArty unity – Romney is the obvious choice, because he was the #2 in the primaries
ideological balance – both are Conservative
regional pull – both probably help in the Midwest, but Romney could add pull in the West and a couple of NE states.
experience – McCain needs help most on economic matters, Romeny is much more experience than Pawlenty in the area.
branching out, into areas that might be considered, Romney is already vetted on a national level, is more well known than Pawlenty, and already has a broad and organized network of fundraisers and supporters.
March 30th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
act-blog,
“I’m defining economic experience as actual hands-on experience in the economy, and unless the Republicans want to engage in a nasty fight between two people with no actual business experience, arguing about economic plans, and trying to say the other is unqualifed,that is the kind of experience the VP must have.”
Then you’re defining economic experience as it’s never been defined in the history of recorded elections. What “economic experience” did Gore or Kerry have? How about Dole? Clinton? Only the two oil-men Bush’s have had anything approaching “economic experience” by these definitions going all the way back to before Reagan. Mondale had none. Dukakis had none. And as it happens, both Bush’s ran miserably on economic issues, despite this “experience”. It was “it’s the economy stupid” Clinton that won the day on economics. Bush lost dramatically in all exit polls on questions of “who do you most trust to manage the economy” in both elections.
In contrast, Dukakis ran on “the Massachusetts Miracle” and might have succeeded had he been a more skillful politician. The last nominee before the Bush’s with “economic experience” was Jimmah Carter, the ole’ Peanut Farmer. He worked out pretty well, eh? The country and our party explicitly rejected “economic experience” twice in 68′, tossing both Romney and Rockefeller by the wayside. They’d already rejected Rockerfeller in 64′. Goldwater had some “economic experience” I’ll grant you, and LBJ had none. He sure won that argument!
The American People have thoroughly rejected your idea of economic experience. They’ve, instead, come to accept that heading multi-billion dollar budgets for a number of years as Head’s of State gives you a perfectly legitimate foundation of economic experience. That’s not to say that Business experience is bound to be a liability. It might not be, in certain climates. Indeed, it might be an asset (I certainly thought Romney’s would be when I was supporting him). But, it’s ludicrous to argue that we’re “sunk” if we don’t put a businessman on the ticket.
March 30th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
I don’t think we’re “sunk” without it, but I think not having that kind of hands-on experience, working with business, being effected by the economic situation, knowing what it is like to create or cut jobs, etc., can we avoid what would become a long, exhausting, childish argument between the two nominees over who is less qualified, who is least capable, who has done less, etc.
Would Pawlenty help? Maybe. But I don’t think he helps as much as Romney.
and really, this is not an argument we want to have, because, in my opinion, without that unquestionable authority, we lose by default, because we represent the current situation.
March 30th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
act-blog,
Pawlenty’s been “affected’ by economic situations. His dad was a truck-driver. He was the first person in his family to go to college. His whole family was working class, “lunch-bucket” socially conservative Democrats. He’s won over voters concerned about the economy, precisely because they feel that, not only has he been effected by it the sense that it’s fluctuations raised or lowered his bottom-line, but he’s actually lived a life where a poor economic climate meant watching your parents and their friends get laid off. People want someone who PERSONALLY has been effected by the economy; not someone who’s intellectually interacted with it. They’ll trust Pawlenty because they feel he’s one of them and that, fundamentally, he has their interests at heart. Again, Bill Clinton won on the economy because “he felt their pain”. Not because he had a portfolio of economic accomplishments. This dynamic in politics is potentially unfair, but you go to war with the electorate you have, not the electorate you want.
March 30th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Clinton won because he was up against the man people blamed as the cause of the recession, and a third-party candidate who was, admittedly, a litte crazy.
I just don’t think we can win the economy fight decisively without someone on the ticket who could be considered an unquestionable authority on the topic. And if we can’t win the economy argument, it is going to be much harder to win this election.
March 31st, 2008 at 7:58 am
This scares me. are we looking at someone who puts loyalty over competence again. maybe the dems are right, another bush term if mccain wins.