| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
Bill Buckley's Presidential Pick
Submitted by Daniel Ruwe on Wed, 06/11/2008 - 08:22
Crossposted at Right Minds
Most conservative commenters are united in their belief that John McCain is not an acceptable conservative. It is hard to disagree with the assertion that McCain is not a conservative—his positions on amnesty for illegal aliens, campaign finance “reform”, and embryonic stem cell research pretty much disqualify him from calling himself a conservative.
The question over whether he is an acceptable candidate for conservatives, however, is unclear. Most of those conservatives who now vehemently oppose McCain supported Mitt Romney, which sets a pretty low bar. Rommey is as far left as McCain, but without the experience and with better pandering skills. If Mitt Romney is an acceptable conservative, it is hard to imagine that John McCain is completely intolerable.
Rush Limbaugh is probably John McCain’s biggest nemesis, and it’s not hard to see why. He is probably the most influential conservative alive today, and his words set a heavy weight of precedent. His opposition to McCain is significant, because of his respected place in the conservative movement. Of all the political thinkers and pundits of the last half century, he has probably had the second greatest amount of influence on conservative thought.
The man with the largest amount of influence, of course, was William F. Buckley, who tragically passed away a few days ago. He made the conservative movement into a political force. He was, in large part, responsible for the nomination of Barry Goldwater and the election of Ronald Reagan. It is no exaggeration to say that he was the guiding force behind Reagan conservatism.
With that in mind, it is informative to see which of the many Republican candidates he donated money to, as it is reasonable to assume that he believed that candidate would carry on the conservative principles he did so much to establish. He contributed money to only one candidate—John McCain.
UPDATE: I found this article by Buckley about McCain. It is not about McCain's presidential hopes, but Buckley obviously likes McCain a great deal.
Some years ago, after hearing what John McCain withstood in North Vietnam,I pledged never to write a negative word about him, and over the years it has required very few beads of charity to stand by him.
As I look at the presidential race more closely, I am starting to feel better about a McCain candidacy. I like both McCain and Mike Huckabee more than most Republican pundits did (which is still not very much), and liked Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani a great deal less than most conservatives did. John McCain was the best (with the exception of Fred Thompson) of a poor bunch this year, and he is probably better than most of the Republican parties recent nominees. (He is at least as conservative as George W. Bush, and is probably better than Bob Dole or George H. W. Bush). Conservatives are not getting a really good candidate in 2008--but I don't think they are getting a really bad one either.
(1 vote)
Promos
Recent blog posts
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Skip MacLure
1 comments
TaylorD
0 comments
FMeekins
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
cringinghere
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Recent comments
-
Joseph Hertzlinger
-
samuelajanaku
-
Robin1
-
OzarkGuru
-
dean2
Search
Links
The American Scene
Conservablogs
Election Projection
FiveThirtyEight.com
Jonathan Martin
Marc Ambinder
Megan McArdle
Patrick Ruffini
Pollster.com
The Foundry
Government Bytes
Race 4 2008
Real Clear Politics
RedState
Ross Douthat
Soren Dayton
Infrastructure
America's Future Foundation
Americans for Prosperity
Americans for Tax Reform
American Majority
Club for Growth
Election Journal
Heritage Foundation
ATR Blog
Leadership Institute
NewsBusters
Sam Adams Alliance
Republican National Lawyers Association
Republican Liberty Caucus
Washington Watch
National Taxpayers Union
NetRight Nation
Good Lefty Blogs
MyDD
Open Left
Swing State Project
Comments
"at least as conservative as George W. Bush"
1) Talk about damming with faint praise. I was under the impression that most Republicans felt that Bush was not conservative enough, or in some cases not conservative at all.
2) Setting aside (1), what makes you think that McCain is "at least as conservative" as Bush? Looking at both men and the issues it seems pretty clear that McCain is a notably less conservative than Bush.
For instance, McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts, on grounds that they were "tax cuts for the rich". McCain supports and co-sponsored global warming legislation, the biggest government boondoggle in decades, which Bush opposes. McCain supports a "shield law" for journalists who publish national security secrets, which Bush opposes. McCain wants to grant habeas corpus to foreign terrorists, which Bush opposes. McCain wants to close Gitmo, which Bush opposes. McCain supports "windfall profits" taxes, Bush opposes.
I could go on, but if you don't get the point now then you're not going to get it.
Stylistically speaking, Bush has governed in a pretty liberal fashion without (usually) taking gratuitous swipes at the right. Miers and immigration being exceptions. But McCain is very comfortable denouncing the Christian right, "greedy" corporations, the "rich", and all the other elements of the party. In fact he is noticeably more comfortable in attacking all the different elements of the Republican party than he is attacking the Democrats, including Obama.
Only by cherry-picking the evidence and then interpeting that evidence in the most generous light can you conclude that McCain is "at least as conservative" as Bush.
conservative as Bush
Well, McCain agrees with Bush on abortion. He now advocates some pretty sharp tax cuts (which I recently blogged about). His plan for Iraq was much better than Bush's was. He and Bush both support amnesty. So on taxes (I'm referring to his position now, not five years ago), Iraq, and abortion, McCain is basically on the same page as Bush.
Bush does oppose climate change legislation, but McCain would have to be much better on spending. Bush's spending record is absolutely dreadful--he has let pork funding grow, and has sunk the country deeper into debt. I'd say that you could make a pretty good case that McCain is more conservative than Bush.
McCain is basically on the same page as Bush
I don't disagree that on some issues, McCain is the same as Bush. I'm pointing out that on a wide range of issues McCain is to the left of Bush. And I notice that you did not attempt to refute that point.
McCain would have to be much better on spending
The McCain defenders like to say this, but there is little evidence to support it. For instance, McCain opposes earmarks. But earmarks have nothing to do with the amount of spending. They only relate to how money is spent, not whether it is spent. If all earmarks vanished tomorrow the amount of money the government spends would not alter by one cent.
I'm not sure how you can acknowledge McCains global warming stance and at the same time claim that he is good on spending. The recently defeated global warming bill (which McCain supported) was described by the WSJ as the biggest expansion in the size and scope of the Federal government since the New Deal. I'd be happy to give McCain his very own "Bridge to Nowhere" if he'd wise up on this. It would save me money.
And the Heritage Foundation placed the price tag on McCains amnesty plans at about two trillion dollars. Again, the mental gymnastics people go through to convince themselves that this man is a champion of small government are downright Olympian. He's an FDR Democrat.
McCain wants to eliminate
McCain wants to eliminate earmarks, supports a one year pause in spending growth to evaluate the effectiveness of federal programs, eliminate those federal programs that don't work and lowering trade barriers. That's pretty good.
And yes, McCain's positions on global warming and immigration are bad. He is not perfect.
So what?
As I keep pointing out, eliminating earmarks will have zero effect on government spending. The right is tilting at windmills in their obsession on this issue.
supports a one year pause in spending growth to evaluate the effectiveness of federal programs
Except for the new programs he wants to see passed, I assume. You know, the global warming and amnesty bill which you agree are bad.
and lowering trade barriers
That's another thing which is killing the GOP. As I've pointed out before, majorities of Republicans oppose the party's free trade position, to say nothing of the public at large. I can't stand up and salute as the party commits electoral suicide, sorry.
Ah, the emo-con poster child. . .
. . .chimes in about how all is lost.
The fact is, McCain has fought ag subisidies on a consistent basis. He has battle government waste more strongly and successfully that any of his colleagues throughout his career. He was one of the sole Republican senators who stood to be counted against the expansion of Medicare with the prescription drug benefit. He has grappled with the pharmaceutical industry to put an end to the de facto subsidization of drug benefits in other nations with socialized health care by American consumers through the contracts that allow them to purchase drugs at a much lower price than Americans can buy them. He has fought against corruption in the government contracting process, saving taxpayers billions of dollars.
While it may be true that earmarks, in and of themselves, are a pittance in the grand scheme of the federal budget, McCain has fought in many other areas to defend the American taxpayer against government abuses, and his battle against earmarks is a very good start toward making a statement against the culture of spending in todays Congress of profligates.
But, by all means. Sit around and wallow in your hopelessness. The world will move on without you and your simpering bitterness.
Yeah we can trust McCain on taxes
When he talks about how Oil Companies should "Share" their profits
Buckley's contribution to McCain
was discussed by John Miller in a live chat covered by the Washington Post. I would imagine that more than anything, he appreciated McCain having the guts to stand up to the complete do-nothing strategy implemented by Bush and Rumsfeld in Iraq. From "War on the cheap" to "War for the politically correct", Iraq was becoming the most stunningly preposterous failure since McNamara, Johnson and Westmoreland failed to prosecute the Vietnam war for the purpose of winning.
I bought a copy of Buckley's "Lexicon" this week. He really was (still is) the greatest.
McCain's Style
I think any conservative that sits out this election because they feel McCain is insufficiently conservative is simply a fool. I do, however, understand conservative's frustration with the man.
McCain really seemed to enjoy being a thorn in Bush's side, and much of this was because McCain was a sore loser in 2000. In addition to his petty sniping at Bush, his opposition to Bush's tax cuts because they "favored the rich", his flirtations with leaving the Republican Party and being on Kerry's ticket, and finally, spearheading amnesty legislation are just a smattering of McCain's frustrating style.
My vote in 2008 is a vote against Obama, not a vote for McCain. I don't think being a POW in Vietnam means you get a pass on every single issue any more than I think John Kerry's 3 Purple Hearts give him a pass. I'm a pragmatist, however, and I understand you're not going to get a perfect candidate to vote for.
What McCain will do for us is achieve victory in Iraq, nominate better judges, not raise taxes, cut spending, veto schemes such as socialized medicine, etc. All of these are vital goals for the conservative movement. If he only achieves those things, he's worth supporting, but Conservatives need to know when to stand up and say no to McCain, such as his ridiculous ideas on global warming, environmental legislation, and amnesty.
Mhmm
One of the Largest tax increases due to gorebal warming
now supporting "Sharing" of oil company profits
"Regulating" Ceo pay
yeah clearly thats a foolish idea not voting for him
Not true.
People keep insisting that McCain will cut spending, even while acknowledging that his actual policy goals will involve a huge expansion in spending. I don't understand the disconnect here. Do you not understand that his plans will involve massive new costs for the American taxpayer? They may not be a direct tax increase, but a back door tax increase is even more annoying.
And McCain will have nothing to do with Iraq. The key variables there are (1) the pace at which things are improving (2) the length of time the Iraqis are willing to accept us being there and (3) the attitude of the increased Democratic majority next year.
(1) According to many experts the war will be won by the end of the year. See Micheal Yon's reports.
(2) The Iraqis are already showing their reluctance to grant us the degree of freedom we wish. For instance, they are sayng that they will not allow their country to be used to attack Iran.
(3) Even if the war is ongoing next year and we secure the full compliance of the Iraqis, the Democrats will be in a position to end the war via their control of Congress.
It's generally accepted that Bush has damaged the Republican brand by being too much like a Democrat. If that's true then McCain will only be worse, because he makes Bush seem like a rabid right winger.
What To Do?
When I say McCain will cut spending and achieve victory in Iraq, I'm comparing him to the obvious alternative, Obama.
McCain voted against the largest expansion of Medicare in 30 years, the $300 billion farm bill, and has been a solid opponent of pork barrel spending, and is against socialized medicine (which would dwarf everything in terms of spending) Is he perfect? No, but that's a good start.
I can say with complete confidence that McCain will be much more fiscally responsible in terms of spending than Bush, and lightyears better than Obama.
In terms of Iraq, Obama could still absolutely bungle our gains and leave in a humiliating retreat. Obama will also be a dove in how he prosecutes the War on Terror. McCain is solid on both these issues.
I don't believe in sitting out elections. I think you fight like hell to get your preferred candidate in a primary, but once the dust settles, you support the general election candidate that you feel would be the better leader. Some conservative's are hoping the country will suddenly become conservative if Obama wins because of the backlash, that's a huge gamble, and remember we're still paying the price for LBJ's victory in 1964 over Barry Goldwater. Most of LBJ's "War On Poverty" government programs are still intact. Obama could do a lot of damage with a lopsided Democrat Congress, even if he only lasts one term.
If you can't see that McCain Presidency would be better for America than an extreme leftist like Barack Obama, than we must live on two different planets.
"I don't believe in sitting out elections."
Nor do I. But I also don't believe in voting for liberals in the hope that somehow it will lead to conservatism.
Some conservative's are hoping the country will suddenly become conservative if Obama wins because of the backlash
That seems at least as plausible as the hope of some other conservatives that electing a Republican who is to the left of Bill Clinton is a good idea. The fact is that we're already seeing a backlash against liberal ideas in America.
The problem is that the party which delivered those liberal ideas was the Republican Party, and the backlash is against them. I'm unpersuaded that the solution to that problem is to elect an even more liberal Republican. The most likely outcome of such an action is that by 2013 the Democrats will have super-majorities in Congress along with the White House, and the Republican Party will have gone the way of the Whigs.
Obama will also be a dove in how he prosecutes the War on Terror. McCain is solid on both these issues.
You must be thinking of some other John McCain. The one running for president wants to close Gitmo and grant America civil rights to foreign terrorists captured abroad. He is not solid on this issue.
Most of LBJ's "War On Poverty" government programs are still intact.
McCain wants to enact the modern equivalent of LBJ's Great Society, as I've already pointed out in this thread.
In Fact
Jimmy Carter was so Terrible people welcomed Reagan
Precisely,...
...which is why an Obama victory will not necessarily be a death warrant for the Republican Party. Indeed, it will be the start of a new, reformed Republican Party that, hopefully, will restructured itself in to actually empowering the people once again.
ex animo
davidfarrar
McCain Is Worth Supporting
The perfect is the enemy of the good. We just don't see eye to eye on this.
I have the same problems with McCain you do, but I'm not going to save my vote for just the once-in-a lifetime candidates like Ronald Reagan and let the Democrats run the country into the ground until the next Reagan comes along. I'm more realistic and less idealistic. All candidates have issues I disagree with them on, including every Republican running for the nomination this year, but sometimes you have to work with you have. McCain is about normal for a Republican nominee, more conservative on most issues than Nixon, Gerald Ford, Bob Dole, and Bush Sr., and less conservative than Reagan.
It won't be very difficult for me to pull the lever for McCain.
No.
But you'll have no problem supporting Republicans who will run the country into the ground.
I'm more realistic and less idealistic.
You're not, really. Those who put power ahead of principle end up not only without principles, but without power.
Say what you like about the Democrats, but their hunger for power would never extend to running Zell Miller for President.
yeah but
McCain is everything wrong we had to swallow with the current President Bush
and worse
Yes...
...by Jove, I think you've got it. McCain is worse than Bush. And we got Bush and now McCain by doing what we were told to do....hold our noses and vote for them.
NO MAS. No mas. no mas.
ex animo
davidfarrar
I voted Against Kerry in 2004
I didn't vote for Bush. But at least Bush in 2004 campaigned on some things which excited me
Can you explain why?
I can say with complete confidence that McCain will be much more fiscally responsible in terms of spending than Bush
This is based on nothing. McCains record indicates that he will be at least as much a big government guy as Bush, and most likely will make Bush seem frugal. The particular things he supports and opposes may be different, but the price tag on McCains ideas exceeds those on Bushs.
McCain voted against the largest expansion of Medicare in 30 years, the $300 billion farm bill, ...
He voted against the Medicare bill. He did not vote on the farm bill, although both Obama and Clinton took time off campaigning to vote for it.
But forget the piddly little $300 billion farm bill and consider this.
Implementing S. 2191 will be very costly, even given the most generous assumptions. To put a firm floor under the cost estimates, we assume that all of the problems of meeting currently enacted federal, state, and local legislation are overcome. A further unlikely condition is added; namely, that a critical but unproven technology--carbon capture and sequestration--will be ready for full-scale commercial use in just 10 years.[1] Making a more reasonable assumption about just this one technology leads to dramatically higher (but by no means worst-case) costs.[2] We use these two cases to bracket our cost projections of S. 2191:
Best Of Luck
I hope someday you guys find a Republican Presidential candidate that meets your high standards. Maybe in 8 years the Republicans will nominate someone you can hold your nose and vote for.
I am sorry
You consider being an actual Republican an High Standard
Why Are You Here?
I think from your numerous posts it's obvious you're not going to vote for McCain, and any one that does has no principles and is a whore.
Most intelligent conservatives, including William F. Buckley, the founder of the modern conservative movement, obviously felt McCain was worth supporting. I take WFB's opinion on the matter a lot more seriously than I do yours.
Go take your all-important vote and give it to Bob Barr, or leave your ballot blank. Most people here are mature enough to understand that McCain would be far better for the country than Barack Obama. You seem to think some imaginary candidate would be better.
Conservatives understand McCain is flawed and is liberal on some issues, but he is also conservative on judges, taxes, spending, abortion, and national security. Most conservatives feel he is worth supporting over the alternative.
Maybe you need to start a new party where only "real" conservatives like yourself can join.
You go try to win with that attitude...good luck with that
And Follow John McCain as he tries to get liberals, Democrats, and Hispanics to vote for him while he continue to alienate large swatchs of the Republican party
an idea like that would never fail.
John McCain if elected will massively expand government with his global warming nonsense. Thats a fact
John McCain is talking about meddling with CEO salaries. Bill Clinton did the same thing and thats why the compensation is so out of control. And why most of the compensation now is nigh untaxable.
John McCain is talking about how oil companies need to "Share their profits"
John McCain doesn't have a plan on energy other then the same failed plan the democrats have "massively reduce consumption" I.E Cripple the pocketbooks of ordinary Americans
John McCain won't stand up for Reforming Social Security (He never gave it the same attention he's given global warming, steroids in baseball, or restricting free speech)
John McCain won't lead enough republican voters to the polls to elect senators and congressmen to project a veto proof majority on nationalized health care.
His tax plan is so incoherent i'd rather have Huckabee up... because at least you can sell his plan.
So because Obama will cripple us WORSE I should ignore the fact McCain is going to cripple us as well
PASS
I am here to say whats wrong with the Republican party and much of the Conservative movement is we stopped being Conservative
What large swatches?
The large swatches who couldn't bear voting for Republicans that control of the House and Senate went to our ideological opponents in 2006...
Yep, I'd trust them to get me elected in 2008, when they've already stomped their feet saying you're not conservative enough, when he's never billed himself as a conservative.
You're position is, vote for bad, really bad, or not at all/protest vote.
If you're happy leaving the country in the hands of Obama, and the Democrats, go right ahead.
I'd rather have a centrist Republican then a leftist in that position of power.
You're Doing A Wonderful Job
So you're here to convince other conservatives not to vote for John McCain because he's not conservative enough for you.
Good luck with your cause.
I think my "attitude" of unity will win over a lot more people than your cause will.
You're like one of these voters who supported Nader over Gore in 2000 because Gore wasn't liberal enough. They ended up handing the election over to Bush.
I love idiot liberals like that, and I'm sure liberals love "purists" like yourself.
No I'm not hear to convince you
I am here to keep you intellectually honest. And to make it clear when you lead us down the pit we know how to rebuild. Gore ran away from his own politics and deserved what Nader gave him. Clinton and Bush the elder were so bad on economic policy they deserved what votes Perot took from them.
And during both of those races the Democrats retooled based on the 3rd party impact. And in 1994 so did the republicans.
Maybe instead of flipping off people who critique McCain you should listen and try to win them over.
I don't want to win you over
There's always going to be people like you that have unrealistic expectations of a candidate, and it's foolish to try and get your "blessing".
Frankly, I don't want people in the conservative movement who threaten to take their ball and go home if a candidate isn't a perfect mirror image of their ideology. I want pragmatic conservatives that understand you have to put together winning coalitions in order to enact policy.
Reagan had a great quote that went something like "My 80 percent ally is not my 20 percent enemy." I think conservatives would do well to heed that advice.
Thats fine and dandy there
But here is the problem. How did FDR win the African American community from Republicans?
Republicans did nothing for them. FDR didn't either but he Pretended to listen.
How did Reagan win over Socially Conservative Democrats? he talked about and fought for their issues.
How did Clinton get enough of them back: He talked about and Fought for their issues
John McCain isn't talking about my issues, and when he is he isn't fighting for them effectively. And thats not going to win. His only luck is for Obama to flubb the race... and we saw how well that worked for John Kerry
btw: Two Presidential Cycles ago I wasn't conservative I was Libertarian. I'm not Libertarian now but I know what its like to vote for a guy who is running the party into the ground
You are welcome to your opinion.
But I have followed your advise ever since Reagen, and look where it has gotten us. Look back at the record. A Democrat has won the presidency only when a Republican failed to follow through on their conservative agendas.
Voting for a Rockefeller-Republican, a Rational-Republican, a Progressive-Republican, a neo-Republican only inculcates false liberal beliefs in the voting public and forestalls the instillation of real conservatism in the general polis.
ex amimo
davidfarrar
And when we settle and the guy wins
Nixon made a host of Unconstitutional government agencies and implimented Price controls
George Herbert Walker Bush tanked the economy by raising taxes
No, most people are not mature voters.
That's precisely what the political elite is banking on....you people will vote for anyone as long as you believe it was better than voting for the Democrat. And, heck, any campaign worth half its salt can can demonize the other guy to that degree. So it's easy to get you poor, dumb bastards to vote for anybody the political elite and special interests want in office.
Well, I, for one, will no longer vote for anyone I have to hold my nose for. I am no longer voting for anyone who can't pass the smell test. To do so is admitting that this country and its people are not strong enough to learn from their mistakes and must accept mediocrity. I don't for a second believe that.
I believe a democracy can at times make the wrong decision. And in order to show the people the right decision, to lead, we must not compromise our sacred responsible to vote according to our values, even if that means temporarily seeding power to the opposition. It will in fact, only be a learning opportunity for the people, well worth the sacrifice when the people see for themselves the mistake they have made and the right path to follow. But this will never occur, can never occur, if we, as conservatives, hold our noses and simply vote for the guy given to us by an equally flawed primary system.
ex animo
davidfarrar
I ain't holding my nose...
...and voting for anybody ever again. That's precisely the kind of thinking that got us in this position in the first place. All I can say to that is, NO MAS. NO MAS.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Then who are you going to elect
Then who are you going to elect ever again...
In order to get legislation passed, you have to elect people.
You either reform the people you have, get new people, or start a new party (or join another existing one.)
Come on Keith,
I am busting my ass here writing this stuff. At lease read what I have written on the subject before you ask the same question over and over again.
SUPPORT YOU CONSERVATIVE CONGRESSIONAL, STATE AND LOCAL CANDIDATES. But if you have to hold your nose...don't voter for that candidate. It will actually turn out to be a disservice to your country in the longer view, the mature view.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Sorry...
Jumping off a cliff in the short term doesn't sound like a good long term strategy.
I've seen what TRUE CONSERVATIVES did in the last election, and it's results.
If McCain's government is going to be 2X the current size, Obama's is going to be 5X
The "TRUE CONSERVATIVE" didn't win the primaries, which ever one that was. Heck, locally, Burton still got re-elected, although it was a pleasure to vote against him.
But, I'll still support the Republicans because the Democrats for these positions are far less conservative and far more liberal.
That's the game as it stands right now.
Indeed, Keith. . .
. . .do as Diamond Dave suggests here and cast yourself into political impotence so that you can enjoy spending your days lamenting the passing of a bygone era, when Pat Buchanan's woldview actually mattered. Enjoy the process of recreating the Reform Party, yet again, in the false hope of teaching the bastards a lesson. It sure worked out well for ol' Paddy, didn't it? He gets to spend his days at home, now, writing revisionist history books about World War II and lecturing us on what a mistake it was to engage in the European theater.
Yes, Keith. Do just as Dave tells you. You might even get a seat beside former Senator Bob Smith at the local IHOP, where you can discuss his wonderful days as the Constitution Party's leading intellectual light -- just before he came crawling back, looking for Republican support.
By all means, send a message through non-participation. Everyone will look up to you and admire you for your purity.
mmmm... pancakes...
mmmm... pancakes...
Most of the "conservatives" I know are much more pragmatic then some of the ones I've read on this thread. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater, just doesn't sound very conservative to me.
How many people support the Republican Study Comittee??
How many people even know about them?
If Conservatives are such major players in the Republican party, why wasn't a more conservative nominee elected?
And what sort of "conservative" do conservatives want? Take your pick:
Or how about the fact that, being more of a libertarian republican, none of those brands really appeal to me 100%. Each has it's pluses and minuses in my view.
How about a fiscal conservative?
And yes, let's change our primary rules to only allow "registered" Republicans to vote in Republican primaries would be a good place to start.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Anyone can register as a republican
Heck in the 2004 Democratic Presidential Primary I was a registered as a Democrat and as a Republican in 2004 Republican primary for all the rest
That's fine. I am not hard to please...am I?
But let's at least have "only" registered Republicans vote in Republican primaries. In some primaries, no party affiliation is required. That's insane.
This is done, by the way, by our own Republican Party leadership, who believe winning is everything in politics, which of course enlightened conservatives know is not true. This is just one more example of why the party needs to be reformed.
I would also suggest voting online be allowed for primaries, if not the election itself.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Excuse me. . .
. . .but, isn't primary participation determined by state legistlatures, and not the individual party rules?
Yes and No
*IF* say the Republican party wanted a Primary system that was republicans only and a state said well anyone could get a ballot they could find ways to exclude non republicans if they choose to do so by holding a caucus or a convention to decide how the delegates are awarded
Did we not just determine. . .
. . .that caucuses and state conventions are terrible because they preserve power for the dread "elite"? Look what just happened in Virginia. . ."my friend".
I don't entirely agree
but not my point. If State X said "Open Primaries" the party has tools where they could get around it if they choose to do so.
I think a caucus can have -some- merit. But I prefer the primary model
The party rules.
These are private political organizations. The State may, indeed, have laws affecting primaries, but they are usually limited to insure votes are fairly counted and so forth.
ex animo
davidfarrar
If a Party chooses to have a primary under the laws of the state
then they must obey them. if they get weird they are free to go nuts
Yes, of course...
...they have to follow their constitution and by-laws, but they are free to amend them in a fair and consistent manner.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Brilliant strategy. . .
. . .there. A state legislature determines that independents, or any voter at all, can vote in any party's primary, but the GOP chooses to wall off its process while the Democrats maintain open participation. So, what you will have in effect done is limit the democratic process to a few "elites" and party activists for the GOP while the Democrats take all comers and get a much better representation of the general election involved in theirs -- liberal Democrats, conservative Democrats, liberal independents, down-the-middle independents and conservative independents. Sounds like electoral slaughter to me.
And that doesn't even touch on the states that have non-partisan primaries and don't bother to track party affiliation through their Secretary of State's office.