The Candidates
Featured Archives
?????? The War in Iraq is destroying the remnants of an already decimated Republican Party in the wake of the 2006 mid-term elections. President George W. Bush is worried about personal and family legacies rather than the futures of the country and political party he was entrusted to lead, which is just another reminder to voters of all political stripes why it is such a bad idea to elect famous family candidates – they bring to office unfinished agendas, previous feuds, and a sense of entitlement that?put self?first?and leave them?hardened against?considering?multiple or creative points of view. The upcoming election cycle in the United States Senate is extremely precarious for Republicans?and there is sparse momentum or strength of leadership in either congressional branch on the GOP side. And the Republican presidential field to this point is devoid of a strong candidate around whom the nation can rally – each of the GOP front runners is highly flawed, if not down right suspicious.
In contrast to my colleagues here, I think the Republican Party is whistling past the voting booth. At least at this moment. Without significant changes or the emergence of something bordering on the spectacular on the conservative side of things, Democrats are poised to build on their 2006 gains, completely control federal government after the 2008 election cycle, and return the country to the 1960s and 1970s when it was literally unpopular to be a Republican and the GOP was a distinct minority party in terms of affiliation levels. The Republican Party has mismanaged, taken for granted, and thrown away?the hard-earned victories and legacy?initiated Ronald Reagan by losing sight of principle and becoming addicted to power. And part of the reason for that is Republicans have failed to cast a critical eye on those who they have elected and why they have elected them.
My contributions to this site in the short-term will be focused on applying that critical eye, looking at each level that matters in 2008 – the outgoing administration, congressional Republicans, and Republican candidates for president – and challenging whether they deserve our support in the future in order to get the Republican Party back on track. It won’t be for the faint of heart or for the cheerleaders if you are a Republican, but maybe it will be about time. Again, I think we have been too easy on these purported Republican leaders, who in turn have monumentally let our country and party down. It is time to hold their feet to the fire and surface a stronger contingent of replacements.
?
January 18th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
O come on. According to you and your unrealistically hard line standards, then Regan could not even find your support. Just like in the 70’s things looked bleak, but with the diligent hard work of the conservatives Regan won the election and we enjoyed a true conservative president. Today we have a man of similar caliber in Mitt Romney. On paper he is not very conservative looking, but neither was Regan. Regan was a former democrat, Romney is a former independent. Regan signed one of the largest tax increases in Californian history, Romney support abortion. But we saw a glimpse of President Regan when he fought against the left in the college riots in California, Romney has fought the left in the court and he has done a good job considering what he was up against. We have the best candidate we could ask for. In fact Gingrich has said he would support a Romney campaign. Romney has the ideas and the courage to fight as a true conservative, just like Ronald Regan.
January 18th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Is It Time For A More Critical Though Pessimistic Appraisal?
Good grief, yes. There is always time for critical appraisals. Someone has to be there crying out that the emperor has no clothes. It is called being the devil’s advocate.
Whether you chose to be pessimistic about it is your own choice.
January 18th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
I partially agree with your analysis of the situation Republisu. Which makes it all the more frustrating, because we have, in the Republican Party now, perhaps 4 of the strongest candidates in years. In any normal year, Giuliani, McCain, Romney, and Huckabee absolutely demolish any of the Democrats Big Three. They’re much closer to the American center. But McCain and Giuliani are probably seeing their last realistic shots, and its difficult to imagine Romney’s one term as governor (and he’ll never manage to win office in Massachusetts again) being acceptable after a 6-year hiatus from politics.
January 18th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Regan had time out of office before becoming the President.
January 18th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Republius,
I appreciate your analysis. However, I think you are a bit off track. Granted, the war in
in Iraq, unless it drastically improves in the next 9-12 months, will be a dead weight around
the necks of all GOP primary candidates. But you also have to remember that the American people
are going to expect real answers from democrats too. When pressed, do they really have feasible
solutions past “Strategic Redeployment”. What does that really mean? Where will dems redeploy
them to? For how long? Under what circumstances will they re-enter Iraq and with what force?
These are all questions that the American people will demand answers to and for the past 4 years
democrats have only offered objections and rhetoric that oppose the Bush Administration.
On the domestic front, GOP candidates are, for once, paying more attention to issues that the
American people really care about, i.e. Health Care and the Environment. For far too long they
have been “Democratic” issues.
I also believe that you give the democrats FAR too much credit. Its indisputable that the GOP
lost the 2006 midterms, democrats did not “win” them. Will the American people agree with Madam
Speaker Pelosi’s first “100 Hours” agenda, sure they will. For the most part, they are pragmatic
and to the point. But the real question is, what plan do the democrats have after the first 100
hours? What will Congress be like in a year, a year and a half? I imagine the outlook for the
GOP will be a bit brighter than you expect.
Lastly, can anyone explain to me why Ronald Reagan is treated like Jesus Christ, not only on
this site, but on talk radio? Was he a great president? Absolutely. But at the same time, its
not like the man was a saint or without fault. Come on people.
January 18th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Well, I both agree and disagree; and I really wouldn’t classify myself as any more optimistic than you are.
I believe that the GOP can win back the 7-9 seats or so in the House that we lost solely due to scandal, and I think we can potentially make a gain or two in the Senate with the right recruiting. But you are right that if there isn’t a significant rebranding of the GOP ASAP (which will involve a whole lot of “throwing the bastards out”), the GOP is likely suffer longterm losses in party ID.
Whole books can (and I sure will) be written regarding the reasons for this, Let me try to be succinct.
1. The GOP has lost its 40 year dominance on foreign policy due to Iraq.
This of course is the biggest factor. The bungled handling of the Iraq (or perhaps the bungled communication with the American people over the handling of Iraq) is one of the worst (if not the worst) mistakes made by any Republican in history. And I say “Republican” in the singular because the fault lays solely at the feet of George W. Bush.
Foreign policy has been the trump card of the GOP since the 1960’s. Voters who perhaps preferred a meddling and expansive federal government on the domestic side would look towards the GOP as the one party who actually cared about protecting us from foreign threats. This advantage is gone for the near future.
2. Due to ear marks, budget deficits, and “Bridges to Nowhere”, the GOP is no longer viewed as the party of fiscal sanity.
That anyone can deny that the passage of legislation such as (Medicare Part D), which could have come out of the freakin’ Johnson Administration, would have this effect is beyond me.
3. Immigration
The Dems finally found their wedge issue. Immigration, more than anything else, has the potential to tear the GOP apart.
4. The GOP’s insistence On fighting the culture war at the federal level.
The are huge swaths of libertarian-leaning conservative voters in the Southwest and Mountain West that have been part of the GOP coalition for decades now. These voters care very much about national defense and and fiscal responsiblity. However, they are extremely suspcious government intrusion into areas they view as matter of personal choice like Gay Marriage, and many are extremely hostile to any politician who invokes religion in any way.
How can a Gay Marriage Amendment fail in Arizona? Because Arizona is filled with exactly this kind of “Leave me alone” conservative. These are the voters that the Bill Frists of the the party drove away from the GOP in 2006. If we cannot get these voters back into the tent, the GOP is a permanent minority party.
As a Christian myself, I detest Gay Marriage. But the solution is not to keep pounding away at a pie-in-the-sky federal constitutional amendment that has zero chance of success and only serves to make many people believe that the GOP is focusing on an issue that is of relatively little importance in the grand scheme of things; or at worst trying to foist our religious beliefs down their throats.
So what’s my solution? Well…
1. Conservatives need to take the party back via the primary process and throw the Ted Stevens of the party out on their ass. The future of the GOP needs to rest with people like Mike Pence.
2. Only support candidates that swear allegiance to fiscal conservatism and throw any defectors under the bus.
3. Fight the Culture War at the state level. Let me ask you this question? Was there a single word about social issues in the Contract with America?
Ensuring that our Republican presidents nominate only strict constructionists will take care of things at the federal level.
Fighting the Culture War at the state level not only ensures that we will be successful in this fight, but will serve to build the respective state Republican parties, which will work to elect Republican dominated state legislatures and Republican Governors.
I mean for gosh sakes! Has everyone forgotten the blueprint that Newt designed that led to a Republican dominated country for darn near 20 years!
And while I’m at it…
#4 Give Newt Gingrich a lifetime appointment as Chairman of the RNC as well as near dictatorial power.
He is one of two Republican leaders who I believe can right this ship.
OK, I realize that this is already too long, so I will end here with some good news/bad news on national defense.
The good news is that the GOP is destined to get it’s decisive advantage in matters of nation defense back.
The bad news is this may not happen until an Islamofacist Super-State that stretches from Southeast Asia to the English Channel poses a mortal threat to the US in 20-30 years. American voters will then have no choice but to return to the only party that believes this country is worth fighting for.
January 18th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Latest Rasmussen poll: Rudy 48 Obama 39; McCain 47 Obama 39; Obama 48 Romney33; Obama 50 Huckabee 31. It all depends on who the Repubs run.
January 18th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
I would agree with most of what you say, Kavon. However, I reluctantly must part company on Gay Marriage at the Federal Level.
What happens if a gay couple gets married in Massachusetts and then moves to California, which specifically bans same sex marriage? What if they demand that California recognize their marriage? The “full faith” clause in the Constitution says that all states must recognize marriages performed in other states. Yes, Congress passed a law that allowed states to ignore same sex marriage, but the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. An act of Congress is not. How long do you think it would take a Supreme Court that loves to discover new rights to rule that California must recognize the marriage contract made in Massachusetts?
What is your solution to that if not a Constitutional Ammendment?
No, I do not wish to see the Constitution cluttered with cultural war ammendments, but quite frankly I see no other solution in this case. Do you?
January 18th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
“I see no other solution in this case. Do you?”
Strict Constructionist judges are the answer.
January 18th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
I haven’t even begun to look at the 2008 House topography, but I agree that we are likely to lose Senate seats and as far as I know, the House outlook could be just as grim.
I both agree and disagree with the Republius/Kavon dose of pessimism. I agree to the extent that we’re probably seeing the end of the dream of a GOP center-right national majority. Just two years ago, credible conservative blogs were talking about the death of the Democratic Party and the ascent of a “permanent Republican majority.” That’s now been shown to be illusory.
That said, I don’t think that this means we’ll revert to a Democratic or a center-left majority. Even in 2006, with a thousand cuts killing the GOP across the country, Democrats were still able to only eke out a 38%-36% advantage in party ID. That’s only a two point swing from 2004. Even in a year that saw a national Democratic tide, the roughly one-third of voters who consider themselves Republicans still maintained their identity, and most still voted Republican. It was the independents who elected 232 GOP congresspersons in 2004, and 233 Dems in 2006.
So if there’s a realignment going on, I think it’s more of a dealignment, where party ID is fairly equal and neither party is able to craft a long-term majority and centrists and independents basically decide who wins elections, and can and do flip Congress at will. A tyranny of the center, if you will. Which, in reality, may not be so bad for the country.
That’s one of the reasons I’m not so worried about 2008 at the presidential level. I don’t think Americans will return to one-party gov’t so quickly, and already the old Dem guard on the Hill is making noises that will scare Americans. The Fairness Doctrine and Ted Kennedy’s plans to “do something about obesity” (yes, he said this) are the sorts of nanny-state initiatives that will turn off Americans just as quickly as the big gov’t GOP sent them packing. I don’t think Americans trust either party right now, and they’ll probably ensure that each party serves as a check on each other come 2008.
January 18th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
No good. The “Full Faith” clause is part and parcel of the original Constitution. Strict Constructionist judges would overturn any law declaring one state doesn’t have to honor marriages created in another state in a heart beat. They would overrule every state constitution that said so.
Next?
January 18th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
That’s not true at all. There are all sorts of cases where the courts have decided that the FF&C should not apply to this or to that.
Another idea would be to constitutionalize DOMA, and to basically amend the Constitution to ensure that the FF&C doesn’t apply to definition of marriage, allowing each state to do its own thing. Orrin Hatch actually proposed such an amendment in lieu of the FMA, but it didn’t get any traction.
January 18th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
California is in the 9th Circuit–the most liberal federal appeals court in the country Good luck findiung a strict constructionist judge there. When I handled federal appeals, we all knew the US Supreme Court had to reverse the 9th circuit all the time.
January 18th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
DaveG,
I would think that that would work. But we are back to a cultural war ammendment, which was my original point. I see no solution to this mess short of a Constitutional Ammendment.
January 18th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
I’d certainly prefer that option DaveG.
January 18th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
“No good. The ‘Full Faith’ clause is part and parcel of the original Constitution. Strict Constructionist judges would overturn any law declaring one state doesn’t have to honor marriages created in another state in a heart beat. They would overrule every state constitution that said so.
Next?”
I don’t think you understand what I’m saying, or perhaps we simply disagree.
A constructionist judge would no more allow a state supreme court to “discover” the right to gay marriage any more than he/she would find a constitutional right to abortion in the US Constitution.
Now if you are saying that such a judge could uphold a Gay Marriage law under the FF&C clause that was duly passed in a state legislature and signed into law by a Governor, then you are right.
However, if Gay Marriage is passed by a state legislature and signed into law, that would be consistent with how American democracy works. I would hate it. But I would have to accept it.
Our challenge is to win hearts and minds at the state level so this never, ever happens. If a Federal Marriage Amendment couldn’t pass in as US Congress consisting of 55 Republican Senators and a 30 seat Republican majority in the House, with a Republican President ready to sign it, it will never happen.
Time to get use to it, and get to work on a strategy that we can win with!
January 18th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
“…which is just another reminder to voters of all political stripes why it is such a bad idea to elect famous family candidates – they bring to office unfinished agendas, previous feuds, and a sense of entitlement that put self first and leave them hardened against considering multiple or creative points of view.”
-Hope the all political stripes mention here includes Hillary.
January 18th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Kavon,
If a state through its legislature and its governor passes a same-sex marriage act, then the “Full Faith” clause can easily be used by strict Constructionists on the Supreme Courth of the United States to force every state in the union to recognize that marriage.
Are you saying that the citizens of one state forcing all the rest of the states to accept their definition of marriage is how Amercian democracy works?
Again, I don’t see any other way out except by ammendment. You say you don’t like it. Fine, I don’t like it either. What would you suggest?
January 18th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
“If a state through its legislature and its governor passes a same-sex marriage act, then the “Full Faith†clause can easily be used by strict Constructionists on the Supreme Courth of the United States to force every state in the union to recognize that marriage.”
I understand the potential, but Dave is right about it’s interpretation in actuality. From Wiki:
“DOMA may be largely unnecessary, regardless of whether it is constitutional. The Supreme Court has long recognized a “public policy exception” to the Full Faith and Credit clause. If the legal pronouncements of one state conflict with the public policy of another state, federal courts in the past have been reluctant to force a state to enforce the pronouncements of another state in contravention of its own public policy. The public policy exception has been applied in cases of marriage such as polygamy, miscegenation or consanguinity.”
The bottom line is that DOMA is the law of the land, and that a Federal Marriage Amendment is a lost cause. My position is to focus on a strategy that has the potential for success.
January 18th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
“You say you don’t like it. Fine, I don’t like it either. What would you suggest?”
I’m not saying I personally dislike it. If Emperor Kavon could wave his hand and make it so I would. I’m saying it’s a lost cause, so let’s find something that will work.
January 18th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Well, I dislike the idea. We should not be cluttering the Constitution up with silly little ammendments for things that can be done some other way. Many states’ constitutions have fallen to this. It seems like every election has at least one new proposed ammendment to the state’s constitution. They put into the constitution that some city has to spend x% of its budget on water conservation. It reduces constitutional law to a game and dilutes respect for the document.
Yet if we want to protect all the rest of the states from the effects of one or more of them legalizing same-sex marriage, then an ammendment is the only way I can see. Sure we can say, “The Supreme Court would never overturn a state’s marriage laws to force them to recognize another’s social experiment”, but as long as the “Full Faith” clause is in the Constitution, it hangs like the Sword of Damocles ready to fall at the whim of five judges. The worst part about it is that they don’t even have to be activist judges. Strict Constructionists — the kind that most Republicans claim they want — could decide that the law was the law. It isn’t up to them to decide morality.
Is it a lost cause? Maybe. Maybe not. Bans on Single-sex Marriage have past in all but one state that have been put it to the voters. This included some of more liberal states like Oregon.
It is truly a Gordian Knot.
January 18th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
“The “full faith†clause in the Constitution says that all states must recognize marriages performed in other states. ”
No. The ffc clause says that the states have to recognize the “judgments” of other states. In other words, if I lose a suit in NH, a plaintiff can come collect from me in VA and garnish my wages here, put a lien on my house etc. It does not have to recognize my marriage license any more than it recognizes my driver’s license.
As to the subject of the post, look, in 2004 people were talking about Democrats heading for a Whig-like extinction, with plenty of evidence to back it up. It is far to early to pronounce Reps DOA in 2008.
Kavon — it isn’t just the districts where incumbents lost due to scandal where Dems are vulnerable. They have plenty of babe in the woods members who have never been in the public eye before, many of whom are going to make huge gaffes in Congress. Take a look at Steve Kagan in WI-08, who really shot himself in the foot the past couple days. The 15 seats REpublicans need is not outside the realm of possibility.
January 18th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Thanks Sean. You and Dave usually pull me back from the cliff
January 18th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
[...] I’ve been meaning to pen a piece on this subject for quite some time, and with today’s commentary on the future of the GOP by R4′08 colleague Republius, and by Editor Kavon in the comments of the same post, there’s no time like the present to articulate where I think the Republican Party is headed in 2008 and beyond. [...]
January 18th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Actually, it applies to all public acts, records, and judicial proceedings. But notice the last sentence. Congress can pass laws prescribing the effect thereof.
It would appear that the DOMA might be the answer. No ammendment is necessary.
GOOD!
January 18th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
marK,
I still think you’re the basic command. Getting married is not a public act, nor is it a record, nor is it a judicial proceeding. It isn’t, in other words, like a deed to a house, or a civil case. It is meant to give res judicata effect to judicial proceedings (and their analogues) in other states to prevent endless re-litigation of them, and to simplify debt collection. The more interesting question is whether gay divorce and the like (child support, alimony, etc) have to be recognized in other states.
January 18th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Sean, since when is a marriage, which has to be filed with the court system as a legal act and then dissolved by the court system to be undone, not a legal judgment that the Full Faith and Credit Clause (FFCC) would cover? Isn’t this why common law marriages that only occur in some states must be recognized by all the states? Though there is scant case law on the FFCC, which leaves it open to interpretation and prediction as to how the United States Supreme Court would come out on a given set of case facts, virtually every legal analysis concludes that, absent federal statute such as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the FFCC requires marriages performed in one state to be recognized by all the others (though some legal scholarship, which I agree with, contends that the DOMA is unconstitutional precisely because it attempts to create an exception to the plain FFCC language of the Constitution which can only be done through the amendment process).
As to my colleague Kavon’s enumeration of events that have crippled the Republican Party as of late, I would add in an important omission – a lack of leadership at the top. The War in Iraq is killing the GOP precisely because it is associated with the titular head of the party, in addition to being widely unpopular. The only way out of the morass for Republicans is to choose a leader, who functionally will be the presidential nominee in 2008, who can regain the confidence of the people, which will likely require articulating and proving fidelity to a principled, Reagan conservative agenda. That there has yet to emerge a bona fide Reagan conservative leader of the current Republican Party is what concerns me most.
January 18th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
There were no judicial proceedings when I got married, and I got a marriage license, not a marriage decree (as opposed to a divorce decree). This is because marriage is a contract. The license I get is nothing more than permission from the state to form the contract, like, say, a license to incorporate. The reason it gets more interesting when divorce is involved is that that is a judicial proceeding which dissolves the contract, much as it would dissolve the partnership. And while I know that most (not sure about all) states recognize common law marriages, I’m not sure of any legal authority, other than opinions of some law professors, that such is required (anymore than New York has to recognize a marriage between 13-year-olds from Kentucky).