GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
I’m a conservative, so I don’t hang out thart much on more moderate blogs like GOP Progress or even on some of the pro-Rudy warblogger sites like Roger L. Simon. So, it looks like I missed an interesting reparte on what Joe Lieberman killing Ned Lamont means for 2008 and the GOP.
A day or so back, someone made the not-too-remarkable argument that McCain is like Lieberman. It’s true, in that he can’t get past the primary, but this seems to indicate that his general election campaign (if he gets that far, which he won’t) would be like Lieberman’s.
Now, in true First Responder fashion, Reliapundit and others make the case that Lieberman cruising to re-election is good news for Rudy. It shows that Republicans will gladly support a “liberal” hawk:
I think the fact that both candidates appeal to so-called centrists/independents who pick-and-choose from among each party’s platform is trivial. WHY!? Well, Lieberman’s margin over Lamont doesn’t portend a McCain victory, but a RUDY VICTORY: It shows that a liberal hawk is a very appealing candidate for parts of the GOP and the DNC and the “moderate” independents.
McCain is not a liberal hawk - he is pro-Life and pro-tax cuts. Sure, he is anti-gun and for campaign finance reform (which hinders free speech), but he is really rather conservative - too conservative for many MANY Lieberman-type voters.
Rudy, though, is truly a liberal hawk: he is anti-gun; pro-gay marriage; pro-abortion; and virtually pro-illegal immigation. Lieberman shows that this Rudy-esque combination is truly very appealing.
I don’t necessarily buy the McCain-Rudy comparison, and I don’t think you can argue with the fact that McCain is more liberal on balance than Giuliani — especially on economic policy and the war.
The nub of this argument comes not from the similarities between Lieberman and Rudy, but from the fact that Lieberman is a much more extreme example of the Rudy phenomenon at work.
Lieberman is a Democrat who actively identifies with liberal causes. Not only do Republicans enthusiastically support him, but you never hear a peep from social conservatives as to how Republicans could actively back a pro-choice liberal candidate.
It’s because the war just overwhelms everything.
And not just supporting the war, but supporting it with attitude. Lieberman’s outspoken support for the war is music to conservative ears in the same way that Rudy’s determined get-the-terrorists attitude is. Right now, that swamps any social conservative qualms — because being pro-war isn’t just another interest group — it represents the #1 priority of voters in every part of the Republican Party, including Evangelicals.
I know, I know. Apples to oranges. Primary versus general election. But think of this: If Lieberman were running in a Republican primary against Alan Schlesinger and a strong McCain-type Republican, say Chris Shays or Nancy Johnson, who would win?
If you said Joe, there’s a pretty good chance you’re right, despite the fact that even Shays or Johnson would be 40 or 50 ACU points to the right.
Why? Because Republican (and Democrats too) like tasting the forbidden fruit from time to time – hailing the guy who really, really gets them going on their #1 issue — even if he might not normally make sense to them in other areas.
Lieberman wins because he tosses red meat to the Republican base on its #1 issue, and so does Rudy. McCain is just not a red-meat kind of guy, and so he loses on intangibles.
October 10th, 2006 at 10:03 pm
I’ve been flirting with this idea for awhile, and I’ll do a post on it one of these days, but it’s entirely possible that all of the pundits have been wrong, wrong, wrong about the manner in which this country is aligned politically post-9/11, and that cultural issues are actually incidental to the whole equation, not central to it the way many believed in the wake of 2004. There’s a good deal of evidence for this, which I’ll get into another time, but if what we’re really dealing with is at its core a war-alignment, with a political spectrum based on being tough on the bad guys, that would explain why:
1) Lieberman is now considered more conservative than McCain, despite the former being a social liberal and the latter, a social conservative.
2) Our man Rudy is the first choice of conservatives and Republicans in nearly every poll, even though most conservatives don’t yet know of his promise to appoint conservative judges, etc.
3) The president is well, well to the right of McCain despite the latter being at least nominally more conservative on spending, deficits, etc.
4) Lieberman being the “conservative” in the race against pro-business, arch-pacifist Lamont.
5) Republicans doing better in urban and suburban areas this year, while doing worse in rural areas (i.e., the post-2004 alignment may not be the rural/urban split it appeared to be).
To sum it all up in a quote from Ann Coulter, O’Reilly recently asked Ann if she’d ever consider voting for a Democrat. Her response, and I paraphrase: “If Zell Miller was running against John McCain.” Does anyone know Zell Miller’s views on abortion or gay marriage? I suspect they don’t, and I further suspect that Ann, and those like her, don’t really care.
October 10th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
Anyone who considers Senator Lieberman more conservative than Senator McCain is clueless about politics. The only issue that Senator Lieberman is remotely conservative on is the war in Iraq. If you look at his voting record in the United States Senate it is extremely liberal. Lieberman is a liberal running against an ultra-liberal in Lamont.
Look at the voitng record of Zell Miller in the United States Senate - it was rather conservative. And only family history prevented Miller from re-registering as a Republican. Miller was a converted Republican who had not formally converted. I think Ann Coulter got that part correct.
October 11th, 2006 at 7:01 am
Rudyblogger: Your analysis is absolutely fascinating! I believe that some version of this analysis more-or-less MUST lie at the bottom of Rudy’s “rock star” reception by, and poll standing among, groups that the “Conventional Wisdom” and the MSM continue to insist simply will not vote for Rudy in a Republican primary.
DaveG: Your take is, if anything, even more fascinating. I look forward eagerly to your own posting on this subject.
In fact, both postings sound very much like what I have described in this space and elsewhere (http://lutherhardy.blogspot.com/) as a nascent “bargain” between Rudy and Republican social conservatives. In essence, they are willing to tolerate his social views because they want/need his leadership in the GWOT and Homeland Security! Moreover, the social positions aren’t nearly as outré as they have been made out to be, which leads me to the following:
Now, mes confrères, I must “pick-a-bone” on Rudy’s behalf! I was chagrined, yet again, by the repitition, from Reliapundit, of the incorrect notion that Rudy is “pro-gay marriage; pro-abortion”. In fact, only the most stereotypical, unthinking, un-informed, “paleo-conservative” could fairly view Rudy in this way. Indeed, the continued repitition of (at best) half-truths like this is precisely what keeps the “Conventional Wisdom” about Rudy alive, while he leads virtually every poll in sight, and is received like a rock star in South Carolina, Georgia, Arkansas, etc., etc., etc.
With respect to gay marriage, Rudy has stated flatly that he is opposed to it. He believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman. At the same time, he says that he would not be opposed to some form of civil unions.
With respect to abortion, please allow me to reproduce below a portion of a response that I made to an earlier posting:
“Finally, I remain disappointed that even some in our own Party continue to misrepesent Rudy’s position on abortion. Without taking the time to research the issue this morning, and cite chapter and verse: My memory is that Rudy has always said, in effect, and I paraphrase:
“‘As a Catholic, and as a man, I am opposed to abortion. Moreover, I have actively supported adoption programs, as an admittedly ‘poor-substitute’ alternative. The only ‘real alternative’ is a loving and comitted marriage. Of course, if I had a daughter ‘in trouble’, I would not simply abandon her if she chose to have an abortion, though I would counsel against it. That said, I do not think the federal goivernment should be in the business of banning abortion. Still, I do not actively support overturning Roe v. Wade, though I think it to have been wrongly decided as a matter of Constitutional law. I firmly believe that this issue should be controlled exclusively by state legislatures. Moreover, I have said many times that, as President, I intend to appoint judges and justices who will strictly interpret the Constitution. That means of course that, somewhere down the road, Roe v. Wade might indeed be overturned, as a natural result of a judicial process supervised by strict constructionist judges. That’s me. That’s always been my position, and I’m not going to change it now in order to pander for anyone’s vote.’â€?
Anyone is, of course, free to comment upon these positions in any way he sees fit, but we should insist at least that the positions themselves be stated corectly!
PS: I intend to reporduce this posting, along with the resposes thereto, on “Run Rudy Run” (http://lutherhardy.blogspot.com/).
October 11th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
Rudyblogger,
Lieberman is a Democrat who actively identifies with liberal causes. Not only do Republicans enthusiastically support him, but you never hear a peep from social conservatives as to how Republicans could actively back a pro-choice liberal candidate…It’s because the war just overwhelms everything.
Such a conclusion would be great for Rudy, if that were the case. May I suggest that your reasoning is being driven by the desired outcome? Conventional understanding of CT is that republicans nationally and locally recognize Schlesinger (the republican) to be a total loser.
Republicans are being driven to Lieberman by the very rational and pragmatic recognition that it’s better to have a somewhat liberal Senator than an ultra-liberal Senator. A vote for Schlesinger is a vote for Lamont, plain and simple.
October 11th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
So in the course of a single thread, there are claims that Rudy is “inarguably” more conservative than McCain (!) and that Joe Lieberman (!!!!) is more conservative than McCain. Frankly, I’m speechless. I respect most of the analysis that goes on at this site and agree with it a lot of the time, but this is insane. Certainly this defies any conventional understanding of politics. Suddenly being strong on the GWOT is the only qualification for being a conservative it seems. I wonder if this makes Joe Scarborough or Steven Bainbridge liberals because they turned against the Iraq War?
The anti-McCain hate on this site has reached extraordinary levels and it is starting to seriously harm the quality of the posting here.
October 11th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
Well, if it means anything to you LJ, I personally do not consider Sen. McCain to be a liberal… and I certainly do not consider Joe Lieberman to be more conservative than him.
However, I do feel that Sen. McCain is simply not a very good Republican much of the time. That is the distinction I would draw.
Sen. McCain is ranked as the co-frontrunner by R4′08 at this time.Â
October 11th, 2006 at 10:13 pm
[...] Last night I set off quite the firestorm via a suggestion on one of RudyBlogger’s posts regarding the relative positions on the political spectrum of Joe Lieberman and John McCain. My comment, which I probably should’ve clarified more effectively, was in response to what was in my view a correct assertion by RudyBlogger that in a race involving Lieberman and a McCain-style Republican — say, Rep. Nancy Johnson — Lieberman would win the most Republican votes despite being far less conservative by any quantitative measure of political positions or voting records. The result was a hearty debate in the comments section, most of which questioned how anyone could call Joe-mentum the better conservative in such a contest (but, incidentally, none of which argued RB was wrong about his prediction of a Lieberman victory in that sort of race). As such, allow me to attempt to clear away the confusion, or perhaps create more of it, by describing the manner in which I see American politics currently aligning. [...]
November 20th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
Pakistan
Read more about Pakistan