Home ›

romney

Why Isn’t Romney in the RNC Race?

Submitted by Zachary Kushel on Mon, 12/22/2008 - 17:43
in

Political observers of all stripes know that Mitt Romney wants to run for President in 2012. He seemed to have a future run in mind the day he quit the 2008 race at CPAC this past February. As the Boston Globe recently reported, Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC has barely doled out any cash to preferred candidates and is viewed as likely saving up for a 2012 run.

What then does Romney have planned for the next four years? Here are five reasons why heading the RNC would help him with another run at the presidency:

1) It’s the Economy, Stupid: The Republican Party became the party of big government conservatism and wasteful spending over the past eight years. It needs to reclaim a fiscally conservative message to broaden its base and appeal to working-class Americans. The biggest issue facing the country over the next year is likely to be the continued economic crisis, and unlike traditional party hacks, Romney has real credentials in this arena. He is uniquely positioned to be a party leader on economic issues.

2) Default Opposition to Obama: If he hopes to be successful in a 2012 run, Romney will first have to convince Republicans that he is the best alternative to a President Obama. By assuming the Chairmanship, the media will anoint him as the opposition leader by default four years in advance. Having a steady platform with which to contrast with Obama will give him a significant leg-up heading into the 2012 primaries.

3) Republican Message Control: Rather than having to worry about what the national party is saying and doing in the 2010 election cycle, Romney will be able to control that message (at least that coming from the RNC, Congress is another story). This will allow him to decide on a method of contrast and attack during his tenure that will then flow into his 2012 bid.

4) Re-shape the Party Message: Romney was sharply criticized in the 2008 primary cycle for flip-flopping on various issues, mostly social, to accommodate the Republican base. As Chairman, Romney would have the ability, both subtly and overtly, to re-shape the party message to his liking rather than feel the need to adjust his positions to fit party orthodoxy.

5) Continue to Chip Away at Mormon Issue: Being elected Chairman would not eliminate this as a potential issue for Romney. Ken Mehlman ran the RNC and it would be difficult to argue that a Jewish candidate would still not face significant opposition in certain circles of the party. But by taking on such a visible leadership role, this would allow Republicans, Democrats, and Independents to view him simply as the Republican leader rather than as a member of any specific religious faith.

After serving two-years as Chairman, through the 2010 election cycle, Romney could then announce his intentions to run for President and focus on the buildup of his campaign operation ahead of the primary election.

Critics of a Romney chairmanship would likely argue that assuming such a position would provide little political benefit for him. He would be wasting his time.

Why bog yourself down running day-to-day operations of a national party?

There is no requirement that the RNC Chairman be involved in day-to-day operations of a bureaucracy. Rather, Romney could install a capable, well-respected, and trusted Executive Director for the party while acting largely as a spokesman and big-picture planner. He would immediately become the face of the party. He could only dream of attaining this status over the next two years if he were to continue to stand on the sidelines.

Romney is too high-profile to run the RNC.

Says who? McCain had too little money to win the nomination. Obama was too inexperienced to be elected President. There is no rulebook to this game. The political media is scarcely paying any attention to the race for Chairman, let alone the average American, who does not even know that there is a race. The party has a leadership void and both the party and the media would embrace having someone high-profile at the helm.

Running the RNC may help him get through the primaries, but would be harmful in a general election.

George Bush headed the RNC in the 1970s a decade before becoming President. Given the messiah-like way in which Obama rose to victory in this election, it is hard to argue that 2012 will be anything other than a referendum on the Obama presidency. So why not accept this fact and start drawing contrasts where they exist right away? There is no better vehicle for Romney to articulate his message than by serving as the head of his party.

RNC duties would get in the way of fundraising for his campaign.

This may be true. But Romney’s considerable personal wealth makes this less important of an issue than it would be for most candidates. In addition, the benefits of traveling to all fifty states for the RNC and building up considerable institutional support amongst RNC members and GOP activists far outweigh the costs of reduced fundraising capacity.

Disclosure: This author is not supporting Romney for this position.

 

 

Mitt Romney's Anti-Palin Crusade

Submitted by Allen on Tue, 10/28/2008 - 13:16
in

The American Spectator is reporting that Republican operatives on behalf of Mitt Romney are actively trying to sink Sara Palin.

This is the second credible source who has reported this to me.

The Specator piece also mentions how unhelpful Romney has been to other Republican candidates.

This election has shown the worst side of the Republican Party. Along with being ideologically adrift, the Party has an abudance of "supporters" who need to learn Ronald Reagan's Eleventh Commandment. Republicans should not speak ill of fellow Republicans.

There is no need to detail the premediated, destructive attacks of David Frum, Peggy Noonan, and Mitt Romney. There is need to remember those who let the Democrats off the hook by directing their fire on Republicans.

National Review Online has a longish defense of Romney. The majority of this piece is a compelling defense of Romney being active this campaign season. The paragraph on Palin is not persuasive.

Looking to the Future

Submitted by Daniel Ruwe on Tue, 09/23/2008 - 21:58
in

Crossposted at Right Minds

I can remember the exact moment I stopped listening to Sean Hannity. In was in November of last year; he was discussing the presidential candidates. Evidently, he felt he was being too hard on one of them, because he blurted out the opinion that the whole group were a great bunch of candidates and that he would happily support whichever one won the nomination. It was, of course, obvious to any rational observer that the GOP was running an absolutely dismal crop of candidates (the three frontrunners at the time were Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and [cringe] Mike Huckabee), and that the winner would be the best of a bad lot.
 
Fortunately, the best man, at least from an electoral point of view (can you really imagine Mitt Romney competing with Barack Obama?), won the nomination, but John McCain didn’t have much competition. Mitt Romney must be the most uncharismatic man in history—he managed to get the entire conservative punditocracy on his side, but still found a way to lose convincingly. Mike Huckabee never ran a serious campaign; besides, as Frank J. at IMAO pointed out, his name sounds like that of a cartoon family’s dog. Rudy Giuliani was a less likeable, liberal version of John McCain, and his campaign really did (as Joe Biden pointed out—he has his moments) consist of a noun, a verb, and 9/11. And Fred Thompson, though staunchly conservative, and my favorite candidate, never ran a real campaign either. The Republicans ran a weak slate of candidates this election, and it is a miracle that they actually have a real chance of keeping the White House.
 
Fortunately for the GOP, its prospects in 2012 look much brighter. There are a great many talented young conservatives who will be of the right age to run in 2012—as well as some veterans who may be able to use four years experience to become stronger candidates.
 
Sarah Palin is the obvious choice for the 2012 nominee—she is attractive, smart, and conservative, besides being the next in line for the GOP nomination, which is important. It’s hard to imagine a scenario—unless McCain decides to run again, which is unlikely—in which she isn’t the nominee. And she would be a good, maybe even brilliant—choice.
Bobby Jindal would be another excellent choice. He is, perhaps, the most intelligent governor in America, and he conservative credentials are second to none. He’s competent, too—thankfully, Hurricane Ike wasn’t as damaging as was originally feared, but his response to the crisis was exceptional. And like Palin, he is telegenic (if not as good-looking as Palin is) and articulate, both of which are advantages for a candidate following the incoherent Bush and the mumbling McCain.
 
In fact, Jindal may be the GOP’s best hope for the future. His conservative credentials are probably stronger than Palin’s, and his experience is much greater. Rush Limbaugh has called Jindal the “next Reagan”—and he could be right.
 
Mitt Romney just couldn’t get anyone to like him in the primaries—moderates thought he was too conservative, while conservatives thought he was too moderate. Both were right—Romney had distinctly moderate views through most of his career, then exhibited an abrupt rightward shift when he ran for president. Nobody anywhere ever got excited about Romney (except, apparently, Michigan voters). But if he spends the next four years actively promoting conservative causes, and building conservative “street cred” (a term which somehow sounds so incongruous when associated with Mitt Romney), he could very well become a formidable candidate in 2012.
 
Mike Huckabee might have been the candidate most hated by conservatives—with good reason. He was never a very serious candidate; he based his campaign around a smile and a shoeshine, a combination that somehow very nearly got him the nomination. True, he has his conservative lapses, but like Romney, four years spent pushing conservative causes could endear him to many conservatives. And given Huckabee’s immense charisma, he could do in 2012 what he couldn’t do in 2008—take the Republican nomination, and maybe even the presidency.
 
There is, of course, one more possible GOP nominee in 2012—John McCain, provided he wins in 2008. True, it’s hard to imagine a 76-year-old man deciding to run for reelection—but then, John McCain has always gone against the odds. And if his approval ratings are high…well, he might as well go for it.
 
Jindal and Palin would be fantastic nominees, McCain would be acceptable, and Romney and Huckabee have promise. It might seem premature to start thinking about 2012 before the 2008 election is even completed—but the people involved are thinking about it, and conservatives should be as well. If it is anything like 2008, the process will begin in just a couple of years, and conservatives should be ready.

 

Michael Savage needs to take a chill pill on Palin

Submitted by Mr.L on Wed, 09/03/2008 - 17:18
in

 Michael Savage needs to take a chill pill.

I’m breaking up with Michael Savage and it’s over a woman.
 
I believe it’s necessary for me to write about this to show others how passionate and confident I am about Sarah Palin.
 
I will tell you more about how I really feel about Sarah Palin in my next show Mr.L’s Tavern 20, that will air this September the 10th, 9:30pm Est on CHIMPSY RADIO and re-airing specially for 9/11/2008. All the hosts on Chimpsy Radio will broadcast new shows in observance of 9/11.
 
 
I’ve been listening to Michael Savage for years now. I don’t agree with him on everything but I do on most things.  I’ve defended him when he was fighting CAIR and even defended him when he was lynched for his autism comments.
 
Savage published a new book on Monday of last week and I ordered two of them immediately. By the following Monday, I demanded a refund and a stop order.
 
Why did I do this? Why do I feel this way?
 
I thought his commentary on Sarah Palin went over the line. It was something that I would expect at Daily Kos and not his show or website. The rumors that have surrounded Palin have been just that and probably created by organizations like MoveOn.org and Media Matters who have single-handedly tried to ruin Savage’s career.
 
So far he’s devoted two shows with harsh criticism of this fine and accomplished woman based on a hypothetical.  That’s right, Michael Savage has sided with the “mid-stream media” (as he has dubbed them) by using hyperbole to push the notion that McCain will drop dead in his first days in office.  Pretty ridiculous. Pretty cheap.
 
And if that happened, Palin could turn around and pick an elder statesmen for her Vice President.  After all, isn’t that what Barack Obama has done already?
 
Also, we are voting for the top of the ticket are we not?
 
Savage’s comments about Palin were also extremely insulting. Every time that he’s referred to her it’s been as “this woman” or that her only experience was “pushing a sled”. When in fact, she’s not just “this woman” she’s a governor. 
 
I would also like to point out that, as far as this election goes, Savage has been wrong most of the time. He said Barack Obama would never get this far. He predicted that Obama would pick Hillary as his running mate to create a juggernaut ticket. Didn’t happen. Finally, last summer he declared McCain was washed up and finished. Nope.
 
What was funniest to me was when he began to run down the list of others McCain should’ve picked. Kay Bailey Hutchinson was one. Four months ago, I heard him devote 40 mins to trashing Hutchinson and called her a Rhino over some bill that she helped pass. Next, was his so called favorite Mitt Romney. Funny, I didn’t hear him say a peep about Mitt Romney when John McCain was still deciding.  
 
Palin is a true conservative. For two years now, Savage has been blowing out his vocal chords about getting a true conservative to run with McCain. So now you’ve got one. So shut your mouth. 
 
Also, Palin IS energy. As Savage once said, “the GOP/conservative party is like a dying cancer patient.” If that’s true, Sarah Palin is the chemo it desperately needed.
 
Savage has stated that we need “strong experienced leaders” for these troubled times to stand up to strong men like Putin who hunt Tiger and Bear in the wild. I will say it again, at the TOP of the GOP ticket stands a strong and more experienced McCain than the top of the left ticket with Obama.
 
I think Palin would somehow impress Putin. I think he would see her as a strong woman who’s not afraid to take off the pant suit and strap on the gun and, possibly, go hunt with him.
 
I’ll probably still listen Savage. I will defend continue his right to speak his peace. But enough is enough.

 

Dare to Be Stupid

Submitted by idahoconservative on Fri, 08/29/2008 - 08:40
in

I went to bed last night, fairly certain that the VP Pick would be Tim Pawlenty. But this word comes out of Minnesota:

ST. PAUL – Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty will not be John McCain’s running mate.

The Republican governor told WCCO radio this morning that he is not the pick, and will host his weekly radio show from the Minnesota State Fair instead.

His comments end more than two years of speculation that he would run with his long-time friend, the Arizona senator who next week Republicans will nominate as their presidential candidate.

In an early-morning telephone interview with WCCO political reporter Eric Eskola, Pawlenty said he plans to conduct his radio show, which means he will not be in Dayton, Ohio, where McCain is to announce his vice presidential selection. When Eskola asked if that meant he would not be on the ticket, Pawlenty replied: “That is a safe assumption.”

Where does that leave us? It leaves us with a pick that is guaranteed to be somewhat unwise with chances of blowing up in McCain’s face.  For various reasons, this pick is going to appear to be stupid and unwise, but John McCain from all intents has decided to listen to Weird Al’s advice and has decided to dare to be stupid.

How stupid will the pick be? I think on a Stupidity scale from 10 (incredibly wise) to -10 (mind-blowingly stupid), Pawlenty was about a 0. The candidates mentioned out there range from the reasonable picks with a very serious flaw to absolute stupidity.

Governor Sarah Palin (R-Alaska)

Why She Makes Sense: Popularity rating in her home state higher than any elected official in the country with a reform image. She’s smart, good looking, conservative, truly pro-lie and a great lady.

Why She Doesn’t Make Sense: I love Sarah Palin as a political leader, she a fine lady.  A pick of Sarah Palin has a huge downside potential. McCain is running on the issue of experience. Sarah Palin would have the least major political experience of any major candidate for Vice-President since Sargent Shriver in 1972. It really would undercut the McCain campaign message of experience. If she’s inaugurated, in a period of less than 2 years, Sarah Palin would go from being the former mayor of Wasila, Alaska (pop. 8, 471) to being one heartbeat away from the presidency.  That’s very hard to sell, but if McCain wants a woman who will be acceptable to the conservative base, all he’s got is Palin and a few conservative members of Congress.

Stupid Scale: -0.5

Mitt Romney:

Why to nominate him: Exconomic experience, Karl Rove/National Reviews says so.  Also, he may help in Michigan and Nevada.

While I doubt McCain cares, this would be a great pick for Idaho. If Mitt Romney is the VP, then I think it’s safe to say that Idaho Republicans are going to have a good year. 

Why it’s stupid:  The probelm with Romney is that the DNC is ready to counter McCain’s attack ads on the Biden pick with those of their own. The McCain-Romney feud was quite bitter. Also, many conservatives simply don’t trust Romney, and there will be some people who will choose not to support the ticket on the basis of that lack of trust. You also have to question how effective Romney is going to be as a candidate. Look at what he spent in the primaries to lose. He spent tens of millions of dollars in South Carolina, got numerous major endorsements there and finished 4th. It was a disaster of a campaign given his expectations. Will voters in the general trust him more?

The wealth issue is important, too. McCain’s been hit on 7 houses, Romney is even richer. His experience at Bain Capital includes reorganizations which have meant layoffs and lost jobs. This is not the guy you want up there in an economy where people are hurting.

Stupid Rating: -2.0

Joe Lieberman

Why to Nominate Him: A truly bi-partisan ticket plus McCain likes Lieberman.

Why Not to Nominte Him: It’s an across the board offense to every part of the conservative based, other than the Neo-Cons. Plus according to some accounts, this will mean they’ll have to be a vote on the convention floor to change party rules about nominees being registered Republicans 30 days before the convention. That would be fun.  Expecting Republicans to vote for a Left-wing Cancer Survivor and a Liberal Democrat running mate is a bridge too far for most people.

Then we’d have 4 senators running for President, which would be incredibly stupid.

Add to this that Lieberman doesn’t bring along anyone that he wouldn’t bring along were he just endorsing the ticket and it really makes no sense.

Stupid Rating: -5

Tom Ridge

Why to Nominate: Could bring along Pennsylvania, “Moderate”, National Security Experience.

Why It’s Stupid: This even a worse choice than Joe Lieberman. Lieberman would not be running for President anytime in the future, so conservtives could psyche themselves out and vote for McCain hoping that McCain has really good health. Ridge indicate that if elected, McCain will have annointed a pro-choice moderate as the next leader of the Party. Ideologically and experience wise, there’s no need for Ridge. He didn’t have any eye-popping accomplishments as Governor and the odds of him swinging Pennsylvania are slim. (He hasn’t been elected to anything there since 1998.) Ridge is a poke in the eye and is ultimately going to depress the conservative base.

Stupid Rating: -7.5

Meg Whitman, CEO of Ebay

Why to Nominate Her: Business experience, Being a Woman

Why It’s Stupid: Meg Whitman combines the pro-abortion views of Tom Ridge, wealth that makes Mitt Romney look like a pauper, and absolutely no political experience. It would be as if McCain got up and asked himself, “How do we totally blow a winnable election?” If you nominate Meg Whitman, you’ll have found a very successful way to do it.

Stupid Rating: -9

Carly Fiorina

Why to Nominate Her: Same Reasons as Whitman

Why It’s Stupid: If McCain is looking for the Stupidest choice, it would be Fiorina, whose business performance record is far less successful than Whitman’s. Also unlike Whitman, Fiorina has a record of eliminating jobs and being generally unpleasant to work for. Fiorina makes no sense whatsoever, yet she’s been speculated on. With Carly Fiorina, we’ll have achieved something remarkable, a pick that will be written about for centuries to come. She’d reign supreme in the realm truly stupid VP picks.

Stupid Rating: -10

No good choices for McCain

Submitted by CJK on Sat, 08/23/2008 - 18:28
in

So I guess the rumors are that McCain veep pick has been narrowed to three people: Lieberman, Romney, and Pawlenty.

All three of these guys are going to inflict damage on him:

Lieberman--It's not just that he's pro-choice. His entire domestic policy platform is, in general, far to the left of McCain's. He'd have to repudiate about half his policy positions to get on the ticket and it won't be pretty. It will look like an act of desperation on McCain's part, an admission that he's too close to Bush. This risky option currently makes zero sense for McCain.

Romney--At first glance this guy makes a great VP, and I say that even though I myself loathed him during the primaries. The idea is that he can help carry Nevada and Michigan and add economic expertise to the ticket. Furthermore, he'd be a great attack dog against Obama. But he has three huge drawbacks: 1) Religious conservatives don't like him 2) The Democrats will slam him for layoffs while he was in the private sector and 3) considering that McCain is using primary material to go after Biden, Obama will almost certainly replay the McCain/Romney fights.

Pawlenty--This man is still unknown outside Minnesota. The only things I myself know about him are that he only narrowly won the governorship of Minnesota and has been a "reformer". That might help him counter Obama's "change" mantra, but I just don't know. Since I have never listened to him speak I can't say if he'd be an articulate veep or a good attack dog. He doesn't have foreign policy cred either. But he'd be my choice by process of elimination.

There are some other names floating around, but I don't think they are seriously being considered:

Ridge--A non-conservative who probably can't carry Pennsylvania.

Palin--Alaska governor but I heard she gave bad interviews or something.

Portman--A Bush guy. Disqualified.

Kasich--He might have said something dumb while he was doing that show on Fox News.

Cantor--Another unknown congressmen.

 

What If? Mitt Romney

Submitted by Rev. John on Wed, 07/16/2008 - 12:29
in

What if Mitt Romney, instead of trying to re-invent himself as a born again social conservative (and then continue to re-invent himself after every primary loss), ran in the primaries as himself?

What if, in light of the current economic turmoil and a Democrat led congress with a 9% approval rating, we had a candidate with executive experience in both government and the private sector, and who had no ties to President Bush?

(And I ask these questions as a McCain supporter who mocked the Hewitt/K-Lo ethuiasm for Romney like everyone else)

 

The Power Veeps

Submitted by idahoconservative on Sun, 06/01/2008 - 17:43
in

 

With the Republican nomination settled on John McCain and the Democratic nomination about settled for Barack Obama, political coverage is slowly pivoting to the picks of the Vice-Presidential candidates.
 
Vice-Presidential nominees are overblown as their impact is limited. Some of the biggest mistakes in Veep-picking have come when candidates have over-reached. Few Veeps can take a state you’ll get shellacked in and turn it into a win. Expectations of Michael Dukakis carrying Texas with Senator Lloyd Bentsen on the ticket in 1988 were absurd, ditto John Kerry’s hopes of carrying North Carolina, Senator John Edwards’ home state, in 2008.
Veep picks help you at the margins, with people who are ambiguous towards your ticket, or they turn some people who would merely vote for you into activists by energizing the base, or a Veep can make up for some deficiency in your ticket. Some Vice-Presidents don’t really do much for the ticket (Dan Quayle ’88, Geraldine Ferraro ’84, Sargent Shriver ’72.) but neither Obama or McCain can afford one of those.
 
McCain
 
Most of the McCain’s potential veeps really bring nothing to the ticket. Governors Bobby Jindal and Mark Sanford don’t add a whole lot to the ticket. They’ll assure a small cadre of fiscal conservatives cast a vote for McCain. That’ll be about it. It’s doubtful they’ll even be able to negate the limited effects of Bob Barr. Rob Portman brings nada to the ticket other than perhaps an enhanced standing in Portman’s already Republican Congressional district in Ohio.
 
Mitt Romney as VP could make Michigan competitive and without Michigan, Obama probably doesn’t win the presidency. On the other hand, he’s not trusted by many conservatives. His oily image on board the “straight talk express” wouldn’t be great for McCain’s image.
 
Governor Sarah Palin (R-Alaska) presents an intriguing choice. Palin could help McCain with women disenchanted with Hillary Clinton not being the Democratic nominee. Palin is also pro-life and not just when its convenient, she recently gave birth to a baby with downs syndrome, and chose life over abortion. Palin’s real life living out of her convictions is something that would be respected.
Palin is also an Evangelical Christian who is more comfortable talking about her faith. She’s a solid record on government reform, heading up efforts to clean up Alaska’s GOP. On the negative side, Palin’s experience is limited and, like Jindal, she’s not well-known. Her rise in a little more than 2 years from former Mayor of Wasila, Alaska to a heartbeat from the Presidency may be a tad much for some people.
 
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee faces well-known negatives: many establishment conservatives don’t like him and have issues with his policies in Arkansas. However, what Huckabee brings to the ticket is organization.
 
Huckabee would bring several thousand volunteers to a campaign that lacks organization, as well as potentially activate a base of voters that can take or leave that whole voting thing. McCain is going to be running behind in money and professional organization. Who can help him counter that? How about a guy who won eight primary states on $16 million?
 
Huckabee has been caricaturized as a Southern candidate, but is more of a heartland candidate. McCain/Huckabee could challenge Obama in Iowa, hold the bellwether state of Missouri, and also increase turnout in key areas of Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado. However, McCain’s recent attack on two reverends who endorsed him may have limited his ability to turn out religious conservatives regardless of his running mate.
 
Moderate choices, such as Tom Ridge, don’t really add to the nomination and are going to deepen dissatisfaction from the base without really adding anything.
 
 
Obama
 
Barack Obama has two deficiencies: a lack of foreign policy experience and a lack of executive experience. General historic trends would suggest a Democratic win in 2008, with an unpopular war and a down economy. What Obama must do is convince voters in Red States that it’s “okay” to support a Democrat.
 
Obama has four options that do this. None of them are Hillary Clinton. While Mrs. Clinton would strengthen Obama with some Democrats, I remain dubious that she’ll attract people who wouldn’t vote for Obama to the ticket. Many of these diehards voted for her as an anti-Obama vote, not a pro-Clinton vote. Her personal negatives in polls are somewhat lower than Osama bin Laden’s and the that’s nicest thing I can think of to say about her rating.
From New Mexico, Governor Bill Richardson (D) could be a winner for the Obama camp, as he brings foreign policy experience (former UN Ambassador), and executive experience (Governor and Secretary of Energy), along with a 14-year congressional career. Richardson would, at the very least, guarantee Obama the swing states of New Mexico and Colorado. He’d also help Obama with Hispanics, who McCain is trying to make a play for and who Clinton tried to turn into a wedge constituency.
 
Beyond Richardson, Obama could pick one of three Virginians.
 
The strongest of the three would be Senator Jim Webb (D-VA), a former Republican and Navy Secretary under Ronald Reagan. Webb’s national security bonafides would help the inexperienced Obama in the same way Dick Cheney helped George W. Bush.
 
After that, former Governor Mark Warner (D-VA), who many thought of as a presidential candidate, would re-assure moderates and provide executive experience to the ticket. The negative is Warner would have to leave the Virginia Senate race he’s a shoo in for and that would allow Former Governor Jim Gilmore (R) to hold the seat for Republicans, but if it’s necessary for a Democratic win, I think Virginian Democrats would trade a Senate seat for the presidency.
 
Finally, Governor Tim Kaine (D-VA) is the least of the three Virginians, without the stature of Warner, but he could deliver Virginia.
 
An Obama victory in Virginia would be huge. No Democrat has won it since LBJ in 1964. Virginia has 13 electoral votes and any of these three could help with the nearby state of Ohio as well as bolster Obama’s hopes in North Carolina.
 
Another possibility for VP would be Senator Robert Casey (R-PA). Casey would help with white working class Democrats in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. But as one of the few Senators with less experience than Obama, it’s really an open question as to whether Casey would help across America.
 
Additionally, if Obama decides luring disenchanted Republicans is key, he could also ask Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) who would have similar benefits to Webb, but might tick off more members of his party base.
 
Casey, Hagel, and Kaine would represent a problem for many feminists who backed Clinton as all three are pro-life, but Obama would comfort moderate pro-lifers with a gesture meant to illustrate that he’s serious about his respect for those who disagree with him. A Casey nomination would be particularly poignant as Bill Clinton’s decision to bar Casey from the 1992 Democratic Convention began a steady exodus of pro-life Democrats from the party. However, the risk may not make it worth it.
 
The strongest overall candidates are Richardson, Webb, and Warner in that order. If Obama chooses any of those three, I’ll be 100% sure he’ll be the next president. 

 

VP Rundown

Submitted by whiteking910 on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 00:59
in

I've heard an argument that McCain needs to think outside the box.  Make an out-of-left field choice.  I strongly disagree with this way of thinking.  I fail to see how bringing in a novice for the second-highest office in the land would help anyone.

McCain needs a guy who is known.  I've supported Joe Lieberman for the spot but am starting to realize that McCain needs someone with name recognition who will mollify conservatives without alienating the independents and centrist.  Let's go through some names.

Mitt Romney:  A month ago, I would have Romney pegged as a front-runner.  But with Ted Kennedy likely to become worm food in the not-too-distant future, you know Mitt's gonna be angling for a shot at the Senate.

Condi Rice:  No, no, no!  The woman has proven herself to be an even bigger RINO than McCain.  You want to draw conservatives, not anger them further.  Plus, putting a black woman in the spot would be seen as pandering at its worst.

Joe Lieberman:  I've supported Joe based on his strong national security record and the fact that it would be extremely fun watching the Kos crowd howl with rage at the sight.  But, the best running mate is one who complements, not mirrors.

Duncan Hunter:  The darling of right-wing bloggers.  While it would go a long way towards helping McCain regain the favor of the LGF crowd, his poor showing indicates that he lacks mainstream appeal.  And his strong-anti-illegal immigration stance could hurt McCains chances with Latinos, something McCain is trying to avoid.

Rudy Giuliani:  No.  Aside from the fact that his f****d-up personal life would become media fodder, his conservative credentials are highly questionable and it is very difficult to see how he would help McCain.

Charlie Crist:  I don't think so.  Crist brings nothing to the table.  I know he's a front-runner, but he just got elected a couple of years ago.  It's too soon for him.  The only upside is that he is very popular among Florida's blacks and could help offset Obama's popularity, but I'm fishing at best.

Bobby Jindal:  Another top contender.  Like Crist, it's too soon.  I know Johnny's eager to offset the whole age thing, but placing a kitten in the wings to maybe take the place of a lion one day is a disaster waiting to happen.  Add in the fact that Jindal's effectiveness as governor has been questionable and it's a no-go.

Ann Coulter:  Yeah, I know the chance of this happening ranks right up there with the chances of George W. Bush winning the Nobel Peace Price, but it'd make for entertaining TV, wouldn't it.

I'm sure I'm overlooking a few people, but it's late and I'm tired.  Input, as always, is appreciated.

The Calm Before the Storm

Submitted by Maistrochet on Tue, 05/27/2008 - 10:11
in

 

So now we have a brand new Republican nominee. To be sure, it is not the candidate that most conservatives wanted, nor is it the candidates that most liberals despised. However, perhaps John McCain can surprise us all and maybe even get a few of our votes in November, though speaking for myself, the odds are against him. I think we are likely to see the Republican party become, if not completely diminished, at least somewhat chastened after this November, which is why I can say without exaggeration that I am terrified at the prospect of 2012.

Some might find such a virulent reaction to be a bit premature - it is, after all, four years away. However, those four years are only so much nail-biting when one knows precisely who is likely to run - and there are clearly at least two candidates who would be very well advised to return to the national stage. What terrifies me about 2012, then, is what sort of battle it is likely to become.
As has often been noted, Mr. Huckabee is conspicuously the candidate of the social conservatives, almost to the exclusion of everybody else. Furthermore, Mitt Romney is almost as conspicuously the candidate of the economic conservatives. This particular appear to two segments of the same movement ought not to be problematic, but unfortunately it becomes so when the level of animosity between those two segments is so high. One would be hard pressed to find two groups with a more strained relationship, especially considering the fact that, after years of keeping silent about their economic sentiments, the social conservatives have finally outed themselves as populists. The business conservatives, by contrast, are notable insofar as they are largely libertarian - both on social and economic grounds.

If one takes these two positions and places them on the political compass, one finds that they hold (literally) nothing in common. The populists wish to use the Government to make everything fair to the poor, and to inscribe forever upon the Constitution the words "what would Jesus do?" The libertarians, on the other hand, completely reject the notion that the Government can make anything "fair" to anybody and don't particularly care what Jesus would do, because he's a private individual, and it's no business of the State what he does. It would be difficult to find two positions more contradictory than this. Not even conservatives and liberals fit the bill - they at least agree that there is such a thing as the "national interest" or the "common good." Libertarians and Populists do no such thing. For libertarians, there is only the "individual interest" and for populists, individuals are all sinners who need to be chastened so that the meek can inherit the earth.

Of course, I know which side I'm on, but all the same, I fear for the future of the conservative movement even if my side wins. One of the things which conservatism has historically prided itself on is balancing the concerns of all its interested parties in such a way as to provide some level of philosophical coherence and also some common ground. If, in the conflict between libertarians and populists, one side inevitably has to win (and it does), then this entire notion of fusion will be almost completely destroyed and one more group will be frozen into the periphery of conservatism in much the same way that the paleoconservatives have been. Fortunately, I think the danger of this freeze existing permanently is slightly lower if the populists lose, since they are still an influential voting bloc, but there will still be that awkward interim space in which the Religious Right begins to see itself as on the outs of the Republican party, and in that time, they could easily fall prey to the depredations of another Carter. Considering the increased preoccupation of evangelical leaders with "social justice" and other Leftist-inspired blather, this scenario seems especially likely and troubling.

But that situation is unlikely to occur for a simple reason - the Religious Right would almost certainly not lose a fight against the libertarians. With no disrespected intended to my right wing libertarian comrades-in-arms, Jesus is a more influential prophet than Ayn Rand, and nets more votes besides. Worse yet, the Religious Right could have an edge going into 2012 because there are rumors circulating (especially on Newsmax) that Huckabee is at the top of McCain's potential VP list. There are silver linings, of course - the Rush Limbaugh audience (which is fiercely conservative fiscally as well as socially) would almost certainly go for Bob Barr en masse if Huckabee was chosen - but even then, the Republican party would have effectively thrown the conservative movement out after 20 years, choosing to go for pure compassion instead of "compassionate conservatism." It would be the alliance between neoconservatives and the Religious Right which both groups have so desperately wanted - the old Roosevelt coalition rebuilt, with the REAL conservatives predictably frozen out.

Of course, there is another alternative - namely, that McCain and Huckabee will go down to defeat at the hands of Obama as Ford and Rockefeller did at the hands of Carter, clearing the way for the triumphant return of Romney. However, this seems unlikely at the point where Huckabee is nowhere near as unpopular with the conservative movement as Rockefeller. Indeed, it is more likely that Huckabee would assume the role of conservative savior if Obama were elected and led this country (as he inevitably will) into the toilet.

So in the event of this, what do we do? It would be the height of silliness to suggest that we should simply return to being "superfluous men" as per Albert Jay Nock - rather, conservatism must put its theoretical house in order again. It is time to reexamine our principles and rediscover our oldest roots. It is even possible that, if conservatives can rally enough intellectual coherence and (more importantly) enough patience to get along with one another, we can hammer together a stronger fusionist coalition before the debacle of 2012 even arrives. However, one thing we cannot afford to do is simply rest on our laurels. This is the agony of our movement, and unless we can put forward the case for why the principles of Edmund Burke, Alexis de Tocqueville and the Founding Fathers are still relevant to today's society, we will become the "beautiful losers" which Sam Francis described. Contrary to the advice of David Frum and Michael Gerson, this does not mean changing our principles, or compromising. It means actually trying to apply those principles to contemporary problems, rather than simply fabricating them as creations of liberals, and then resorting to ad hominem attacks. Over 40 years ago, Barry Goldwater said "let's grow up, conservatives." Now, 40 years later, it seems the more appropriate injunction is "let's not get senile, conservatives."

 

Syndicate content