Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
Who we are instead
By Alexham Posted in Abortion | culture of death | culture of life | Life Issues | Republicans | Rudy Giuliani | social conservatives — Comments (82) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I can still remember the day after the 1994 midterm elections. It was an unusually sunny day in the Southland, and all seemed right with the world. After all of those years in the wilderness, the Republicans had finally taken control of the House, and soon thereafter, the Senate. We would do things differently, we promised. We were a different kind of political party. Unlike the Democrats, who only care for power for power's sake, we sought power to make a profound difference in the lives of every-day Americans.
How different things look thirteen years later. Somewhere along the line, we lost our way. I think most Republicans instinctively know this, but have trouble articulating exactly when things began to unravel for our party. What we do know is that the Republican Party is at crossroads. We are a party in search of an identity, and the path we choose will have long-term ramifications not only for the GOP, but for these United States.
Read on . . .
Now, I could spend a great deal of time rehashing the past and pointing fingers (and part of me would like to do just that), but where would that get us? No, it is time to move on, bury past grudges, and decide who we are as a party. But in order to do that, we have to get past the acrimony that currently exists in our own party between fiscal/foreign-policy conservatives and social conservatives. Because if we don't, then we most certainly will set up shop again in the wilderness, and if that happens there is the distinct possibility that we won't be returning to power any time soon.
So, let's get down to brass tacks, and begin to address this family dispute before we pass the point of no return and hand the presidential election to the dems.
And before I begin, let me be clear: This is not about Rudy. It concerns him, but our problem extends far beyond the viability of his candidacy. It goes to the core of who we are as a party. I think I've always known this, but somewhere along the way, I allowed myself to get caught up in the personalities involved, and developed a personal animus toward Mayor Giuliani. For that, I apologize. So, let's start fresh; or as that woman would say, "Let's talk."
In my view, it is crucial that the Republican Party remain unambiguously prolife. As others here at RedState have noted, there are three major principles that the GOP has stood for during its ascendancy: (1) promoting family values and protecting innocent life; (2) personal and national defense; and (3) fiscal responsibility. If one of these core beliefs is compromised or denigrated from within, then the coalition of Americans who comprise the Republican Party will almost certainly come undone.
And this brings us to the candidacy of Mayor Giuliani. Now, I know I just said this post wouldn't be about Rudy, and it really isn't; but it is his candidacy that has brought this internal rift to the surface, so I have no choice but to speak about our differences in this context. I will, however, endeavor to do so in a respectful manner.
Let me begin by noting that I understand why so many of my fellow Republicans are attracted to Rudy Giuliani as a candidate. For all of his faults, Rudy is an intelligent and charming man, who exudes leadership, authority, and confidence. And his performance during one of this country's most tragic moments was nothing short of Churchillian. Unfortunately, his public record and statements on core "Culture of Life" issues causes social conservatives great concern. I know there are counterarguments to this (e.g., he will appoint originalist judges/justices), but the fact of the matter is that this is a man who fundamentally disagrees with social conservatives on one of the party's core principles. Needless to say, this is a serious problem. As Father Neuhaus recently noted:
The question of the dignity of the human person is rightly understood as a political question. It is inescapably a political question . . . . The most consequential political event of the past half-century in the United States was the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions of January 1973 . . . . The moral question is not, as the court majority [in each case] claimed, about when a human life begins. That is a biological and medical question on which there is no serious dispute. The moral question can be put this way: At what point in its existence ought we, to recognize that a human life should be protected in law? . . . . That moral question is also and unavoidably a political question. One might make the case that it is the most fundamental of political questions. If politics is deliberating how we ought to order our life together [see Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics and Politics, both discourses on morality], there can hardly be a more basic question than this: Who belongs to the we?
And this, my Republican brothers and sisters, is why so many social conservatives have trouble accepting the prospect of Rudy Giuliani representing the Republican Party in the 2008 presidential race. For all of his strengths, Mayor Giuliani is a man who holds a contrary view on what many of us believe to be the "most fundamental of political questions." As you might expect, that is difficult for many of us to overlook.
I think I speak for many social conservatives when I say to Rudy's supporters that we understand and respect your belief that Mayor Giuliani is uniquely qualified to serve as this nation's commander-in-chief in a post-9/11 world. We also understand and appreciate the threat that radical Islam poses to the continued well being of our constitutional republic. But for many of us, survival, in and of itself, should not be government's primary objective. We believe that what matters far more is who we are and what we stand for as a people. For me, what makes us different as a country is that so many Americans believe in the fundamental dignity of every human life, from conception until natural death. Unfortunately, Mayor Giuliani does not share this view. That doesn't mean he is evil, but I do think it demonstrates that he is deeply misguided when it comes to one of our party's core principles.
I recognize, of course, that the Republican Party is a big tent, and that there are those within our party who hold different views on abortion and other "Culture of Life" issues; but there is a difference between being in a party and leading it. And I think even those who don't share our views can certainly understand why social conservatives are so concerned about the prospect of Rudy leading the party, and the long-term implications that will result from him serving in that capacity. Indeed, think of it this way: Would it be acceptable for the Republican Party to nominate as its presidential candidate a man or woman who: (a) favored raising taxes over cutting them; and/or (b) supported gun control or immediately withdrawing our troops from Iraq? If your answer to either of these questions is no, then all I ask is that you understand why social conservatives are so adamant about having a presidential nominee who believes in the sanctity of all life.
I'll have more to say on this, but I hope for now this will suffice to begin a dialogue between Republicans on how we can move forward as a party. As Ben has so eloquently noted, we need to "keep it together," not only for the sake of our party, but for the sake of our country. The last thing America needs is that woman and that man back in the White House.
« Victory for South Dakota In Informing Women About Abortion — Comments (1) | Cautions for Conservatives — Comments (7) »
Who we are instead 82 Comments (0 topical, 82 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
President Bush
by Adam C
So how come there wasn't a concerted effort to stop President Bush who eschewed (3) fiscal responsibility.
"Indeed, think of it this way: Would it be acceptable for the Republican Party to nominate as its presidential candidate a man or woman who: (a) favored raising taxes over cutting them; and/or (b) supported gun control or immediately withdrawing our troops from Iraq?"
How about a President who increased spending at Carter-like rates?
At least Giuliani is promising to "do no harm." President Bush hasn't been neutral on size-of-government issues, he has actively created new bureaucracies, new entitlements, and higher rates of spending.
But fiscal conservatives were told to suck it up so that President Bush could spend his time endorsing the FMA, vetoing stem cell research, and focusing on the war. Maybe it's time for social conservatives to suck it up for once.
I totally respect why you and others may vote against Giuliani in the primary. But if you lose the primary, I hope you will be part of the coalition that elects Giuliani President just as fiscal conservatives gave enough support to Bush for him to win.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Because he was a tax-cutter
by Dan McLaughlin
and at the end of the day, taxes trump spending.
I agree with you, Adam, that after 8 years of Bush we need to reclaim the spending mantle. But "fiscal conservative" is sometimes shorthand for a group of voters with very varied priorities.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
So is social conservative
by Adam C
Giuliani's anti-crime efforts, welfare reform policies, denial of funding to anti-Christian art work, and other things could make him a social conservative to some. At least as much as Bush's tax cuts make him a fiscal conservative.
I'm just tired of seeing fiscal conservatives and the white collar wing of the party told they have to kowtow to social conservatives when there is not a similar willingness for give and take from the social conservative wing.
The Rs have bled fiscal conservatives for a while now. The GOP is creating a generation of Ds in the under 30 crowd b/c social issues are the dividing line that these voters have seen their whole adult life and they are not as socially conservative as their elders. But they are receptive to school choice, small government, as simpler and flatter tax system, and personal retirement accounts.
But those don't matter b/c they only issue that one has to agree with their party on is abortion. And so persuadable voters get turned off by stem cell research bans, Schiavo intrusions of privacy, and the xenophobic wing of the anti-immigrant side of the party.
And it hurts to see the party slowly walk of a cliff in their desire to shrink the tent. Ban Ron Paul commenters. Support Hillary over Rudy. Pretty soon, the 30% of the country that is conservative will succeed in being the only Rs and they will lose like it's the FDR era all over again.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
You don't help your argument
by Bob Frazier
You don't help your argument when you state things as incorrectly as this?
"But those don't matter b/c they only issue that one has to agree with their party on is abortion. And so persuadable voters get turned off by stem cell research bans, Schiavo intrusions of privacy, and the xenophobic wing of the anti-immigrant side of the party."
Where is the stem cell research ban? Did you mean illegal-immigrant or did you just want to rip on people who believe our borders should be secure and only legal immigrants here?
Can't tell if its your ignorance or your bias that is showing.
Try reading
by Adam C
I was clearly talking about the "xenophobic wing of the anti-immigrant" part of the party. If that doesn't describe you, then don't take offense. Because unfortunately, like "David Duke voter," it does describe some non-negligible portion of the party.
If you are merely a rule-of-law voter who thinks legal immigration is a good thing for the country, then maybe you're just a little sensitive.
If you think pressing 2 for Spanish is impeding your ability to be an American and you don't like those "brown" people in your neighborhood, then yeah the comment was directed toward you.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
By the way, and putting to the side
by Thomas
the implication that if one is a rule of law voter who is also against any level of legal immigration (presumably, for whatever "facial" reason), one is xenophobic -- an attitude I neither share, nor a description I share, so I have no skin in this -- I would like to comment you on your progression from Sith Apprentice. Your snarkiness and nastiness are serving you well, young Adam.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
...right around 2000. They are now in their mid-twenties, and starting to vote in significant numbers. They never saw what years of high taxes did, and instead absorbed media idiocy about how wonderful budget surpluses are, instead of seeing them for what they are -- the government stealing too much from its citizenry. So lowering taxes is nice, but what's really important is sending too much money to the government under threat of prison.
And because their political maturity formed at a time when we were trying out national immaturity, you'd expect them to be more socially liberal -- they were emotionally and politically misformed, and don't see how private acts have public consequences.
In other words, I just agreed with a great deal of what you wrote, but I went and wrote it just as nicely as you did, just from the other side. Isn't it wonderful when we agree?
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Well said
by Adam C
I was reminded of a lot of these points when I was discussing the Flat Tax with a young professional (23 years old) friend of mine. She was very receptive to it and thought although it was a good idea, it would probably never happen. She is also a big fan of economic reasoning and analysis, thus a fan of free trade and market-based health care reform. She is also staunchly Independent.
I think if she (and others like her) had come of age in the mid-90s, she would be an R. But she is also pro same-sex marriage and not religious at all, although not hostile to religion or religious people. She generally sees the left and right as too ideological and driven by social issues so she doesn't identify with either.
There are lots of groups of people who the Rs could win over if the effort was to win over new voters. My friend is just one example. Young black voters are more open to being I or R than in the past, etc.
But those who have come up in the post-2000 political age are right now quite to the left of the country. And I'm not convinced of the oft-repeated idea that age makes someone more Republican. Any proof of this statement in past cohorts would be much appreciated.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
And now you backslide.
by Thomas
That was too polite. We should Force-whip you until you're ready to write correctly.
But those who have come up in the post-2000 political age are right now quite to the left of the country.
My problem with this kind of analysis is the very thing you pooh-pooh -- humans are capable of rational decision-making and analysis. I'm not convinced that one's political formation at 18-25 locks them into that same view of the world forever and ever. Your view of the world and the importance of different things changes over time.
Put differently: The mass of voters are not college students, grad students, or young professionals. Those voters were overwhelmingly identified as left-liberal when I was coming through high school and college -- that "most liberal generation in decades" thing was being bandied about then -- and yet those same Gen-Xers voted in significant numbers for Republicans in 2000, 2002, and 2004.
I'm not saying things don't need to change; I'm saying that your doom and gloom is the wrong kind of doom and gloom.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Entirely off topic
by Adam C
I just came across an old comment of yours from long ago where we once agreed. So I guess this almost-agreement makes it 2 times.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Oh, come on. We've had like four. (nt)
by Thomas
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
There was one
by Neil Stevens
That effort came from John McCain. Only the problem is he went and adopted lefty rhetoric against the religious right, and so he wasn't a unifier either.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
standard-bearer
by rjd27
Is Giuliani the standard-bearer for the Republican Party? That question should also be asked of each of the candidates.
Let me ask this, and Dan, you kind of already answered it: if September 11, 2001, is just another Tuesday - no terrorist attack - where is Giuliani now? Is he running for the Republican presidential nomination?
I think he is not.
There's been much discussion about single-issue voters. Isn't voting for Rudy, based simply on 9/11, voting for only one issue? A damn important one, it is, but it is only one of many important issues to be considered.
Giuliani is not and should not be the standard-bearer for the Republican Party, not if the GOP is the home of Conservatives, social, fiscal or other.
I would also ask: what guarantee is there that the Republican Party would remain the "party for life" if the man at the top doesn't reflect this view? Can Rudy supporters say, without doubt, that a Giuliani presidency would not shift the party away from its pro-life positions?
My view of Giuliani is that he is center-left Republican at best, and a hawkish liberal at worst.
R.J.
If there's no war, there's no Rudy campaign
by Dan McLaughlin
On that, we agree. But then, if there was no World War II, there would have been no President Eisenhower. If there was no Watergate, there would have been no President Carter. We don't live in a what-if universe.
And besides national security, Rudy is solid across the board on a whole bunch of issues, some of which put him to the right of Bush - spending, taxes, law enforcement, education (school choice), racial preferences. I would not lump him with people who are moderates or liberals because they are squishier than thou on most issues.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Let's break out of that mold then
by Neil Stevens
Eisenhower gave us Nixon. Carter gave us Ahmadinejad.
Let's fall out of that reactionary pattern, just this once.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
What did Goldwater do in '60? (nt)
by Neil Stevens
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
I dunno, what did he do?
by streetwise
I assume he supported Nixon, although pissed off about Nixon's "Compact of Fifth Avenue" with Rockefeller.
In 68, Nixon was the unity candidate who put the party back together after the Goldwater debacle of 1964. Even still, his election over Humphrey was a damn close thing.
You said Goldwater gave us Nixon
by Neil Stevens
You said Goldwater gave us Nixon, so I was wondering how he gave Nixon to us.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
The Nixon that actually won in '68
by Bobby216
He didn't literally give Richard Nixon, the man, to us. The '64 debacle was a factor in making possible Nixon's '68 victory. What this has to do with 1960, I have no idea.
Nixon was going to keep running until he won
by Neil Stevens
Yes, Nixon skipped '64 which was very smart given the national climate. But he was going to keep running until he won, that seems clear to me. And he's pretty darn lucky that RFK was killed or else '68 would probably have been '60 all over again.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
that is a bit of a silly argument
by David Hinz
If 911 didn't happen -- what if? The point is, it did!
If 911 didn't happen, GWB never gets a second term, and we are looking today at a President _____? Not Kerry, because the GWoT isn't an issue, but President Democrat!
There are a billion different what ifs, and it is silly to ask what if.
Look forward, to who is the best candidate with the reality that we DO have...the reality of what IS.
Why Rudy?
by Blackadder
I'm afraid I don't get it. I'm told that we should overlook Rudy's liberalism on many issues because he would be good on the war on terror. But so far as I can tell, Rudy's positions on the war on terror aren't very different than those of the other major Republican candidates. McCain is just as hawkish as Rudy, and has much more experience on national security issues. Yet I'm not hearing many people say that we should overlook McCain's positions on immigration and campaign finance reform.
McCain has his own set of problems
by Dan McLaughlin
I supported him in 2000, and his overall issue positions, I could support again ... I actually think his biggest issue is his age. But a lot of McCain's stuff goes beyond specific issues to the way in which he has gone out of his way to break with the party repeatedly over the years in the most public way.
Also a significant concern with McCain on judges is that he's so personally invested in his campaign finance schemes that that would color his selection of judges. A judge who doesn't take the text of the First Amendment seriously may not be trustworthy on other areas either.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
"[H]e has gone out of his
by Blackadder
"[H]e has gone out of his way to break with the party repeatedly over the years in the most public way."
You mean like supporting Mario Cuomo for New York Governor? Or opposing Federal Welfare Reform on the grounds that it was anti-immigrant?
McCain is my # 2 because I am willing to overlook his
by streetwise
positions on immigration and CFR, especially as he has admitted that the Bush initiative on the former failed for lack of trust by the public.
I suspect many people are thinking along these lines.
Hey, did you choose your
by Herodotus
Hey, did you choose your user name in honor of the British Comedy " the Black Adder ," or the reptile?
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
The Brits are Best
by Blackadder
The sound of hoof beats 'cross the glade
Good folk, lock up your son and daughter
Beware the deadly flashing blade
Unless you want to end up shorter
Black Adder, Black Adder, he rides a pitch black steed
Black Adder, Black Adder, he's very bad indeed
Black: his gloves of finest mole
Black: his codpiece made of metal
His horse is blacker than a hole
His pot is blacker than his kettle
Black Adder, Black Adder, with many an cunning plan
Black Adder, Black Adder, you horrid little man.
That show use to be one of my favorites. n/t.
by Herodotus
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Weak on defense
by Stuart Buck
We couldn't survive nominating a candidate who is weak on defense because the president is the Commander-in-Chief.
What reason is there to think that any of the Republican candidates (besides, say, Ron Paul) is "weak on defense," or that Giuliani would somehow be stronger?
Well, that was the hypothetical
by Dan McLaughlin
Although I do have some real concerns about Romney and Huckabee on foreign policy. I'd agree that McCain and Fred would be fine.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I definitely don't trust Huckabee to fight the war, myself
by Neil Stevens
The man seems more interested in summits and diplomacy re: Iraq and Iran than actually doing anything. He even has a built in excuse not to fight: He has adopted the Powell Doctrine, which constrains American military force to such a narrow set of circumstances, that it's probably only ever been valid to fight under the Powell Doctrine once in our history: the expulsion of Baathist Iraq from Kuwait. We certainly couldn't have fought the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, or a number of other, smaller engagements under Powell Doctrine.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
Huckabee is one
by Anteater
...who really understands the religious nature of this war and who is willing to deal with the root causes of Islamofascism while also continuing in the fight in Iraq and keeping the pressure on Iran.
He had the prescience to also bring Pakistan to attention, while at the same time reaffirming America's longstanding commitment to Pakistan. An unstable Pakistan (already nuclear) is a very big threat.
Give me links of candidates giving as detailed a foreign policy speech as Mike:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/anteater/2007/sep/29/a_favorable_analysis_...
what if
by rjd27
Sorry, but always ask "what if?" Play devil's advocate. Examine counter-factual history (I like how you throw out irrelevant points to ignore my argument).
You also didn't answer my other questions, for which you may not have an answer at this time.
If you want a hawk on the GWoT, my not McCain? He's probably the hawkish of all the "top-tier" candidates. Of course, there's a "but" after that statement.
On the merits, Giuliani would never be the Republican candidate. Not even if he is "right of" so-and-so on issues x,y,z. Otherwise, he if is so qualified, why wouldn't you support him during peace-time?
R.J.
What about
by curious-lib
fielding a third candidate from a new Pro-Life Party? I've heard rumours that Dr. Dobson may do just that.
Of course, splitting the vote would be incredibly foolish on the Republicans' part, but so would expecting people to sacrifice their core political beliefs...
The world only goes round by misunderstanding - Charles Baudelaire
Hinz rule (nt)
by Neil Stevens
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
We simply can't afford to nominate someone who is going to lose any significant fraction of the base. It's a 50/50 country right now, so losing any significant part just ensures a loss, even if the loss from the base is mostly offset from votes in the mushy middle.
Because the base is a force multiplier. Nominate someone in step with them and they donate money, time and effort. Go the other direction and you lose all that.
For me personally, the only top tier candidate who I will not vote for under any circumstances is McCain, because the party simply can't afford to reward someone for spending years throwing it under the bus. Incentives work, and if McCain gets the nomination there will be a significant number of politicians in the next generation who will see that as the way to succeed, and the long-term damage to the party will be immeasurable.
Rudy and Romney I'd vote for, but I'd be very unhappy about it, because it would very much be a 'lesser evil' vote. And I'd understand people who chose differently. Because I'm not all that far from them. Rudy because he's not conservative anything, and Romney because who knows what he really believes? And because generally, as a conservative Texan, I don't trust any deep blue-state Republican. So they'd get no energy from me.
It is pretty ridiculous to banish someone from the republican party(as a participant or a candidate) because of a handful of issues. This is a small-government party first and foremost.
While I sympathize with social-conservatives, any litmus test creates an inherent conflict with the idea of small-government.
We had Reagan, Bush I and Bush II, all more or less pro-life--the state of abortion in America has not changed. If Alexham wants to use abortion as a litmus test to vote third party and thus throw a Rudy-Hillary race to Hillary, I don't think he will be happy with the results.
What Alexham is saying, imho,
by bantamwait
is that this is bigger than the party. And James Dobson makes an important point when he says that electing a pro-abortion GOP president would destroy the right-to-life movement, while electing Hillary would galvanize it. Obviously, there are many other considerations at work here, and we can't make our decisions based on only one principle--but we shouldn't make them based on no principles either.
The GOP is important, as Alexham reminds us, for what it stands for and promotes, not as an end in itself. That's what many of us lost sight of in recent years. I don't know about you, but I pledge allegiance to the Republic, not to the Republican Party.
Re that man and that woman:
by streetwise
You mean this providential union?
Sorry, could not resist!
It's the system, Lara- People will be different after the Revolution - Dr. Zhivago
Not too worry, HillaryCare has special mental health
by streetwise
features for the GOP!
For me, national defense and security---ours and those of our allies---is #1. A pro-life nation populated with people killed, wounded or terroized by terrorism isn't much of a place to live, IMO.
Alexham, you seem dismissive of the national security concerns. One reason why some of us---me included---started objecting to the public tactics of Team Dobson, is that there is no subsitute on today's Earth for a US Presidency that aggressively fights terrorism and provides inspiring leadership. There is no one else who can safeguard the world the way we can. You may not like that; OK--fine. It doesn't matter. There are no other free world allies capable enough to keep the peace or intimidate our foes.
We saw what happened when one Clinton provided unfocused and feel-good leadership of the world's security efforts. In 1993 Bin Laden was a nobody. Eight years later he'd metastasized, and launched the 9/11 plot. Once is enough for me.
I don't know where you're going with this. You say you want to reach out to the opponents/doubters of Team Dobson. But, after reading your article, I don't see much willingness on your part to find common ground. Instead, to me this read like a polite repeat of your views on why everyone needs to fall in behind whatever candidate Team Dobson approves of.
Not if I think that candidate is going to get me, or the lieutenants I teach (most of whom are in/en route to IZ or AF 90 days after they graduate), or my wife or my son killed.
If I may, I got the sense that Team Dobson wasn't willing to accept the responsibility of putting "that woman" in office in 2009. And, from my viewpoint, splitting the GOP coalition enough to swing OH or some other close state to HRC in the 2008 election would do just that.
When we pointed that out, it seemed to me that your side folded its arms and said "Not my problem."
No, Alexham, it's my problem. Mine, and that of the thousands of other intel and national security professionals trying to ensure we don't add to our national count of dead firefighters and powderized skyscrapers.
I fear a HRC presidency for these reasons:
1) With Hillary comes Berger, and Gorelick, and the ACLU-friendly/FISA-inhibiting attitude toward national security. That will chill our counterintelligence programs. Remember all the dots we were supposed to connect better after 9/11? Look for lots of those dots to dry up in a HRC presidency. Think that won't impact your security? Think again.
2) HRC will be seen as a pushover. Those countries/entities who wish us harm will feel emboldened to test her. To strike at us and see what happens. A soft-speaking President HRC won't be seen as carrying a "big stick." She might fail to respond appropriately when attacked---which will invite more aggression. Or, maybe she'll feel compelled to strike back forcefully, showily, in order to show she's "macho" enough to be a female American President. Of course, SHE won't do the striking; the LTs I train (and those they lead) will. Personally, I'd like a President who can intimidate our enemies into thinking twice about hitting us in the first place.
For those two reasons, I am ready to pick Rudy Giuliani over Team Dobson's preferred pick. LET ME BE CLEAR---if Fred Thompson or some other candidate the pro-life leadership favors can catch on strongly enough nationally to be---clearly---a viable GOP nominee for President, I'm willing to back him and work for him, too. And, regardless, I'm not ready to EVER support HRC for President. (Unless the GOP goes insane and nominates David Duke or someone equally as sinister.)
But, I'm not ready to risk the WH in 2009 to make a statement of principle. The world we live in---to include my wife, my son and my students---is too dangerous a place for such a luxury.
As for me, I choose an electable Rudy over a Team Dobson-preferred, non-elected alternative.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
It isn't.
There is a unique life angle to the job of Commander In Chief. Pick the wrong guy, and people are alive now who will be dead then. Both civilian and military. I think Rudy is the right guy. I also think McCain is the right guy. Fred probably is. Mitt, all I'm sure about is that he would mean well.
BTW, smagar, this is blog material. Save it somewhere
by streetwise
for future use!
Thanks, streetwise. :)
by smagar
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Rudy is probably more
by JG
Rudy is probably more electable in the general election than any of the others. He puts the northeast in play--Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, quite possibly New York(Hillary would have to spend some money here). He may make the west coast more competitive. The south(thank goodness for them) would never consider any of the current democrats.
I disagree
by Anteater
1) Many pro-life voters would not vote for him.
2) He has the most skeletons. There may be even a chance that Rudy is out of this race by Christmas, if some of the candidates really start to expose him (Romney could do so really easily given all his money).
yah yah yah
by Doc Holliday
we get it, you hate Rudy. We don't need Republicans "exposing" each other, if that happens, we are no better than our political rivals. BTW, Romney has much further to fall than Rudy since Rudy doesn't take himself so seriously.
Molon Labe!
You say you want to defeat
by TexasGringo
You say you want to defeat Hillary. That's the precise reason you should NOT be supporting Giuliani. It is simply a fact that Giuliani alienates a large part of the Republican base, more so than any other candidate. You may think these voters are irrational. You may think their issues are insignificant compared to your issues. But, you are fooling yourself if you think they will support Giuliani with their votes, money, and labor. Giuliani splits the party. A disunited team cannot win.
That is a good point
by Shaggy Dog
It has become somewhat of a known-fact that Guiliani has the best chance of beating Hillary. But does he really? Does he pick up enough moderates to offset the socons who stay home? I have a hard time believing it.
And, TexasGringo, I doubt that most evangelicals are so myopic that they'd repeat the mistakes of 1992 and cast protest votes (or no votes) that would de facto elect a second Clinton.
Because, evangelicals have families. Whom they want to keep safe.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Try dropping the
by TexasGringo
Try dropping the condescending language and preconceived ideas and take a look at the question of whether social conservatives from a purely objective standpoint. Not what you think they should or should not do, but what the best evidence suggests they will do. Polls, statements by prominent Christian evangelical leaders, and widespread anybody but Giuliani posts here from socons suggest to me that many will in fact sit out or vote third party. What is your evidence that socons will support Giuliani to the same degree that they've supported Bush?
You have forgotten two
by Herodotus
You have forgotten two "...major principles that the GOP has stood for during its ascendancy "(limited government, and anti-corruption). The abandonment of both of these principles has really hurt the Republican Party over the last couple of years.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
This cuts to the heart of the matter:
by bantamwait
"what matters far more is who we are and what we stand for as a people." Thank you, Alexham, for that important reminder.
Ultimately, this is the most crucial question. It's not about who "wins." It's about what America stands for in the world.
Rudy says he is the candidate who can do the best job of keeping us safe. Good. But if we trade our principles for safety, what are we? Most importantly, what becomes of the American mission in the world?
People can disagree on what America's core principles are. I fully admit that many Americans could vote for Rudy on principle (although I coudn't). But our decision should be made on the basis of what America stands for, not on a fear of danger--and certainly not on a desire to "win," with no consideration beyond the partisan and tactical. America is more than just a game.
Unfortunately, it is about "who wins". If Hillary wins, the Supreme Court is lost for a GENERATION guaranteed, not maybe, not possibly, but definietly, and then no"matter what we stand for as a people", you are going to get something entirely different-if you survive the coming dirty bombs, and suicide bombings.
"lost for a GENERATION guaranteed"? Huh?
by bantamwait
Since the oldest SC justice is Stevens, it seems most likely that HRC would replace one liberal with another liberal. Presidential terms are for 4 years with the possibility of one extension. You need to take a few deep breaths.
And as to the "coming dirty bombs, and suicide bombings," I am the first to agree that Rudy would do infinitely better than Hillary in handling the aftermath, as he proved on 9/11/01. But if you think Rudy or any other president can prevent terrorism in the U.S., you are deceiving yourself. The recent 50%+ rate of failure to detect bomb parts in tests at the Los Angeles, Chicago and San Francisco airports makes that clear.
means some are not doing their job. I don't think that means that we can't prevent terrorism. It just means that we need to get more concerned about who is doing what to prevent terrorism.
Then we need to correct the problems.
To answer your question
by horaceox
"Would it be acceptable for the Republican Party to nominate as its presidential candidate a man or woman who: (a) favored raising taxes over cutting them; and/or (b) supported gun control or immediately withdrawing our troops from Iraq?"
None of these are particularly great analogies since the President has a lot more leeway over these than he does (presently) over abortion. But yes, I could easily support a President who, for example, believed that the question of gun control should be left to the states and pledged to appoint conservative Justices (who would be more likely to find a right to bear arms in the Second Amendment than a "living constitutionalist"). I could support a President who supported raising taxes (probably my most important issue next to the judiciary) depending on the Democrat's position and on the nature of the Congress. After all, I twice supported a Republican who supported a massive federal expansion of education funding and a brand new entitlement program, given the alternatives and the fact that a Republican Congress might keep him in check (oops). For example, I would have to swallow hard, but I think I'd pull the lever for Huckabee against Clinton. I would have a tough time with a "withdraw now" Republican, but that's because a "withdraw now" Republican would almost certainly just do that -- although on the other hand if the Democrats also put up a "withdraw now" candidate I'd probably still vote Republicans since there are other issues that matter to me and this would cancel itself out.
Bush has sold me out on every issue of importance to me save the judiciary and taxes, and even on that last one his victory was fleeting since he failed to make the tax cuts permanent. But I would never, ever, ever, ever wish President Gore or Kerry on the country. You go to an election with the nominee you've got, and for all his many, many warts, I remain convinced that he is a better President than the two that the Dems put up. I have no problem with people supporting a nominee other than Giuliani, and to be honest, I haven't made up my mind who I'm ultimately supporting in the primary. But I just can't see sitting home and letting a Democrat whose views on life are worse than Giuliani's -- and much worse on several other issues -- get elected.
I agree with you, Herodotus,
by Lost Lunch
and I repeat what some others have mentioned above: BushCo went entirely off the rails on fiscal responsibility. He was undeniably successful at cutting taxes, but I don't see how that achievement can survive the drunken sailor spending habits of this administration. For Dan McLaughlin it may be true that "at the end of the day, taxes trump spending," but that doesn't pay the bills from the spending. Our country, like much of our citizenry, is paying its living expenses with credit. It can't last forever (and the longer we postpone the reckoning, the more it will hurt).
"Freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority." ~Rudy Giuliani
I posted this description of my preferences in another thread, but no one cared to post a substantive response. I am not trolling here - I am looking to see who currently is a best fit. I don't expect 100%. Comments (obviously) welcome.
My political preferences:
I have never registered for any political party.
I have never failed to vote in a national or statewide election - missed a school board vote or three over the years.
I have voted in every primary when I lived in states with "pick one party" primaries.
I am clearly not a "loyal Republican", though in the past I have leaned more Republican than not.
I am a fiscal conservative at all levels of government.
I want a government no larger, no smaller, than it needs to be to carry out the mandate of the government be it federal, state, or local.
I want the constitution respected and adhered to, all of it, making me I suppose an "originalist" or "strict constructionist" though neither are terms with terribly fixed meanings.
I am militantly agnostic. You will find me in a church pretty much only when someone (other than me) dies or is married, out of respect for the concerned.
I want the federal government to stay out of matters religious - see above re the constitution - who am I, or my elected representatives, to tell someone else what to believe?
I am an admitted libertine, marrried with kids for 16 years.
I use neither alchohol nor recreational drugs (save for caffeine), legal or otherwise, but want them all legalized for use by those adults inclined.
I am a foreign policy hawk - while I did not serve, members of my family have and are serving.
I want Congress to declare war before the President takes more than a punitive action against sovereign state and think the President has the inherent authority to take short term punitive actions pursuant to the those actions Congress has previously defined under its powers:
"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
Given all that, what candidate for President, R or D, would the members of RS suggest as best fits my policy preferences? So far most of both sides are very long on platitudes, short on specifics.
Thank you
Since you ask, here is what you need to do!
by David Hinz
1. Do not post another thought of your own on any site for the next three months!
2. Read each and every post on this, and any number of other political sites, candidate sites, and general interst sites for the next three months.
3. Using what you have read, make a decision based on your own ability to think and reason!
How not to influence people
by otghand
Mr. Hinz;
Are you this disrespectful of those who ask your opinion in person or do you reserve this level of disrespect for the online world?
Do you have a secret method that gives an active parent unlimited time to read ever word, 95% of which will be seriously useful content free, on "this, and any number of other political sites..."
I am looking for suggestions, starting points, to better direct my research in the limited time that I have available for such. If I want a snarky or sarcastic response to a question I can just ask my kids if they would like to take the trash out. I came here looking for a reasoned, adult response.
it is too bad YOU took it as disrespect
by David Hinz
because you have repeatedly ASKED for US to tell YOU who to vote for! THat, quite frankly sounds like a Sheeple position. What I told you to do is to take responsibility for you own life, and do your own research!
NOW, on the other hand, if you are one of the people who has come here from the site that is telling you to not use a specific name, but to post things that will not get you banned, while making people agree with you that that particular unnamed person is the ONLY candidate to vote for -- fine! I don't mind if you play the game.
BUT, since you asked, I simply suggested that you READ all you can, and learn! Truth be known?
Frankly my dear, I don't give a d***!
Yes, it is disrespect.
by otghand
Yes, it is disrespect, at least as I was raised to define the term.
Here is the money quote: "Given all that, what candidate for President, R or D, would the members of RS suggest as best fits my policy preferences?"
I am not looking for instruction on whom to vote for, I am looking for suggestions from an informed commentariat as a starting point.
Allow me to give you an analogy. When a researcher in the sciences is interested in a subject, the first thing they do is hire someone (or puse a grad student slave
All I am asking for is pointers to which candidates warrant closer scrutiny given my interests, which have large caution tape around them, and why.
No, I am not coming here from any other site - I stumbled upon Red State looking for debate coverage. I don't think I have asked anyone to agree with me - I have stated where I am coming from so that others with information, whether or not they share my philosophy, can offer their informed opinions.
I do read all I can, but since time is limited, triage is helpful.
OK, then here is what you should do
by David Hinz
continue to read RedState. (Sorry, gotta shill for this site -- or they will kick me off!) But then, also go read Race42008.com
Lots of nuts and bolts about the campaign, good back-and-forth and you should find your candidate there!
If you just want a name ..
by absentee
Thompson or McCain. Simple.
absentee
Ditto
by Adam C
Both have a major commitment to fiscal issues. Both are Christians but neither wears it on his sleeve (Thompson doesn't even attend church regularly). Both are hawks, although McCain has the upperhand on pro-military creds.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
McCain / Thompson issues
by otghand
I have a problem with McCain and his restrictions on political speach (here I agree with George Will) and I seem to recall Thompson was right there with him. There is no doubt that McCain is an honorable man. Can any offer pointers to his positions wrt small government / federalism?
Yes. Thompson is McCain without the negatives (nt)
by Neil Stevens
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
Good point
by Adam C
Although I'd expand it. Thompson is McCain with the negatives, military War Hero narrative, and string of bipartisan victories (which to some is part of the negatives).
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
McCain, however, is the better fighter. Now we may
by streetwise
not like some of his positions, but he's not afraid to take a stand.
And here we come to the main reason I would take McCain over Thompson. McCain has been in the thick of it for the past 6 years, and to his credit focused early on the deficiencies in the Iraq war strategy, and provided invaluable support to Bush for the overall objective on Iraq.
Thompson largely stepped away from public life after 2002, and restarted his acting career before his Senate term expired. True, he did some political writing and speaking, and those are good things, but in the tenacity sweeps, not comparable to McCain's contributions.
Ted Kennedy fights too. Positions count. (nt)
by Neil Stevens
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
I have no horse in this race, yet.
by longwalker
I did not vote for either GHW Bush or GW Bush because I thought they were God's gift to mankind. I voted for them bcause they were the least dangerous candidates to the office and the Republic.
When the time comes, both in the primaries and the general election, I will vote for the least dangerous candidate once again. I do not expect that any of the current crop of candidates will make the perfect president, but I hope that the one elected will not make the worst president.
Lesser of 2 evils?
by LetFreedomRing
I am becoming more and more disalusioned by our party. As I grew up a Republican, I always felt that they represented the values based in:
Fiscal Responsibility
Personal Liberty/Freedom
Protection of Personal Property
Strong Defense
Opposed to nation building
Importance of the family
Limiting government in my daily life
Upholding the Constitution
None of the top tier candidates in our party hold these ideals and they certainly don't speak to them in their campaign. I will clearly not support any Democrat, but with Guilliani and Romney it is becoming increasingly difficult to tell the difference between us and them.
blog advertising is good for you
Human Events
Recent comments
The word you need is Totalitarian
by JoliphantI don't get it; why not hit him with this as well?
by Martin A. KnightYou have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. [n/t]
by Martin A. KnightI speak English ONLY. Period.
by SanDiego92108General, Forgive Us for Our Lack of Resolve
by Rod PatrickDone
by smagarSpecific Program for the Aged
by Rod PatrickSquandering People's Money
by Rod PatrickLIES OF THE DEVIL
by Rod PatrickMaybe not a Typical Politician
by MikeOYou haven't made your case, I'm afraid
by civil truthObama, c'est un poseur!
by streetwiseGore does claim the earth will be destroyed if
by streetwiseI appreciate it though
by Darin HNow that's a definition of genius. What an ear. n/t
by bantamwaitYes, but McCain's war, while genuinely heroic,
by bantamwaitA shorter way
by simpson316
As I have said before, much as I like Rudy, I wouldn't be supporting him if this was peacetime.
I guess my answer to this is still that we have to think strategically, and as long as we can get good judges from Rudy and remain the pro-life party at the Congressional and state levels, the pro-life movement will not only survive but advance towards its ultimate goal, whereas defeat in this election will set us back another quarter century, which is time we can ill afford in the wilderness if we take seriously the number of abortions performed annually.
I don't look to politics for an expression of my values; for that we have the Church. Instead, I look to politics to achieve concrete results that are consistent with my values. And thinking strategically about the material consequences of our choices is absolutely a part of any calculus of how to put values into practice in the arena of a democratic system.
We couldn't survive nominating a tax-hiker because, given the president's position in our legislative system, this would lead with 100% certainty to tax hikes. We couldn't survive nominating a candidate who is weak on defense because the president is the Commander-in-Chief. But while the president does have some direct influence on abortion policy, the great bulk of the power on that issue resides with the courts and, if we win in the courts, with the States.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill