Redstate

I have been thinking of a diary that I will probably pen soon called, "Rethinking John McCain."  I have excepted the Known Fact that McCain can't win the primary for a while now, but the more I talk to independents and watch the out of control spending of Bush, McCain's name does have a certain shine to it.

He gets a lot of crap for the whole "maverick" thing.  But really, how bad is he?  If we put aside sometimes personal dislikes and visceral reactions, how many policy positions is he really "bad" on?  Most people I have heard malign McCain have brought up only two - Campaign Finance and Torture.  The third, the Gang of 14 agreement seems to be a moot point in the President unless someone believes the Gang shows he will not nominate conservative judges.  He's been solid on Iraq and the War on Terror.  He's going forward on real conservatism in budgeting.  He's solid on life.  He appears to be with us on border issues.  I'm not sure why a President McCain would be such a disaster.

Yes, we can all have primary preferences - that's the point of a primary - to pick our most preferred candidate.  But it seems many people are in an "anybody but McCain" posture.  I may not vote for McCain in the primaries, but I certainly wouldn't cry in my dish if he won.  I actually think his nomination would be an easy sell to America - especially if the opposition is a "moderate" Hillary Clinton.  McCain could garner over 320 electoral votes I think (you'd take NH, MN, WI, MI, OR, ME, NJ, PA almost without effort it seems).

I'm unwilling to trade the promise of fiscal responsibility on the part of the President for the CERTAINTY that McCain will continue to attack our civil liberties (CFR) and undermine the war on terror (torture amendment).

McCain is the most dangerous man or woman in the Senate and this Arizona resident will do everything legal to see him defeated in the Republican Primary.  If he wins the nomination, I will work against him no matter who the Dem's nominate.

Should be brought on immediately at OMB or as Treasury Secretary.  The next Administration should have him on the short-list for key Cabinet posts in the fiscal policy/budgeting area.

I wouldn't mind Gramm as president, but I think he would be so much more effective if he could dedicate all his energy to domestic budget issues.  As president he'd have to dedicate considerable energy to foreign affairs and foreign activities in the WoT.  

Hell, let's get him back in the Senate to help Coburn and McCain with their earmark efforts.  Having a fiscal conservative in the White House is a start, but if there's no discipline in the Capitol, then even a bare bones budget from the PResident will come out as an obese, bloated monster at the end of the process.

this guy.

.....a torture amendment is so significant that you'd rather trust your security to Hillary Clinton.

I still don't get it.  Seems that you'd be willing to accept a guy that rates a big fat ZERO (Kerry, Biden, Feingold, Hildebeast), in order to avoid a guy who scores an 80, because what you really want is someone that scores 100.

That kind of mentality is why Republicans will never maintain a secure majority in the long term.  We have too many people who will cut off their nose to spite their face.

Think the Kossacks are going to stay home if Hillary wins the nomination (even though they are sour on her now)?  Don't count on it - they're at least smart enough to know that Hillary is better than a Republican.  We seem to think a Democrat is better than a Republican who isn't "pure."

.....we could rehabilitate Newt's image he wouldn't be a bad choice.  But he does carry some baggage from the post-Revolution phase, the government shutdown, and the "family values" issues that came out around when he stepped down from the Speaker's Chair (his abandoning his first wife and kids for a second wife, etc.).

But, he's got a lot of time to do that.

So the new criteria is pro-life and smaller government. As I agree with the two mentioned I would include GWOT.

Let's be honest. Bush is not a straight conservative. After 5 years we should not be surprised. He is not a liberal but he is not a Pence or Flake on the budget.

Lets' be be honest a true conservative budget has no chance of passing congress.

McCain is pro-life and for smaller government, but he may be the weakest GOP candidate on GWOT.

I would take Guilianni even though is is pro choice than McCain, because of his stance on GWOT.        

I doubt many people here would vote for Hillary over McCain but I think the point of this thread is to spur discussion about the best possible candidate, not immediately settle for the "worst of two evils" scenario. As for who that best option is, I am not sure, Shadegg? :-) Since governors have a better chance at winning, who are some good governors?

If it ended up being a McCain vs Hillary contest you may see her in the White House if a solid conservative runs on a third party ticket.

Lets not give up just yet.

And, yes, i think CFR is enought of an affront to liberty for me to currently think "anyone but McCain" for the primaries.

Wouldn't it be fair to say that Social Security reform is controlling spending? If you reform it the way Bush proposed? Seems to me it would dwarf anyone elses "cuts" in spending, and just how many "conservatives" fought hard for that one?

I'm dissapointed in the upcomming costs from perscription drugs benifits, but all of us who critize its costs, have to be honest and atleast give the Prez some credit for attempting to reign in the size of goverment with Social Security reform.

I received my RNC renewal form.  I sent it back with a letter saying that I would not give any more money to the RNC until the powers that be:

1. Secured our borders
   
2. Stopped the brutal spending

McCain may be many things but he is effective.  The Gang of 14 got us two supreme court justices and most of the other judges that were being held up by the dems.  Their agreement definately worked in our favor.  Also as a veteran I can knock a Vietnam Hero for his stand on torture.  My guess is he has more experience with it than almost anyone posting on here.  

Also I live in NYC and my wife, mother in law, aunt, mother and the rest are firm democrats but have all said they would vote for McCain.  He is someone who if he gets past the primaries can win the white house and will have long coat tails if his first 18 months go well.

1. taxes (voted against every one of Bush's tax cuts -- the onle other GOP Sen to do so was Chaffee)
   
2. Government solving American's problems -- voted with 30 Dem Senators to extend unemployment benefits
   
3. Gun control - gets an F from Gun Owners of America and a C from the NRA
   
4. Helping His Party - after his despicable performance in 2004 (speaking at the RNC, then getting on TV the next day and trumpeting John Kerry's praises), I could see him campaigning against conservative candidates in midterm election.  Heck, he did in CA earlier this year.

John McCain is not a small government politician.  He just wants to control spending in some areas so he can put it into other areas that he likes more -- not so he can give it back to the American people and reduce the federal budget.  Don't kid yourself.  McCain's a disaster.

I think 1996 proved that Gramm lacks the personality to be a presidential candidate.  He couldn't compete with the warmth and telegenic qualities of Bob Dole.  Think about that one for a minute.

Gramm is indeed a guy we should want as the next Treasury Secretary (OMB or Chief of Staff would be beneath him).  As for McCain, the old argument continues:  do we want a guy who opposes big-spending government but supports big-regulating government?

To me, pork is bad, but entitlement reform is where the money is.  That's what I'll be watching, after the make-or-break issues of the War and the courts.

He'll need to do more than that.  When he stepped down he had 60%+ negative ratings, and for good reason.

This guy left his first wife when his affair with a staffer was discovered -- then served his wife with divorce papers while she was in the hospital.  When his affair was made public, his mistress was quoted as saying they only had oral sex, and that Newt preferred it that way because then he could tell his wife he never slept with her.  Sound familiar?

Then he jumps all over Bill Clinton for doing the same thing -- while he is still having another affair!  Talk about hypocrite.

Then he leaves his second wife because, he pointed out, she didn't look like a President's wife should look.

If this is the best we've got to offer America, we're pathetic.  Give me Romney or Pawlenty.  Heck, I'd vote for Lincoln Caffee before I'd vote Newt Gingrich.

I've been as sicked as most here about the growing abominations of earmark spending, Farm Bill(ADM giveaway), energy bill and transporktation bill.

But there was an interesting article in the WSJ on Friday that illustrated that all of the "discretionary" stuff is pretty much a drop in the bucket against the entitlement costs of social security, medicare and medicaid. Defense and Homeland security make up a good chunk, but we can't really ax that stuff- or I guess I should say I don't think we can live with the consequences of axing that stuff.

But we could cut the rest of the discretionary spending off tomorrow and we would still have basically the same mountain of debt towering over us as we look into the future. It would have been nice if someone like Gramm or McCain could have done something different with the Prescription Drug bill that dropped a couple more TRILLION $$ on top of the debt pile, but what's done is done with that and if anyone thinks its getting repealed, good luck.

Bush did try reforming Social Security, I'm not convinced he had the best plan, but it went nowhere anyway.

Bottom line, whether its McCain, Gramm, Gingrich or someone else, unless they are coming to the table with a creative and dramatic way to address the budget entitlement payments, no one is going to do anything that really makes a difference in the bigger picture.

I don't believe that the 'Gang of 14' got us two Supreme Court justices.

Having 55 Republicans in the Senate and one in the White House got us two Supreme Court justices.

And its the secure borders part that makes me leery about mccain.  he seems to be a pro-amnesty guy.

The McCain anti-torture amendment in no way whatsover undermines the war on terror. Anyone who thinks so is indeed of a refresher course on basic morality (see especially: End does not justify means). The McCain amendment actually helps our position by cleansing a serious blemish  on our national reputation and making it more likely others (governments and individuals) will be willing to cooperate with us.

I didn't ask you.  I asked the author of the comment - who seems to assert that he would work to defeat McCain in the general if he won the nomination.

As for Shadegg, history is not with him.  Only one President has gone directly from the House to the White House - James A. Garfield in 1880.  And then, Garfield was not an official candidate - he was a "dark horse" on the 36th ballot that came up only after the more public candidates couldn't pull together the necessary delegates.

I don't feel like I know much about most of the GOP Governors around the country.  I'm recently departed from NY, so I know some of the Northeastern Republicans.  And I can honestly say, I would prefer McCain to any of them.  They're good governors, they have tried to do good things in very liberal states, but they are "conservative" only by the standards of their states, and sometimes not even that.

Any RedStaters want to opine on their own GOP Govs?

Re: McCain is pro-life and for smaller government, but he may be the weakest GOP candidate on GWOT. I would take Guilianni even though is is pchoice than McCain, because of his stance on GWOT.

Huh? McCain has been solidly supportive of the War on Terror. He is a foreign policy hawkand neo-con of the first magnitude and the Kossite leftists hate him. He may have criticized specific tactics, but why shouldn't counterproductive or immoral actions be criticized? If something is hurting the war effort it MUST be brought out into the open for public debate!

...since the day the entire "outrage" over earmarks and the like started to reach public attention (caveat - no one cares - moving on) that it was all a bipartisan effort to distract us all from the real problem - that is, entitlement spending.

The GOP wants to distract us because they've done nothing to fix the problems and, in fact, have made them far worse with Bush's "Viagra for Geezers" program.

The Dems want to distract us because, let's be frank, they've got nothing.  If anything, they want to see these programs (and therefore their natural base of voters) expand, eternally.

That's probably not an original thought on the subject, but I will tie it into the current thread like so: until McCain demonstrates willingness to take-on entitlement spending I can never consider voting in a primary for him - there is just far too much (campaign-finance, "torture" legislation, "no new tax cuts", his willingness to throw his entire caucus under the bus for an easy interview on MTP and a headline in the NT Times) for me to overlook with precious little to recommend him over any other candidate or possible candidate out there.

Disclaimer: I'd like to mention up front that, while I don't align with either political party, I've had a much more favorable attitude toward the Democrats of late (last year or so).

Anyway, why does Newt's personal life matter to you? Why should it matter to me? Why should the public in general be concerned with anything he does that doesn't impair his ability to legislate (or, as president, lead the executive branch)? I see Thomas Jefferson as one of the greatest presidents in this country's history regardless of his sexual indiscretions. Do you find that his infidelty makes him less worthy of respect?

Indeed......generally, non-defense, non-security discretionary spending (i.e. the stuff that isn't entitlement and dictated by statute and formula) only makes up about 25% of federal spending.  I think (i don't have the opportunity to do a search to find a link), the last time I looked at numbers, defense/security spending may have been another 25% and then the other 50% is debt service (interest) and entitlement payments.  Even massive cuts in defense spending wouldn't fix the situation.

And a little off topic - if the government could be trusted (I'm playing the utopian here) to dedicate the money to debt reduction, I would be willing to pay slightly higher tax rates.  Paying down debt would be good in and of itself, but it would also free up money in the future as the amount necessary to pay interest on Treasury securities would decrease.  I feel like that would be a worthwhile investment of my taxes - however, the money would never go to the debt, it would get put in a "trust fund" that would eventually be reappropriated to some new flashy government program that will ultimately fail.

I'm not convinced that McCain is the answer to our woes.  The National Taxpayers Union only gives him a 77 percent on their scorecard.

Meanwhile, Ron Paul of Texas and Jeff Flake of Arizona continue to set the mark on fiscal responsibility, ranking 1 and 2 nearly every year.  I think we might be better served drafting one of them.

Besides, that whole "Straight Talk Express" thing got a little old, didn't it?

I like McCain, actually. You're free not to, of course, but in what way is he attacking civil liberties? And I'm not sure that fighting for a torture amendment equates to undermining the war on terror, so much as keeping us an ethical level above terrorists.

It opens the door wide open to the claim of hypocrisy.  It also would make any talk of values issues seem hollow and give the opposition clear sight lines to attack him.  Should we call foul they would simply point to the "witch hunt" that we conducted against President Clinton.

The problem is not in our personal beliefs about Newt, or even our personal beliefs about his conduct.  This can be placed squarely in a practical nuts and bolts political calculus.  

It's hard to lower a politician's negatives.  It's always easier to run a guy that has low negatives and lots of people with no opinion - you get to form the image people get of the candidate.  Newt already has an image, and for most people, it's not a good one.  He would be our version of Hillary - everybody knows him and lots of people already don't like him.  That doesn't make for a good electoral recipe.

I realize that many conservatives are pro-life, but many are also pro-choice. Conservatism/Republicanism is about smaller government, State power, fiscal responsibility, and keeping the gov't out of people's lives -- isn't it?

McCain is a zero in my book, not an 80. He would be on par with Hillary in an executive role. He is on the wrong side of just about everything.

The NTU site linked above also notes that the average for Republican Senators is only 71.

Also of note, the highest score acheived was only an 89.

And the letter grade assigned to McCain's 77 was a B+.  In fact once you hit 78, according to the report, you get an A (there is apparently no A- grade here).

McCain's score is higher than Sam Brownback (71), and John Cornyn (74).  Rick Santorum only got an 83.  Shadegg got an 81 on the House side.

So a simple declaration that McCain only got a 77 is somewhat misleading.  This isn't the ACU where you know there are at least a few guys in the high 90s if not at 100.  

Now entitlements alone are over half. Medicare/Medicaid is projected to consume as much as 22% of GDP by 2050. Right now the entire federal government collects about 18% of GDP in taxes.

You could eliminate every piece of pork in the budget and it would account for less than 1% of total spending.

Cutting entitlements would leave a lot of people out in the cold. My grandmother had surgery recently that amounted to $60,000. My grandpa just had some, too, that will be at least the same amount. Medicare/-caid helped them pay for it, as it does for many others. Without it, they and my family would have been horked.

Rather than just cutting entitlements, I think it might be better to start with an examination of the healthcare, pharmaceutical, and insurance industries -- the high consumer costs of which create much of the need for entitlement spending. Reform should start there.

Just my two cents.

Old school conservatism might have been.  But in today's political climate, values issues must be included in the issue mix when positioning candidates on the Left/Right spectrum.  Thus, pro-life is now part of the conservative base tenet.

Of course, we're still living in the world of Roe, which leads to a sometimes all-or-nothing view.  If Roe went away we'd have to see what people are comfortable with.  I think in that case conservatism will find a balance near the Right, but maybe not all the way - I think many states will leave some abortion legal, with a great deal of restriction - and conservative may be willing to accept a candidate at that point in the spectrum.

But right now, "pro-choice" is conflated with "pro-Roe" and/or "pro-abortion on demand."  And that's not where any conservatives should be.

the US far more than Hillary.  So, while I won't vote for HRC, I will not vote for McCain.  And given a choice between the two, I will swallow hard and take HRC.

I'm not interested in their "score".  I'm interested in leadership.  I will enthusiastically support Rudy or Condi.  I don't know lots about Allen, but I suspect I would happily support him as well.  McCain is the only Republican candidate on the horizon who I will work against.

I have no confidence in his commitment to the war on terror, to smaller government, or to his commitment to to anything but get "nice" face time on TV.  John McCain is absolutely not to be trusted with the future of the US.  McCain as Pres would have a R Congress that he would likely successfully badger into more outrages like CFR and the TA.  Taxes WILL go up.  That will hurt the economy.  That's just for starters.

HRC would likely face a R Congress as well.  If she could get elected, big "could", she would have minimal to no coattails.  She would not get much of her liberal "want list" through Congress.  Her Presidency would be very unsuccessful at getting legislation enacted, it would likely be a non-starter.

Again, I have no interest in "purity".  I am, however, interested in "sanity" and for that reason I won't support McCain.

I refer you below to mbecker's reponse.  He indeed would prefer Hillary to McCain.

tossed several qualified candidates under the bus.  Were it not for the Go14, Frist would have had to find some manhood and get the filibuster killed.  Then we would have gotten all of the nominees and the silliness would have subsided.

Go14 is just another reason for me to oppose McCain.

How do your D relatives feel about Rudy?  I'd support him in a heartbeat, he's my #1 choice.

you think Reagan was a conservative. He ran, twice, on a platform of overturning Roe. It seems to me that your idea of conservatism is more akin to libertarianism than conservatism.

McCain is not right on embryonic stem cell research if I remember right.  I think it's a misnomer to call him pro-life.  Would probably support him if it weren't for this (and I think I'm far from alone here).

I didnt realize I only was allowed to speak when spoken to!

As for Shadegg, the reason I said that with a smile is that I agree that, being from the House, his chances are pretty slim. Even Senators dont fare too well, that is why I asked about governors. I too do not know much about the available republican governors, which, you can find here, BTW:

http://www.rga.org/Governors/Default.aspx

Working in NY and living in CT I can say, as you probably know, Pataki isnt super conservative and I have to say I dont know much about Rell as she just stepped in for Rowland.

Perhaps it is just that kind of anonimity that allows governors to win the Presidency. That and they can show they have lead as a sole leader of something instead of 1 person out of a group of 100.

That makes sense. So, the general problem people have with his personal behavior stems from its impact on his electability. While you may agree with his policies and legislative judgment, the reality is, in today's electoral environment, he's doomed for failure. You recognize that a large number of voters are concerned with a candidate's personal life and that concern will pose an insurmountable hurdle to Newt's candidacy.

Personally, I find that highlights a troubling fact about the state of today's political discourse. I think the criteria people should use when deciding whether to cast their vote for Newt (or anyone else, for that matter) is whether he is a sound and ethical legislator. I know my attitude will likely be regarded as naive, but why does it have to be? Doesn't the country pride itself as being a meritocracy?! If Newt is the most qualified for his position, why shouldn't the American people elect him!

Just my two cents.

I see every abortion, if not performed to save the life of the mother, as a murder.

I am supporting Rudy for President.

Why is Rudy your number 1 choice?  Why is he so superior to the other people out there being talked about?

Why a guy who twice ran with the endorsement of the Liberal Party of New York (the Conservative Party actually ran someone else in his 1993 race)?

I was merely saying that I hadn't accused you of prefering Hill to McCain.  My question was directed to the author.  I actually think most people would be behind McCain if he won.  But it doesn't take many mbeckers in too many places to change a result.

Ok. I can see his logic, dont know if I agree, or maybe I am just really hoping I wont be faced with that choice!

So mbecker and possibly zuiko are a Hillary vote. You and Oz are a McCain vote. Even so far.

on your support for Rudy, given your position on abortion? Because frankly I'm confused, and genuinely curious.

I think a pro-life attitude is generally associated with being a conservative. However, I don't think it's necessarily a tenet. My impression is that an outspoken minority -- a large minority, but still a minority -- have made it a central issue, causing the association. I don't share their beliefs, but I'm not making a jab at anyone with those views at all. I just don't think that pro-life and conservatism go (or should be seen as going) hand-in-hand. At the least, I don't think it should be seen as the top issue under consideration, one for which everything else can be sacrified in order to satisfy.

Again, no jabs meant.

anyone has actually advocated "cutting" entitlements. Bush wanted to means test Social Security payments, but supposedly the personal accounts would have allowed people to get an equivalant amount in total- not sure I'm that confident it would have worked out that way, but that waas the theory.

Entitlement spending will grow no matter what, the best hope is managing the rate of growth. I haven't seen much in the way of ideas to reduce medical costs. The only thing I have heard is the HSA program, and while I see a lot of merit with HSAs, I'm not sure how it really would slow Medicare/Medicaid spending growth. HSA's I think, would hopefully have a positive impact on the medical costs of people that now have other insurance or would like to have high deductible insurance.

The few positive moves I have seen have been things along the lines of ending the ability for Seniors to shield assets, move into nursing homes and have Medicaid pickup the tab. But this stuff is just nibbling around the margins. Maybe the best hope is that if enough of these smaller opportunities for savings can be indentified, the future entitlement cuts will merely be very painful rather than outright disasterous.

Do you have a link to stats?  I'd be interested in knowing where the percent of budget numbers can readily be found.  Didn't realize entitlements were over 50% (does your source define entitlements because some places I've seen lump debt interest in as an "entitlement" because there is nothing other than default that Congress can do to change the number).

and i thank you for the obscure Garfield reference info that will come in useful when I am on Jeopardy.

I've been trying to figure out why some conservatives hate McCain so much.  All I can come up w/ is that he believes in using the media to his advantage rather then the usual conservative method of whining about how biased the MSM is (and I'm not saying it isn't).

Of course campaign-finance was bad, but Bush signed it into law.  If anything he should get worse gardes for that b/c he knew it was wrong and did it anyway, whereas McCain at least truly believed in what he was doing.  If people are going to start raging about the torture amendment, how about spreading the hate to people like Allen, Santorum, and Brownback who signed on?

I probably won't vote for McCain in the primary (unless it were to get down to a McCain v. Rudy or McCain v. Condi race), but I'd be happy to vote for him in November if he wins.  He'd probably be a better president then Bush has been.

You're obviously extremely pro-life, yet, if I'm reading your post correctly, you support Rudy because he supports traditionally conservative values, correct? I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Their site is subscriber only. It was broken out as:

• Medicare/Medicaid $582bln
  
• Social Security $550bln
  
• Other Entitlements (like federal pensions) $300bln
  
• Debt Service $217bln
  
• Defense/DHS $529bln
  
• Discretionary (everything else) $470bln.

(Projected FY2006)

I can live with McCain's record on guns and his vote to extend unemployment benefits (a compassionate society helps those who are in need).  I dont like the McCain-Feingold, but i do like his stance on Life and faith issues.  About him not supporting the Tax cuts? We need to stop runaway spending before we go back to tax cuts. How about we start cutting oil, airlines and farms subsidizes?

I'm a McCain vote if he is the Republican candidate (unless Zell Miller somehow manages to slip past onto the Democrat ticket).

I'm really at a loss for who to vote for in the primaries though.  I lived in New York City under Mayor Guiliani.  I thought he was a fantastic mayor.  I thought he handled the 9/11 crisis brilliantly.  But I am not convinced that any of it will translate into a solid presidency.  

Rudy is a Liberal.  He did not receive Conservative Party support in his mayoral elections - he did however receive Liberal Party support.  He is for law and order - good, but that's a local thing - are we sure that wiull translate into sealing the borders?  I'm not.  He is for more efficient government - also good, but let's not mistake that for smaller government.  I think Rudy is very much inclined to the welfare state programs - now as a Mayor that's okay - I'm not anti-social program.  I am anti-federal social programs - that kind of activity is best left to be constructed at the city level to best meet local needs.

And biggest of all, he's pro-choice.  Now I'm not really a big "abortion issue guy" and I really could care less.  But, when the chips are down, are we going to wind up getting judicial nominees who are like Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito?  Or are we going to populate the courts with O'Connors and Kennedys and Souters?  I just cannot see a President who in his heart is pro-choice appointing judges that even have the potential to overturn Roe.  

At least I know that McCain isn't going to chicken out on judges just because they might reverse some of the travesties that have been inflicted on us by the Imperial Judiciary.

Judges may be the single most important issue - a President can be removed after 4 years.  He can screw up a lot in that time, but most of it can be repaired (hell, we're even managing to undo all of the awful things Clinton did to our security in 8 years) by the next guy.  On the other hand, that President's judges will be affecting our lives for decades after he's gone and could do far worse damage to the basic precepts the country was founded on.

Hence, I will take McCain over Rudy any day of the week.  But, I know there has to be someone solid on judges who doesn't have McCain's baggage.  Somebody tell me where he is!

Does anyone know where she stands on issues?

I know she is obviously very marketable, very intelligent and besides national security I do know she is pro 2nd Amendment, but other than that, anyone know?

At least I know that McCain isn't going to chicken out on judges just because they might reverse some of the travesties that have been inflicted on us by the Imperial Judiciary.

You mean like appointing judges that will support his restrictions on political speech? I don't trust either McCain or Rudy on judges. I don't expect it to come down to that anyway.

While I can see the logic of voting in Hillary as a catalyst for gridlock I dont necessarily think Rudy is the best choice either. Actually, if I went into it I would just be repeating what you said. I live in the area too, saw what Dinkens did to the city and thought Rudy was amazing. I think he fit well in NYC and you have to be somewhat liberal if you ever want to be elected there. I agree it wont cross over well nationally, well, in a primary. He wont make it past that. Being a former DA he is a good law and order guy. But, yes, otherwise pretty moderate. Now, if he DID make it past the primaries I know a lot of Ds that would vote for him in a heartbeat.

Of course this all is based on who would oppose him. As for Zell, funny I was thinking of him but he would never make it on the D ticket. I think his appearance at the R convention has blacklisted him from the D house. too bad.

you have a great point about the court. I want a scalia there, and my views of Roe are a states rights view, not the subject matter itself. but i just fear a man who sees no problem in CFR and what unreversible things he may do in his tenure. Look at the unreversible things Bush has done: signing CFR, pushing the Prescription Program, etc. Ugh!

I join you in asking "Someone tell me where he is?"

You are right of course so far as that goes.

But for some of us who came late to the party, pro-life is one of, if not, THE top issue as a Republican and as conservatives.

You don't have to feel that way and there are a few people who might let Rudy slide on his issues, but a lot of us are going to include this.

in '08, but the 1996 Gramm campaign was hardly fiscally responsible....  blew 25+M in record time.

I think Phil is great, but made for a fiscally irresponsbile candidate (many of his consultant robbed him blind, but buck stops with the guy running)

I disagree with the premise.  

My main problem with "personal issues" is that negative ones generally mean the person is a scumb bag.  These elected officials are role models, whether we like it or not.  We should be able to put them up on a pedestal and not having to worry about hypocrisy.  

according to comments she has made in the past.

Personally, I'm not sure she would be up for the campaigning and I'd feel very nervous voting for her in a primary when she's never campaigned for anything (see Elizabeth Dole's presidential campaign for details).

1. Fiscally conservative
   
   
2. Strong on GWOT
   
   
3. Conservative judges (implied pro-life/pro-traditional marriage)
   
   
4. Stong on stopping illegal immigration

So far, there doesn't seem to be a single candidate that covers all of these .. other than Mark Sanford .... and he's not running.

If Mark Sanford WAS running, then I think he'd be a cinch for me to follow/give money to.

One of the reasons I like conservatism, though, is it's focus on individual rights, and on keeping the government out of people's lives. I had originally attributed that tenet to the Democratic party, because it seemed to me as if the Republicans in power were trying to get gov't to enforce a particular way of thinking regarding things such as abortion, gay rights, and the like.

Hence, I was surprised to learn that such things were not characteristic of fundamental conservatism, but had rather come recently, likely from the rise of the evangelical conservatives (starting back with the Moral Majority, I believe). I find it somewhat inconsistent with the focus of conservatism on keeping the gov't out of people's lives, though.

I'm not saying that there's not a rationale that can reconcile the two views. I just haven't found it yet -- which is not meant as an offense to those who have.

.....let's dump number 4 for the moment as immigration seems to be the place where lots of Republicans get weak in the knees.

Are there any known candidates who are good on the other three points?  Everybody that is generally talked about is either bad at one of them, or is too much of an unknown as to issues to get a good idea about it.

I reconcile the ideas by distinguishing between levels of government.

Honestly, I'm against most efforts by Congress or the federal government to enforce or impose laws or policies that seem a little bit too heavily based in morality arguments.  My thinking is that the country is very big and is supposed to allow for differences of opinion and even of social mores.  To impose "one size fits all" legislation is absurd - and many conservatives routinely decry such rules when they are economic in nature, or lead to rigidity in traditionally local spheres (like education policy).  So we should be no more keen on seeing such rules imposed by Congress in other areas.

"Morality legislation" like abortion and marriage are best left to states (and even better local governments) so that people can pick and choose what kind of "government intervention" they're willing to live with.

State and local government know better what is best for the people they live near (and most local lawmakers live much more closely amongst their constituents).  And sometimes the public thinks some "interference" by the government isn't so bad.  I'm willing to allow them that.

Part of the problem is that federal rules have been created in order to head off federal judges who wish to turn most "values issues" into constitutional case law.  If Congress could feel comfortable that federal judges weren't going to wipe out the efforts of localities to govern, then maybe they wouldn't feel the need to muck around in many of these areas.  So in a way judicial overreaching has caused tension in conservative principles in order to preserve self-government (as opposed to the oligarchy of the black robes).

What about Mitt Romney? He turned around a $600 million deficit into a multi-billion dollar surplus without raising taxes in Taxachussetts. He has governed from a neutral stance on abortion in a blue state, but he has fought back on gay marriage and cloning. He is head of the NGA. He turned around the 2002 Olympics from disgrace and financial ruin into a $100 million profit and a secure first Olympics after 9/11. He serves on the Homeland Security task force. His Mormon religion may be an issue with some people, but he is on the same side as conservatives and evangelicals in the culture wars. Why not Mitt?

is certainly a possiblity for the points you raise.  I also think he has the potential to be very solid on life issues.  People not from the northeast don't realize what a feat it is to get elected to statewide office without promising abortion on demand for everyone.  

The issues I see here are on foreign policy, where he's basically a blank slate, and on immigration, where his pro-business tilt makes me worried he's a supporter of guest worker amnesty.

He isn't bad on #4 either.

a (D) spending $5.4T?

I have noticed during the past 5 years that the President takes very much heat for not being fiscally conservative enough.  However, no one mentions how fiscally conservative the alternatives to President Bush are.

Hasnt the President (and Congress) been spending a lot more compared to when Clinton was in office?

I'm talking domestically, taking Defense spending out of the equation.

Romney has been on the Homeland Security Advisory Council since 2003. While this may not be a very public role, it certainly means he understands the world stage.

He's electable. He's a Governor. He's the closest thing to a true Conservative that we have so far in this race (check out his health care plan for Massachussets). He's got charisma. He's a retail politician. He may not be perfect, but we just can't take any chances this time around. Someone like Mitt Romney who's been effective in business, in the non-profit sector, in elective politics and in governance is just what we need.

To the poster saying that they would support Giuliani despite being pro-life himor herself:  I'm curious as to how this isn't THE overriding issue for you.  1.5-2 million (I think that's the number) of abortions per year, every year.  That number of people killed far outweighs any other issue.  If you think of it as a major metropolitan area being nuked every year, with no survivors, the issue is put in perspective a bit.

As for the poster who says that the federal government shouldn't be making overriding moral decisions with the law, I ask, what is the reason we have laws, then?  Moral relativism doesn't work!  You have to have laws against things that are wrong or human nature, as the Founders well knew, will seek the lowest point.

I am all for decentralizing the power of government, but there are some things that, apparently, need to be spelled out at a national level.  The reason this is true is that people try to invent rights that never existed and to twist the Constitution.

To use your example:  The Founders never would have thought that 2 dudes would want to get married, otherwise I'm sure they would have put a prohibition in the Constitution.  But now we have people acting like that is something realistic (and a right no less!) and not something just created out of whole cloth.  The Netherlands has just discovered the right of THREE people to get married.  Ridiculous you say?  I'm sure the Founders would have felt the same about gay "marriage."

We need overarching national laws in some cases because of the lunacy out there.

These all sound like great points, conservative points. There's got to be something else about him that hasnt been mentioned, I mean, how did he bamboozle the comrades in Massachussetes SSR to vote for him?

I would never have believed that you would support Rudy over McCain.

I love Rudy, and I believe that his shot at the GOP nom is much better than people think. This is due to the fact that I believe a brand new

"Conservative Rudy" will be unveiled around 12/2006 or 1/2007.

But as it stands right now, Rudy is not close to being as conservative as John McCain.

Gramm 96 was ugly.  Phil, like Dick Cheney, is a dream candidate for our true believers but has no ability to win the republican nomination.  I don't think he won 3% of any primary.  Steve Forbes got off to a great start as a flat tax magazine cover boy and then Bob Dole grinded him down.  Pat Buchanon and Lamar Alexander got on the radar screen.  Gramm was a complete non-entity.  And if anything, the timing should have been great, just a year after we took over congress.  

But Treasury secretary....now that would be wonderful!

1. He discovered that he was Pro-Life about 15 minutes ago
   
2. He's a Mormon, which wouldn't prevent me from supporting him, but other prople feel it would cost him votes in the general election.
   
3. He would not win his home state and brings no region of the country with him in the general election. There is no part of the US that is "in the bag" if we nominate Romney.

He is very photogenic/charismatic. He has some great ideas. But many people feel he's DOA in a general election.

I wasn't too fond of Phil when he was in office. Toward the end of his political career he was sounding like the Party line enforcer goons that he so rightfully despised when he was a freshman congressman.  However he was a true fiscal conservative, something that is truly rare these days.  Just about every congressman you talk to will tell you he fiscally responsible, But if you look at their actions, you either have Republican Spend and Borrow or Democratic spend and tax.

                       Michael Greb

Is no matter who the POTUS is, we have entitlement spending on autopilot, growing much faster than either inflation or the economy. Fixes here will be extremely painful. The prescription drug bill may easily end up being the biggest mistake of his presidency because it escalates this.

He's good on #1 and #2.  (Disagrees with the way Bush sold the Iraq War, but not with the war itself.)

On #3, while he talks a soft line, I think his actions in the Mass. Gay marriage fiasco shows that when it comes to it, we can count on him to be on the side of the angels. (He is definately against activist judges).

#4- I don't really know what Mitt's position on this is.  (Which might be a political plus).  However, I do know he has made efforts to replace this bilingual education (a misnomer for teaching kids in Spanish only classes) with accelerated English courses followed by mainstreaming.  What his position on immigration itself I don't know, but he seems commited to actually assimilating the immigrants who are here.

He was a lame-duck from the moment he got elected (the Democrats have complete control of the state house and senate) - while I'm sure he'd claim the MA recovery was all his doing, he just doesn't have the power to push much of anything that the Dems don't already agree with.  He's wishy-washy on life issues - he was a loonnnggg way from hard pro-life during the election.  He spent an awful lot of time badmouthing the commonwealth while out of state campaigning for W... I know, just politics, but that isn't the behavior I want to see in a leader.

And BTW, what's with that oh-so-stale "taxachusetts" moniker? ;-) Was (very) apt for a while but nowadays we've got a flat tax in the middle of the pack.

Too bad.  I wonder how many good people don't run because they can't bring themselves to bow to their parties litmus test issues.

If anything McCain is more of a Hawk on the GWOT than Dubya. When it comes to the actual prosecution of the war, McCain's criticisms are more along the lines of him wishing we where more aggressive in our tactics. His comments on what we should do in the "Sunni Triangle" are a great example of this. It mostly stems from his Vietnam experience and him not wanting us to wage a battle where we fight not to lose instead of fighting to win.  

I'm not going to argue whether abortion is right or wrong. Whether someone thinks it's murder or not is that person's choice; you do, so go ahead and oppose it if you want. All I'm saying is that pro-life is not originally a conservative issue, as I see it. It's a religious issue that has become attached to the political and fiscal tenets of traditional conservatism.

If you want to make it the single most-important issue for you, feel free. I don't think that's good for the party as a whole, though, because it makes for a pretty single-minded platform and it limits your political options.

> but there are some things that, apparently, need to be spelled out at a national level

-- No offense, but those "things" are just your personal sense of morality, and at least half the country disagrees with you. So why should the government enforce it? How can you reconcile a policy of limited national government with a national government that interferes in someone's married, sexual, and reproductive rights?

Again, I'm not saying one point of view is right or wrong, I'm just saying that "individual rights" and "limited gov't" are core conservative tenets that seem in conflict with certain social issues.

> "I'm sure the Founders would have felt the same about gay "marriage.""

-- Maybe. I'm not going to speak for the Fathers. Oh, they also thought it was OK to have slaves. Different times.

> "We need overarching national laws in some cases because of the lunacy out there."

-- Again, what you perceive as lunacy appears normal to at least half the population. It's just personal differences and beliefs, dude. Go ahead and believe what you want and fight for it; more power to you. I just don't think it's properly in the conservative "manner" to get government to force others to adopt your lifestyle or set of beliefs.

Is that he would micro-manage it, LBJ style. Not a good idea.

Democrats pretty much control the Mass. Government, so the people of Mass. have a habit of electing Republican Governors to act as speed bumps for their liberal legistlature.

Also, Romney promised a "freeze in place" of abortion laws as an sort of "truce" in the abortion debate.  This sounds pretty bad until you learn that Mass. has a parental notification law (I can't remember if Mass. law requires permission, or only notification), and that Romney's opponent was running on a platform of eliminating the parental notification law.

1. He is personally pro-life, but he governs in a pro-choice state. It's one of the compromises you have to make to get elected in a blue state. None of the top-shelf GOP candidates has a stellar pro-life record. McCain, Giuliani, Allen have all had questionable conservative stands at one point.
   
2. Yeah, and being a Catholic was supposed to cost Kennedy. The evangelicals will realize that while they may not worship with him, he is with them on the social agenda. And he's the only candidate in the race who is a current executive fighting against the libs on social issues. He's earned it.
   
3. He would not win Massachussets, but he has deep support in the Northeast and the Southwest. How can you question the electability of the Republican Governor of Taxachussets?

He would be the anti-Hillary. He's had executive success, business success, non-profit success. He has a health-care plan that is the polar opposite of Hillary Care. I think once he gets some attention, he'll roll. Look at the comparisons between Governor Romney and Governor Reagan.

I've never heard anyone say that Romney is DOA in the general election.  I've heard quite a few arguments that he can't win the primary. Mainly because of suspicions about his pro-life credentials, or because newsmen think evangelicals won't vote for a Mormon.

The 3rd point is fallacious.  One of the more atractive things about Mitt Romney is that the Romney name has a lot of pull in Michigan.  A prennial swing state that Dems can't win without.

His Mormon faith won't hurt him there; in fact, most evangelicals know and would probably acknowledge that Mormons, as a group, are more reliably social conservatives than they themselves are.

His "pro-choice" history is hard to reconcile with with his religion. Even the most liberal elected Mormons (Harry Reid, for instance) at least pay pro-life lip service. It certainly seems true that an open pro-lifer would have had difficulty getting elected in Mass. in the first place -- a pro-lifer (Mitt has always been "personally pro-life", just like Kerry) who seeks public office there has to make some compromises.

I like Mitt, but, given his past friendliness toward abortion, I'd need certain specific assurances before I could support him whole-heartedly:

1. Assurance that he will seek to appoint originalist judges
   
   
2. A pledge to sign a bill banning PBA (should Congress pass one), and to have his DoJ vigorously defend it
   
   
3. A pledge to oppose public funding of abortion, here or abroad.

There are only a few ways the president can effect abortion policy, but they're big ones. If he's willing to give the assurances I need, I could see myself supporting him unreservedly.

P.S.: Rudy would need to give the same assurances.

I think that this may be another lesson that McCain has learned from Vietnam.

So perhaps Romney wins NH and Maine in the Northeast? That's 8 electoral votes total.

I stand by my assessment of him lacking a true regional base.

He would also lose multiple southern states to Mark Warner.  

The so-called anti-torture bill and his continuous second guessing of troop levels are two indications that he might go this way. The lesson he learned from Vietnam is probably that LBJ couldn't do it... not that he couldn't pull it off. Maybe he wouldn't end up being a micro-manager... but I'm not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on it either.

...but perhpas by then we will be arguing about troop levels in Meshed and Tehran instead.

Surely, sir, you must know McCain cannot win the South.

As a Southern Conservative Republican, I will not vote for McCain in the Primary and... should he win the primary, I shall not vote for him in the General Election.  

If A third Party runs a truly conservative canidiate, I would cast my vote for THAT candidate instead.  

This is the best shot Hillary has.  Hillary will win... IF... it is a face off between her and McCain.

YOS,  

Longstreet

Like I said before.  The Romney name still has pull in Michigan.  Michigan is an extremely important state in Presidential elections.

Romney would also solidify Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado.

I don't know if Warner could swing that many Southern states.  I'm pretty sure he could only pick off Virgina, and maybe a few border states like Arkansas. I don't think it will be enough to make up for Michigan.

Warner would be a difficult Democrat for Romney to beat, but that's because it would be difficult for any Republican to beat a popular Southern Governor.  

Romney does have one major advantage against Warner.  I can see the campaign ads now:  "Gov. Warner faced a (exact numbers here) budget deficit in Virgina, he raised taxes to eliminate it.  Gov. Romney faced a (exact number, higher than the Virgina deficit) budget deficit in Mass. he kept his promise to not raise taxes, and balanced the budget by cutting governmnet waste."

That argument will play well all over the country.

That's more than 8 electoral votes (although I won't sneeze at Maine and NH, either).

I'm not convinced that the south won't rally behind Romney if he campaigns as a genuine Republican and supports the whole platform. I guess you're assuming that Warner would be doing his Clinton impression, and you might be right ... but I think the last few decades have seen the importance of regional ties on a declining trend in presidential elections (let's all bow our heads and thank Al Gore for the interwebs) ... and I think Romney can pull it off.

NH, Delaware, South Carolina, Arizona and Michigan are all traditional first-in-the-nation primary states.

If Romney can win NH, followed closely by an affirming win in DE (before you scoff, Bush used DE to bounce back from losing in NH in 2000), finish top 2 in SC, and then top 2 in AZ & win MI, you're looking at the GOP nominee, unless McCain wins AZ & SC, in which you'll have a 2-man race. And I'll take the guy with executive experience over the guy without it any day.  

Also, he'll definitely win Utah. And in the general, he may not deliver MA, but he can deliver AZ & MI.

I once read that a football coach said, for the first part of a season a team can say that they are better or worse than what their record indicates;but by the last quarter or so of the season, the team is reflected by their record.

Wishing for Phil or for the good ole days won't help the fact our president and our majorities in both houses are blunderers.  There have been no meaningful attempt to control spending or the growth of government.   We are five years in to #43 and there hasn't been a veto from the GOP president and the GOP congress has always been willing to spend on a