Given my status as a fiscally conservative defense hawk who is otherwise secular on cultural matters, Rudy Giuliani has been my most natural candidate in the Republican field from the earliest stages of the race for 2008. As early as summer of ‘05, I was blanketing the blogosphere with pro-Rudy arguments, which were met with a variety of responses from conservatives, with the most common anti-Rudy retort being that the nomination of the Mayor constitutes the jettison of social, cultural, and religious conservatives from the GOP. My response, and the responses of folks like Kavon Nikrad, Patrick Ruffini, and RedState’s Dan McLaughlin, were to point out that Rudy could effectively triangulate on those matters to keep so-cons on board without giving away the store, and that he could do so in just a few easy steps (promise conservative judges, tout federalism, etc.). But many social conservatives have consistently refused entente with Rudy, and their arguments against him are well known to anyone who has been following this race over the past year.
It was once my view that most so-cons would take the deal and get on board, and that Rudy would be in the 40s by now among Republican primary voters and would sail to the nomination. But that hasn’t happened. Instead, lo, a governor has risen out of the South, one with an economic record to the left of Bill Clinton’s, one who proudly defends his liberal immigration views, and one who lacks any knowledge of or interest in defense issues. This governor has an (R) next to his name but speaks like a Democrat, uttering blasphemies against economic conservatives and immigration conservatives. And yet because of his hard-right social conservatism, religious pedigree, and culture warrior status, so-cons seem to be flocking to the governor, prepared to sell out the rest of conservatism and give the nomination to Mike Huckabee.
What I find so interesting about all of this is that many of the arguments that so-cons were making against Rudy are virtually identical to the arguments that I am now making against Huckabee. While I am a Rudy supporter, I’m also able to step back and appreciate irony. The simple fact of the matter is that we fi-cons, we libertarians, we hawks, and we secular conservatives view a Huckabee nomination with the same gnashing of teeth that many so-cons have viewed a Rudy nomination for the past few months. And that is enlightening for several reasons, not the least of which is the manner in which the refusal of fi-cons and so-cons to compromise and find a candidate which makes both sides equally happy (and equally unhappy) seems to portend a coming schism within the house that Reagan built.
One of the things I’m beginning to learn is that neither fi-con/libertarian types nor so-con/religious types are really interested anymore in working together. That is becoming obvious from their attitudes towards the candidates in the field who satisfy each side fairly equally. John McCain is the most obvious example. McCain is probably the true fusionist candidate in the field, inasmuch as he is moderately conservative on both economic and social issues, making him acceptable to fi-cons, so-cons, and to, you know, the independents who will decide the election. That’s the way Republicans have won elections ever since 1980. McCain isn’t the first choice of fi-cons or libertarians. He’s hardly a disciple of Ayn Rand, he thought the First Amendment was less important than a clean government, and he opposed tax cuts on fiscal responsibility grounds. But he also has never voted for a tax increase in his life, respects the separation of powers and federalism enough to avoid supporting the issuance of signing statements or new constitutional amendments, and he clearly despises excessive federal spending. In short, McCain is not the perfect fi-con, but he’s good enough.
The same can be said for McCain and so-cons. McCain is a mainline Protestant who keeps his faith private, doesn’t particularly care for televangelists and their influence on politics, and (gasp!) believes that man evolved from lower primates. But he also has never voted in favor of a pro-abortion piece of legislation, has always voted in favor of any conservative judge, anywhere, anytime, and has no desire to use the government as an agent for social change. He’s not the perfect candidate for so-cons, but again, he’s good enough.
This is what makes McCain’s numbers so interesting. He seems to be doing fairly poorly among Republican primary voters right now. Mention him on any conservative blog, including this one, and the reason why is obvious. Fi-cons immediately start attacking McCain for voting against the Bush tax cuts. So-cons ask whether or not McCain is going to reach out to culture warriors. Neither side seems to understand that the reason McCain is the fusionist candidate is that he is equally acceptable to both sides. The minute McCain becomes a culture warrior is the minute he ceases to be a fusionist candidate. The minute he starts touting Milton Friedman is the minute he ceases to be a fusionist candidate. The reason McCain brings economic and social conservatives together with independents to actually win red and purple states is that McCain is positioned fairly equally between all three groups. And I suspect that the reason McCain isn’t catching on us that none of these groups are particularly interesting in working with any of the others anymore.
So why are fi-cons and so-cons both demanding purity this time around? I think the answer is that both are terrified. Fi-cons saw the way Bush sold out their agenda over the course of the past two terms, and they also see the writing on the wall throughout the nation. It’s hard to find a region of the nation where true fiscal conservatism is really selling right now. The West Coast and Mountain West have adopted sort of a Bill Richardson-style Clinton/Blair/DLC soft fiscal conservatism. The Northeast is chalked full of fiscal moderates, while the supposedly red South is the region producing fiscal liberals like Gov. Huckabee. The Midwest has always been the most moderate region of the country, and that hasn’t changed as it produced pragmatic and technocratic politicians on fiscal and other matters. But where are the fi-cons? Other than Mark Sanford of South Carolina, I can’t think of a single governor who is a true down-the-line fiscal conservative.
That’s why fi-cons want Rudy. They feel that he could be a powerful advocate for a return to the ideas of Friedman and Rand. And that also explains the blowback among so-cons that has led to Huckabee’s popularity. So-cons fear that any GOP president who is too secular, too socially moderate, and too dismissive of their agenda will do to social conservatism what President Bush has done to fiscal conservatism. The truth is, outside the South, social conservatism doesn’t have the legs that it once did. Generational changes in cultural values have meant that religious conservatives can no longer look to middle class Northerners, Westerners, and suburbanites for support for their agenda on issues like gay rights, prayer in schools, contraception, obscenity, and so forth. In fact, so-cons would likely find it difficult to name more than one or two current governors or senators outside the South or Plains States that could be classified as culturally conservative. As social conservatism recedes into the Deep South, the Plains States, Idaho, and Utah, cultural conservatives in the GOP, dreading that Rudy is their Bush, are willing to destroy the GOP coalition if that’s what it takes to prevent the end of their dominance within the Republican Party.
And that’s why I fear schism may be inevitable. The once great Republican coalition is fractured like never before, and comparisons between today’s GOP and the state of the Democratic Party in the late ’60s abound. Minneapolis ‘08 could be our Chicago ‘68, or it could be a unifying event against a common foe. In just a few short months, we will discover whether Republicans are ready to come together under a common banner to prevent the election of Hillary Rodham, or whether the GOP is about to explode.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Dudes,
Mike Huckabee’s wife Janet’s middle name is McCain. Fate? you tell me…
December 1st, 2007 at 4:06 pm
And I suspect that the reason McCain isn’t catching on us that none of these groups are particularly interesting in working with any of the others anymore.
The reason that McCain is pissing everyone off is that no one quite gets what they want with a McCain candidacy. It’s a general, happy mediocrity for everyone.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Dudes, Mike Huckabee’s wife Janet’s middle name is McCain. Fate? you tell me…
Mitt Romney has an R in his name.
Rudy Giuliani has an R in his name.
Fred Thompson has an R in his name.
Ron Paul has an R in his name.
McCain and Huckabee do not. They are also both from states beginning with the letter “A” … COINCIDENCE? You decide!
December 1st, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Actually, Fred Thompson could’ve been the fusionist candidate much more acceptable to both sides, if he only knew how to campaign, and was committed to the hard task.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Metro is correct.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:14 pm
One of the most interesting and insightful blog posts I’ve read in some time, but please note the 2008 Republican convention
will meet in Saint Paul’s Excel Energy Center, NOT in Minneapolis.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:16 pm
This is a good article. Of course, the elephant in the room is Mitt Romney. Why can’t he be the fusionist candidate?
I admit that I like Huckabee a lot, but that’s because immigration is not a huge issue for me, and I don’t think he’s as bad fiscally as he’s made out to be. Yeah, I’m probably a more “compassionate” conservative than many of you would agree with.
But I choose to not waste time defending Huckabee too much, since I find a perfectly acceptable candidate in Mitt Romney, for whom a strong case can be made for all factions of the Republican party.
Why can’t others meet me in the middle and get behind him? Why can’t we save the coalition and win the election with Mitt?
December 1st, 2007 at 4:18 pm
What’s hilarious about this post is the belief that Giuliani is a fiscal conservative. This is plainly outrageous. Sure, he says he is. But his record ISN’T. So you just go with the words.
Look it up – NYC budget when he took office, NYC budget when he left.
Then check the definition of “fi-con.”
Then hit the bars.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Huckabee is not a “fiscal liberal” as I have been demonstrating in a number of posts on this website over the past couple of days.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:19 pm
So why are fi-cons and so-cons both demanding purity this time around?
Reagan was able to unite several facets of America to become president. This coalition Reagan brought together probably has even more members than it did in the 80’s and 90’s. Also the coalition has become more and more emboldened with the re-election of Bush, the appointment of Alito and Roberts and the sweeping of the House and the Senate in 2004. The law of diminishing returns has begun to take hold, only the hard right realizes this. They all seem hasty to ram issues and/or candidates down the throats of others, but this intrinsically alienates other members of Reagan’s coalition. In a democracy, the only ones who keep politicians accountable are the independents and moderates because it is these people who decide who gets elected.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Chris Lizza, actually, if you studied the NYC record more closely than that, you’d understand. But you have no desire to.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:21 pm
right realizes this.
right REFUSES to realize this..
December 1st, 2007 at 4:23 pm
MellowFellow, 3 reasons why Romney isn’t the fusion candidate:
1. He comes across as a phony.
2. He flipped on social issues and chose to emphasize THOSE as his theme, clubbing others over the head on them. If he’d ran on his business/economic credentials, de-emphasizing his newfound social positions, he’d be far stronger. Basic, stupid mistake.
3. He doesn’t know how to defend so-con positions in ways that are not offensive to the middle, in the way Reagan did, Bush43 does, McCain does, Fred does. He comes across like a Buchanan or a Bauer or a Keyes on these issues.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:31 pm
DaveG, you are beyond duplicitous. I remember how you and your Rudy-lovin buddies were bashing McCain when he was the frontrunner (early this year). How you compared his initial web site release to that of a dirty-old man selling cologne (I think those were your words). Now, when you good buddy Rudy is not going to win the nomination—if he doesn’t get indicted fire—now you start waking up and see that a McCain nomination might just make some sense.
In a way, I hope Huckabee does get the nomination—even those I’m a McCain supporter. You see, people like DaveG wanted everything, a militaristic, avaricious GOP with the pro-lifers kicked out of the party. How ironic will it be if Huckabee wins the nomination, which I may say is more likely than Rudy. He just might win in Iowa. He’s tied with Rudy in NH. And he’s surging in SC and FL. If huck wins those early states, there’s no way that Rudy will win the nomination. And if huck wins the primaries, he just might win the general because economic populism sells. I hate to admit it but people love their handouts. Isn’t this all ironic DaveG: how you wanted everything but now you just might get nothing out of the next GOP nominee. Fabulous!
December 1st, 2007 at 4:38 pm
I am still stratching my head over this claim. I mean, I have been here almost the whole year, and I have asked those who claimed the same, and you have not answered me. President Bush has done almost nothing for the social conservatives, especially this term. His tax cut and his War on Terrorism has gathered more attention than, say, his Religion Initiative, which was from first term anyway. What else has he done? No Child Left Behind definitely is another one, but again, it was from his first term, and it was in opposite to most of what the social conservatives wants anyway – more educational choices. I’m sorry, but Bush has abandoned social conservatives like he did with others.
So, DaveG, for a last time, please stop claiming Bush is a social conservative. He’s not, unless you can supply your claim with some things he has done.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:40 pm
I wasn’t the one who made the comparison between the “Explore McCain” site and cologne ads, but I think even McCainiacs would have to admit that the comparison is kind of funny.
FWIW, while I’ve at times gone to the mat for Rudy against other candidates with hyperbole at everything else in my arsenal, both Kavon and I have always liked and respected Sen. McCain and I think we’d both sleep easy if he were our president.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Metro,
Let me say first off that ever since you concurred with Big S. that the GOP of coastal cities are dreaming of a future without the “religious right,” I have questioned your loyalty to the coalition. Which is no sin from my point of view; your loyalties should be to the issues you care about first and foremost. But I now see that you would not regret to see folks for whom abortion is a huge issue leave the party, and everything you say will be colored by that fact. In other words, I’ve got my defenses up.
I think you are exhibit A of folks that will not come and meet in the middle for the good of the coalition (which, again, I find no fault with, per se). That you think Romney is “clubbing others over the head on [social issues]” shows abundantly that social conservatives, in fact, have no place with you and yours. Or they do, they’re just not allowed to ever talk about them.
This is further demonstrated by your assertion that his defense of so-con issues have “offended” the middle.
The fact of the matter is, Romney is trying to represent the whole platform as near to equally as possible. He has stumped VERY hard for your issues, which fact can be evidenced by his formidable lead in NH, a your-issues state. No one seems to have been offended there, either.
I know you never claimed Rudy to be consolidation candidate (quite the contrary, he was central to your meme that coastal cities would one day be rid of us nasty pro-lifers), but I might mention that I think we have much more reason to be offended by him than ficons/defcons have to be offended by Romney.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Dave G: “Neither side seems to understand that the reason McCain is the fusionist candidate is that he is equally acceptable to both sides.”
I would counter that it is McCain who fails to understand that a candidate who tries to be all things to all sides is acceptable to none.
Dave G: The once great Republican coalition is fractured like never before
To characterize a marriage of convenience as “once great” seems inherently oxymoronic to me.
Dave G: In just a few short months, we will discover whether Republicans are ready to come together under a common banner to prevent the election of Hillary Rodham, or whether the GOP is about to explode.
The common banner to rally around will be the collective celebration of success in Iraq; perhaps proudly waved in the form of a VP nominee named Petraeus.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:45 pm
I am still stratching my head over this claim. I mean, I have been here almost the whole year, and I have asked those who claimed the same, and you have not answered me. President Bush has done almost nothing for the social conservatives, especially this term. His tax cut and his War on Terrorism has gathered more attention than, say, his Religion Initiative, which was from first term anyway.
George W. Bush is also a purist social conservative. The lesson that you SHOULD be gathering from this is that there ISN’T MUCH A PRESIDENT CAN DO on the social issues. He pushed for the Federal Marriage Amendment. He pushed through the partial-birth abortion ban. He appointed judges that you like.
What more can he possibly do!?
December 1st, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Here’s an appropriate article from the archives I thought was worth revisiting…
John McCain, Pander Bear
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=19579
December 1st, 2007 at 4:49 pm
SGS:
Dude, check it out:
* Bush appointed scores of conservative judges, even trying to end the filibuster so that he could get more through.
* Bush pushed to amend the Constitution to stop the definition of marriage from changing even if states did so via the democratic process.
* Bush opposed stem cell research even though it could, and may have, cost Republicans the Senate.
* The Bush Administration diverted Justice Dep’t resources away from the real criminals to go after adult porn.
* Bush banned Internet gambling.
* Schiavo
Admittedly, Bush has been a pretty good defense conservative in his intentions, he’s just a horrid war president in practice. But on fiscal issues, other than the tax cuts, fi-cons haven’t gotten much. And I agree that there have been plenty of pieces of legislation that made everybody in the coalition angry, like NCLB.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Oh, God. DaveG, I wasn’t even thinking of stem-cell research. That’s when he yielded his first veto — and it was highly unpopular.
So-cons should be overjoyed with George W. Bush. And they are. According to most polls, he still is very popular among Republicans, especially social conservatives.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:54 pm
MellowFellow, you totally misunderstood the point about Romney clubbing other candidates over the head with his newfound social conservatism. It has zero to do with my own ideology. It’s simply the fact that a smart politician does not take the issues upon which he has just flipped and therefore has suspect credentials, and then ATTACK others for holding views he held 18 months earlier. Get it?
Just as if Rudy had been economically liberal and switched 18 months before announced, and then attacked others for being economically liberal. It would be just as stupid.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Hello, all-
As the McCain-site publisher, my two cents…
As always, DaveG wrote an articulate post, and it’s always good to hear McCain praised as a strong general election candidate. However, I think that the campaign’s problems stem from a different source, and so I’d like to offer an alternative thesis to why the coalition has not coalesced around him…
I think that voters (and to a lesser extent, donors and the media) tend to react more to the personal aspects of a candidate, rather than his/her position on issues. To use Rudy as a convenient example, I think that most people who are supporting him in the polls do so because they admire him, rather than because they agree with him on issues.
McCain is far more in tune, on issues, with the party’s coalition than Rudy is. So it seems that if the base does not embrace his candidacy, it stands to reason that there’s an alternative reason: that he doesn’t appeal to the base as much as Rudy on a personal level, for any number of reasons (campaign finance reform, immigration, etc., etc.)
Thoughts, observations?
December 1st, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Back to #4: Could a brokered convention end up being Fred’s greatest hope? Could a brokered candidate bring in a fresh face that hasn’t been dragged through the mud? Newt? Condi?
December 1st, 2007 at 4:59 pm
President Bush pushed for Federal Marriage Amendment? This is the first time I have heard of this claim. I know he talked about the need for it, but did he actually push for it??? No, there is no hint that he is working on it behind the scene.
As for PBA, it was not Bush’s baby — in fact, the Congress tried to get it passed as early as 1997, only to see it overturned by Clinton. Yes, Bush was one who signed it into law — Hoorary to him! But did he push for it? I have not seen any article about him working hard to get it passed. As for the judges, he was doing what every president is supposed to do, appointing the judges who interpret the laws as constitution intended, nothing more, nothing less. It is not strictly a social issue, but yes, Roe was a big social issue only because the right was popped out of thin air somewhere else, outside of the Consitution itself.
Has he reformed the welfare? No. His Medicare Plus plan, again, is going in the wrong direction – the left direction. There were many things he could have done, but he has not. I am not saying he did not get himself involved in social issues. I am claiming that he was not conservative on those social issues. In fact, I think Clinton (with a help of Newt Republicans) was more conservative on social issues than Bush, since under his administration; we saw the welfare reformation; we saw the education reform; we saw the tax reform; we saw military reform! So, let me repeat, Bush was not a social conservative.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:02 pm
SGS, “Bush was not a social conservative.”
God help us. If you’re going to select a nominee based on THAT standard, then say hello to a Democratic Presidency and socialized healthcare.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Let me be clear that Bush DID campaigned as a social conservative, but when he is inside the White House, he is NOT a social conservative.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:07 pm
IR-MN, what you may find is that YOU overplayed YOUR hand. Economic conservatives were OK with SoCons in the coalition, as long as your part of the platform was second to economic growth, a la Reagan, thereby not alienating independents, and, especially, not infecting the GOP with populism, e.g., economic liberalism.
SoCons cannot win the Presidency alone. If you turn us into the Christian party and/or infect us with populism, watch the libertarian/economic conservatives leave you to go try to work with the DLC. You’ll go the way of the Whigs.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:10 pm
“MellowFellow, you totally misunderstood the point about Romney clubbing other candidates over the head with his newfound social conservatism. It has zero to do with my own ideology. It’s simply the fact that a smart politician does not take the issues upon which he has just flipped and therefore has suspect credentials, and then ATTACK others for holding views he held 18 months earlier. Get it?”
I know you didn’t mean to convey it was your own ideology informing what you said Re: Romney’s clubbing. That’s me callin’ ‘em as I sees ‘em. Because from my point of view, as one who shares Romney’s (albeit relatively nascent) dedication to life, I don’t read any of the animosity into his statements on the subject that your word choice would suggest that you do.
I understand the concern that many might have about turning on what you were (pro-choice) so quickly. That is a good point, and I hadn’t thought about it that way before.
But I don’t think that that is playing out, luckily enough. Part of why it isn’t is that for me, at least, his conversion – based on a repulsion of his pro-choice policy, subsequent to his first-hand experience in witnessing the cheapening of life in embryonic cloning, coupled with the sheer gravity of actually using your pen to eliminate innocent human life – is quite believable, especially when one considers that the conversion helped Romney align his political views with his personal ones.
You don’t think that those experiences would have the transformative effect Romney claims, and I can respect that. But you should recognize that a great part of your hesitance in believing Romney is probably due to the fact that you are NOT repulsed, as I and others are, by what being a pro-choice politician means IN PRACTICE (as opposed to the campaign trail, where talk is cheap). I think it would be rather like coming face to face with your own Mr. Hyde, and being pushed into a what-have-I-been-thinking frenzy of penitence.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:11 pm
SGS, welfare reform (for which Rudy and Tommy Thompson are best known), education reform (Rudy is the nation’s foremost proponent of vouchers), tax reform, are ECONOMIC ISSUES. Military reform is a MILITARY issue.
“Social issues” are better described as “cultural” issues. They involve lifestyle, personal freedom, and taxes/money are largely incidental to them.
Economic conservatives have no problem with education reform. Bring on vouchers!
And tax reform? I have no idea how you consider that a “social” issue. I think you are thinking that “social” issues are “domestic” issues. The fact is, that domestic issues are divided into economic/regulatory, and social/cultural.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:11 pm
MR (#27), I am not in favor of Federal Government taking over the social issues. My point, again, was that the President has a lot of influence on the social issues OUTSIDE of the policy. Remember 9/11? President Bush was sitting in classroom reading book to children. Has he done anything like that since then? Has he been emphasizing on the importance of the education, on hard work ethics, on marriages and families, on personal accountability and more (like Reagen)? Has he fought the Congress (during periods when both parties was in control of it) on the side of social conservativism? No, he has not. That was my point. Almost every social policy under his administration saw the INCREASE the role of Federal Government. The Federal Government should stay out of social issues, but it also can make it easier for states to deal with those issues, and at least, it can rein in its own judges! Those Federal judges have no business in state affairs. I am for Marriage Amendment only because of Federal judges. I am for Roe override only because of Federal judges (Supreme Court in this case). Do you see the tread?
December 1st, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Almost every social policy under his administration saw the INCREASE the role of Federal Government.
Um, yep! That’s social conservatism, you fool! -rolls eyes-
Take a look at DaveG’s list and a couple of items that I named.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:16 pm
President Bush was sitting in classroom reading book to children. Has he done anything like that since then? Has he been emphasizing on the importance of the education, on hard work ethics, on marriages and families, on personal accountability and more (like Reagen)?
YES, first of all, but if all you’re looking for in a President is a role model, then please get out of politics.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:16 pm
OK, I’m calm.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:17 pm
By the way, SoCons, the reason economic conservatism must take priority over social conservatism within the GOP is because:
1. Most SoCons are still EconCons. But many EconCons are libertarians and NOT SoCons. The differing amount of overlap means that the vast majority of Republicans are EconCons, while only about 2/3 are SoCons.
2. Most independents are receptive to an EconCon argument. See Reagan, or California’s tax propositions. Most independents are turned OFF by SoCon arguments, believing religion and/or bigotry (as they see it) have no place in politics. EconConism helps us win general elections. SoConism hurts us in doing so. (Admittedly, due to demographic happenstance, SoConism currently helps in certain swing states, but that’s not the biggest context.)
December 1st, 2007 at 5:18 pm
“McCain is the fusionist candidate is that he is equally acceptable to both sides.”
Yep. Both sides hate him. I’ll take a few seconds of your time to state the obvious: Romney is the fusionist candidate.
All the attacks against him are superficialities based on the style of his hair, his money, or his change of positions. The critics are gasping at straws. There is no substantial criticism at a philosophical level.
Some people write him off because he is a mormon or because he is from massachussets but all the evidence points to those issues being irrelevant.
Now shifting to Rudy and Huck, I don’t think the ficom and socon labels fit. Rudy is taking credit for the Pataki tax cuts that he tried to stop and I don’t see how Huck can claim to be a socon with his pro mexican invasion stand on immigration. They are both fatally flawed and will only win by some accident, like the dean scream that gave the nomination to kerry.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Giuliani is not a fiscal conservative – the NYC deficit grew after his 8 years. We already know he’s not a social conservative – I mean, if you believe up is down, you can try and rationalize him into social conservative.
What’s left?
Neo-con – just like MetroRepub.
Just war. That’s it.
It’s Romney’s race to lose.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Excellent piece, DaveG.
I feel the same way – there is a divide in the GOP between those like my self (the so-called “South-Park Conservatives”) and those who feel it is their right to impose their values on everyone else. Like yourself I was a Rudy supporter from the beginning but also was fond of Senator McCain. It’s come to the point that, not only in the primaries but in the general election as well, the only major-party candidates I could support with good conscience are Giuliani and McCain. If Thompson, Romney or (yuck) Huckabee is the GOP nominee, I will be forced to vote 3rd party if for no other reason than to register my protest.
And by the way, anyone out there pretending Romney is a true conservative, or in Dave’s words a “fusion candidate,” you are gravely mistaken. Slick Mitt’s entire political career has been nothing but an attempt to curry favor with whichever voters he needs at the present time. Right now, that’s social conservatives and anti-immigrant xenophobes. If, in a few months from now when he is the GOP nominee, you will all be hearing a different tone as he touts his MA Hillary-care plan and “moderation” on the WOT as he trys to win the votes of bleeding heart suburban soccer moms.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Chris Lizza, in your warped world, what were all those fierce battles Rudy Giuliani fought with the NYT, City Council, and NYC establishment/bureaucracies? Huh? What were they?
December 1st, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Chris Lizza is right.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:27 pm
MR, first, you are incorrect in that any of the issues is standalone. All of the policies have some kind of impact on ALL areas. When we talk about conservatives, we are talking about their philologies. For example, when I see a issue, the first thing I think of is, how will it impact my own family. For you, you see first how it could impact your wallet.
So, again, a fiscal conservatives would see tax cut as a help with the cash flow, whereas, the social conservative would see how a family may find itself more capable to send its child to a best school.
Some of issues matter more to a set than others, like the obvious one, abortion, but it does have some impact on all. For example, there are more and more researches showing that a person who had abortion is 3 times more likely to be depressed, which can impact her contribution to economy. It is not as significant as, say, tax cut, true. The weight they contribute to the issue like this is low. But still, they touch all areas that matters to conservatives. None of issues truly belong to any set of conservativisms.
You see educational reform as a purly economy initiative, which is also true, since economy depends on workers being able to spend. Fine, I will permit it. But for me, I see it as social issue, because I want my child to have a good education so he could contribute to the community as a good employee and a good citizen.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:30 pm
I dunno, MT – I only know what the deficit was before and after, how he spent and spent and spent and spent. And danced the night away in drag too. Oh, and then spent hard-earned tax dollars on – shall we say – personal expenses?
Fiscal conservative…HA! He will spend and tax more than Clinton, that’s a 100% guarantee.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:31 pm
When I said that the coastal GOP was dreaming about a party sans religious right, I was pointing out the fact that there are a lot of people who, while not necessarily philosophically libertarian, just want the government to defend the country, settle disputes, and keep the public infrastructure in shape. Otherwise, they just want to be left alone. A lot of these people see the GOP as the lesser of two evils; while the Dems want to take our resources out of our paychecks before we ever get our hands on them, the religious right seems content trying to ban vices and promote morality. I’ll never see many of the taxes I pay again, but I’ll always be able to drink, smoke, and watch porn when you’re not looking. However, when it comes down to halting the progress of science and medicine over some half-cocked ideas that zygotes are people too, people like me start to feel a little uneasy about the state of the party, and start to look for alternatives. While I haven’t made the jump, a lot of people seem to have decided that the Democratic party ain’t that bad after all.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Dan,
So you’d rather have a Socialist in office just so you can protest? That isn’t a very good idea.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:31 pm
SGS: School vouchers are not a tax cut. They simply direct money. I support them because they give INDIVIDUAL CHOICE and weaken a government controlled sector. I support school vouchers for the same reason I support individual choice in abortion and sexual orientation.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Chris Lizza, leaving aside all the issues of the NYC budget, such as operating vs. capital expenditures (do you really see 600,000 more on welfare as equivalent to modern and safe bridges?)….
During those 8 years we conservatives were CHEERING as Rudy won battle after battle with liberals in the heart of liberalism, slaying them almost every time, finding imaginative legal ways to get reforms through and then disclosing undeniable RESULTS that forced the liberals to give in… over and over… until the city looked nothing like its old self….
What were you thinking was going on, then? If he was not a conservative fighting liberals, when what was he and who were they?
December 1st, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Big S:
“However, when it comes down to halting the progress of science and medicine over some half-cocked ideas that zygotes are people too, people like me start to feel a little uneasy about the state of the party, and start to look for alternatives.”
Just getting people on record for whether or not they like social conservatives in the party. I’ll put you in the “no” column.
RE: “half-cocked ideas.” That’s rude. It is a perfectly legitimate point of view. It is a question of ethics, as well as morality, and a debate that must be had. Show some respect, man.
RE: “halting the progress of science and medicine.” Care to elaborate on where social conservatives have halted the progress of science and medicine? There are a number of ways you can take that, I guess, most of them untenable, some less so.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:42 pm
TLG, has it not been argued here the whole year about what it meant to be a conservative? I suppose I should be clear on my termiology. For me, a social conservative is a conservative who concerns himself first with the social issues. But still, it is how you approach the issue that define whether you are a conservative or not. I admit that many purely social conservatives have demanded more Federal Government involvements on the social issues. I do not consider them a true conservatives on social issues. I have said often here that the social conservativism has been hijacked by those social socialists (as good name as any). I suppose it is the problem with usage of the term, “conservative”.
Perhaps this will help bringing forth my point. President George Washington had invoked the name of God often in his speeches. But he has not done anything about it policy-wise. He used his pulpit to urge people to be more moral — he did not tell them how, only that we all could do better with respect to our roles as fellow people. How people associated with each other often was his topic of speeches. He is concerned about the welfare of the society. But he is also a conservative in that he believe the people are better at managing their own affairs. I suppose that would makes him a social conservative. Even then, regardless of there being no social policy, he recognized that he was the Standard that all of Americans would look toward.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:47 pm
MR – he was a liberal cutting deals with liberals, and fighting fights with other liberals. All flavors of liberalism. He was three time endorsed by the Liberal Party after all – oh and during this “conservative crusade” of his, he:
- endorsed far-left Democrat Mario Cuomo
- fought against the 2nd amendment
- kept up his sanctuary city
- ran up a deficit
- led the gay right agenda – LED it
- uh, personal issues
Oh, sure he did a few symbolic bully boy tricks – the squeegee guys, the street vendors, the ferret owners, the artists. So what?
Admit it, you’re taking his STYLE as conservatism! It’s just a style….
Plus, he won’t back down, will he? Mitt has changed his positions. Sure, call him flipper – but Giuliani is brazen. He will destroy conservatism in this country. Kill it dead.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:53 pm
MR (#46), I’m sorry, but no, my example in second paragraph in comment #42 is about the tax cut itself. The benefits a fiscal conservative see is different than the benefits that a social conservative would see. When fis-cons hear the word, “tax cut” they first thinks of – more jobs, higher salaries, more cash flow. The soc-cons would think – more charity donations, more family spendings (including better school), more rain check funds (including retirements). Being a conservative (generic!) depends on how you want to approach the issues, that is, the policy-making. Being a conservative of a certain field is more of how you think of and perspect the issues. It has nothing to do with the approach, really.
However, as I have already, and I will repeat. Yes, I admit we have lost the train of this track nowadays. Social Conservatives as hated by you and TLG actually are social socialists. They have hijacked this branch of Republican Party.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:57 pm
And I am sick of them, too.
December 1st, 2007 at 6:02 pm
#48
RE: zygotes. Do you mourn the souls of the more than 50% of fertilized human eggs that never make it to implantation or undergo undetected spontaneous abortions? That’s billions of “people.”
December 1st, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Oh, I see that Greg Alterton is already going in that direction of argument that MR, LTG and I are having here. I will shift over there, as it is more appropriate to do it there. I still do not see President Bush as a true conservative. Yes, social issues concerns him, but he did not take the conservative steps with them, be it to stand up as a Standard, to making the pitch, or to make it easier for states to take care of its social affairs (and again, reining in those federal judges is a big one).
Oh, that bring to my mind of something — do you know that No Child Left Behind actually makes it much more harder for state to offer more educational choices? And that policy is definitely Bush’s baby! So, he is not a true conservative (not a federalist, I suppose I should say).
December 1st, 2007 at 6:05 pm
#53
No, I don’t.
December 1st, 2007 at 6:07 pm
#55
Do you believe they have souls?
December 1st, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Big S
Are you going to continue disrespect folks that don’t agree with you, even if they frame their arguments in nonconfrontational ways? I should know before we continue.
December 1st, 2007 at 6:12 pm
I’ll only disrespect people who refuse to follow the logic of their own arguments and retreat to some vague invocation of “morals” and “ethics” when their original argument is exposed as incomplete. There are legitimate scientific (and philosophical/theological) reasons to believe that a 3 day old human embryo is not the same thing as a person, and therefore should not be conferred rights.
December 1st, 2007 at 6:20 pm
The bottom line for me: Any candidate who sells himself as a true SoCon hardliner in the primaries will either have to soften those views or downplay them heavily in a general election. The last two presidential cycles just barely worked thanks to gay-bashing and antiabortion absolutism. These positions are now up against the law of diminishing returns.
Romney, in particular, and his “tripod Republicanism” will go down in a blaze of glory in the general election. What he thinks appeals to the totality of the GOP base will absolutely fail in November of 2008 — Romney would turn the US into a one-party Democrat government for years to come.
December 1st, 2007 at 6:25 pm
#58
I’ll take that as a yes. FYI, the fact that you put “morals” and “ethics” in scare quotes speaks volumes to me about your attitude towards both.
There are “legitimate” scientific reasons to believe a great many things. In fact, since an implanted fertilized egg eventually will grow to be a human as cognizant as you, there is a pretty good argument that it is a human being, and therefore should be conferred rights. It is a legitimate argument, and one I happen to believe. You don’t have to believe it, too, but you should be honest enough to admit it’s at least as legitimate as the contrary, as far as the scientific argument goes.
But obviously there are some morality issues – or “morality” issues, as you would say – involved, as well there should be. Morality ought not be tossed because it can’t always be empirically proven. The idea is offensive. Morality is how a human being governs himself, and decides which battles to fight.
You never answered what so-cons had done to thwart science and medicine, btw.
December 1st, 2007 at 6:27 pm
*- “legitimate,” + legitimate.
Just in case you want to get clever with me.
December 1st, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Judging by the tenor of the comments, I sense that the dynamic Dave is referring to, encapsulated in his title, is well underway.
December 1st, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Tano, it has been all political season.
At least these days people admit to it. I now know that, despite earlier arguments, pro-lifers do have reason to fear a Giuliani presidency. Just as I would concede that Huckabee is a threat to other factions of the party.
Will we compromise? Will we bloody each other into (temporary) irrelevance?
It’s great game theory!
December 1st, 2007 at 6:35 pm
I don’t think the guys in the caves in Afghanistan or Pakistan would be real afraid of Huckabee.
December 1st, 2007 at 6:46 pm
#60
Ahh. *Implanted* embryos now? I can feel the goalposts moving already! You’ve already given me 5-10 days to work with before that conceptus becomes human. Since most embryonic stem cells are harvested from non-implanted 4-5 day old blastocysts, we should feel free to use them for the, ahem, advancement of medical science, no?
December 1st, 2007 at 6:55 pm
time to hit the panic button in the romney war room:
http://www.eyeon08.com/2007/12/01/union-leader-endorses-mccain-romney-goes-negative/
December 1st, 2007 at 7:01 pm
All in all, Romney really has had a horrible week.
December 1st, 2007 at 7:09 pm
#65
You know what would be helpful? For you to ask me my positions before making a bunch of assumptions. Your refusal to talk about science and medicine led me to believe we were talking about abortion, and now I see we weren’t.
Now we are getting somewhere: you blame social conservatives for the disrupting science because of the stance they take on embryonic stem cell research.
Now, you don’t know what I believe on this issue, but you seem to have an argument all made up anyway. No telling yet if my participation is necessary. Just for my information, which of the diverse views of social conservatives are you railing against?
1 – All embryonic stem cell research is wrong, and should be prosecuted under the law.
2 – Much of embryonic stem cell research is wrong, but excess embryos from fertilization clinics, etc. are disposed of anyway, so research using only those stem cells should be publicly funded. Cloning should be allowed by private institutions but not be publicly funded.
3 – Much of embryonic stem cell research is wrong, but excess embryos from fertilization clinics, etc. are disposed of anyway, so research using only those stem cells should be allowed by private institutions but not publicly funded. Cloning should be illegal and prosecuted.
5 – All embryonic stem cell research, including that involving cloning, should be legal, but not publicly funded.
6 (the minority view by far)- all embryonic stem cell research should be legal, and publicly funded.
I wait anxiously to know what position I am meant to have!
December 1st, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Economics can have important influences.
I’m generally in favor of less bureaucracy, less complex regulations, and less social engineering because I’m skeptical of micromanaging by any large human agencies.
I’m not a materialist. So the accumulation of stuff matters less to me than other things.
It’s easy for an economist to fall into the fantasy that goods + services = happiness. Psychologists have shown that status good confer happiness but actual possessions are secondary after main needs are met.
So economics matters to me in really only two ways:
1) Needs are met. If the open economy can’t meet needs I don’t mind using government policy to make sure those needs are met.
2) The way in which the economy influences family stability, family health, and the strength of communities.
So my views on economic policy are balanced between economic growth and other social priorities.
December 1st, 2007 at 7:20 pm
ESG (#69), I do not know if you have followed the line of arguments I was involved with MR and TLG. Which government do you not mind using to help those in needs? We are looking at multiple levels here — the local (city/county), the state and the federal.
December 1st, 2007 at 7:26 pm
I personally am in favor of using independent organizations and perhaps the local government (I’m not sure here yet) as more of hand-on approach to help those in needs. The state then should serve as a broker — that is, as a one place of information for those to go, and to coordinate the efforts among different organizations and communities throughout the state, as it often is that one area may experience heavier burden than others. The federal also can serve as a broker (again, strictly as a coordinator) for any multiple states diasters. I do not believe federal government is effective nor wise in using dollars to assist those in needs.
December 1st, 2007 at 7:33 pm
I’ve got to take off.
Big S, your insistence on funding an research with public funds – the benefits of which recent developments suggest may be attained while avoiding the whole controversy, via skin cells – just to stick it to the so-cons shows your allegiance is more to an anti-social conservative movement than to a pro-fiscal conservative movement.
After all, promising research gets funded – pharmaceutical companies, mostly – and don’t need the gov’t bailout you seem to want to give them.
December 1st, 2007 at 7:33 pm
“Now we are getting somewhere: you blame social conservatives for the disrupting science because of the stance they take on embryonic stem cell research.”
Yes, I do. A zygote is a fertilized egg that has not divided yet, and claims of the humanity of such entities have been a major sticking point in stem cell research. You jumped on my statements about some socons’ beliefs in the humanity of zygotes (leading me to think you were going for option 1 on your list) and I was setting up an argument to point out the shaky ground that the push to confer the rights of an adult human to a single fertilized egg are founded upon. You’re implied position that implantation of an embryo signals the beginning of a human life avoids many of the issues regarding the existence and uniqueness of the human soul that arise from the “life begins at conception” position.
December 1st, 2007 at 7:38 pm
I prefer a decentralized safety net built into the tax structure for individual or family needs. A safety net that requires 1/100 of the bureaucrats we now employ.
Here’s how I envision it.
First we eliminate every welfare agency in the United States. All forms of government assistance are ended. No housing assistance. No welfare. No food stamps. No heating assistance. No SSI. All of it gone.
What do I replace it with?
Every adult in America gets a $600 payment each month from the government. Each caregiver gets another $300 per month for each child. This would be an easy system. SSI runs in the same fashion.
Taxes become flat. Every dollar you earn you pay $0.27 in taxes. However someone will get more money in monthly government payment than they will in taxes up to $26,666 in income.
In this way no welfare bureaucracy would be needed because everyone would have a guaranteed minimum income (although a low one).
If states wished to do other things to meet needs that would be up to them.
December 1st, 2007 at 7:58 pm
e.g.s.
That’s kind of like Milton Friedman’s “negative income tax” isn’t it?
December 1st, 2007 at 8:02 pm
EGS,
The idea of a guaranteed minimum income has always made me gag, but as you situate it, the plan sounds more like a FairTax on income, rather then consumption. Come to think of it, I’m surprised that more conservatives aren’t bothered by the “rebate” aspect of the FairTax, given it’s resemblance to a guaranteed minimum income. I suppose the most obvious difference is, practically speaking, you might plausibly avoid working much at all if you have a guaranteed minimum income, and thus avoid paying much in taxes. Whereas, at least theoretically, it’d be difficult to avoid paying a consumption tax (though, in practice, massive blackmarkets of varying types would likely rise up). I’m not enough of a student of economic theory to negotiate the practical implications of those differences. But, both ideas make me deeply uneasy.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:14 pm
IMO the GOP is divided mostly because of Bush himself. He ran on “Compassionate conservatism” (another euphemism for big government) back in 2000, remember. He is a social conservative who governs like a big-spending liberal.
McCain is a fusionist candidate in that he has been able to rise above the Rudy/Romney fray and, despite his “Maverick” status, position himself as the voice of experience and reason. Mike Huckabee has been able to come across as the genial “Nice guy”, but he also seems to want to be Bush Lite.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Big S that is precisely Mitlon Friedman’s negative income tax.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Matthew, a several massive experiments over a few years were conducted on guaranteed minimum incomes with working class families and individuals from 1968-1978.
There were around 8,000 people who were part of the experiment. During the period of time with a guaranteed income 89% kept identical hours of work. The main reduction in work was wives staying home to take care of children.
Studies have actually shown that a guaranteed minimum income has less of a work reducing effect than the bureaucratic welfare state.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Matthew E. Miller,
A bigger problem than the guaranteed minimum income is the amount of bureaucracy required to get it done without people gaming the system. A large part of the allure of such taxes is that they would “get rid of the IRS”, but nobody really pays attention to the fact that they require much more government scrutiny over an individual’s economic status than the current system, since they require a detailed description of current and potential future income in order to calibrate the rebates. The Fair Tax is by far the worse in this regard, since it places a significant burden on the consumer to monitor his or her daily consumption, in addition to retaining the bureaucracy required to enforce compliance and calculate/distribute rebates. The negative income tax is a little better, but to say that it’ll wipe out IRS (or something like it) is a little bit “optimistic.”
December 1st, 2007 at 8:33 pm
ESG, why must this tax plan be implemented at Federal level? I can see this work in some states. Maybe I am mistaken(again, I’m still learning about tax proposals), but is not that what Alaska is doing now?
December 1st, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Big S.
That’s why I oppose the fair tax as currently structured.
I prefer the negative income tax.
Me, Bill Gates, you and Matthew Miller we all get the same “rebate” each month. Minuscule bureaucracy compared to the welfare state.
We also just pay a flat income tax (I wouldn’t mind taxing consumption given that it’s more stable than income). The Australians certainly do fine with their version of the Fair Tax (GST).
I think what Matthew is missing is that we don’t have an alternative to the welfare state that doesn’t do worse than a negative income tax.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:34 pm
“- endorsed far-left Democrat Mario Cuomo
- fought against the 2nd amendment
- kept up his sanctuary city
- ran up a deficit
- led the gay right agenda – LED it
- uh, personal issues”
- So what if he endorsed Mario Cuomo? Cuomo is hardly a radical, but either way — so what? Do you like words or actions more? Giuliani governed as a conservative. Believe me, you Romney people do NOT want to go back to who endorsed who in the early 90’s. Hah!
- I don’t like his record on guns. I’m never going to find a candidate that I agree on all of the issues with. But no: his record on guns is indeed awful.
- I refuse to explain away the sanctuary city meme anymore. You people obviously don’t want to like Rudy on the issue. You just want to bash him. Rudy is a pragmatist on the issue. You hate pragmatism. Sorry!
- All in all, his economic record — given where he was — is superb. You’re trying to say Giuliani is a tax-and-spend liberal (you did above)? HE CUT TAXES, despite an overwhelmingly Democratic City Council! He CUT THE SIZE OF THE BUREAUCRACY. That’s more than any of our other candidates can say! Rudy is the only one with a record of cutting government size in a hostile environment…and becoming popular for it! Rudy, unlike Willard, managed to get re-elected in a landslide.
- Well, being gay, I like that he has been favorable toward the so-called “gay agenda”…unfortunately, he’s only for domestic partnerships. That should please you. He’s to the right of Bush on the issue on that count. Bush is for civil unions. However, Giuliani does not believe in using the Constitution to deny people rights. Does that displease you? (Anyway, it was Romney who passed out fliers at a gay pride parade wishing gays a “happy pride weekend.” Does THAT not bother you?) Rudy will be a tolerant President. Does it bother you that he can accept other people?
- I don’t care about personal issues, and neither do most Americans.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:36 pm
I should say that I agree, both philosophically and practically, with the idea of integrating the welfare and tax systems a bit better, since they do require much of the same information. The negative income tax would accomplish this.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:37 pm
SGS, it would need to be done at the federal level because most welfare is at the federal level. Also doing it at the federal level would save money as there would only need to be one bureaucracy not 51 of them.
Alaska can do a modest version of this because of its natural resource wealth (Does Alaska have problems with people not working? no). No other state could afford it. The federal government could easily afford it by eliminating the welfare programs and their massive bureaucracy.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:37 pm
ESG (#82), ohh, I see what you are trying to say. It is to say, we all pay one flat rate (B.Gates, M.Miller and you), regardless of our proverty level. Then, we will get rebate per month, depending on number of persons in family, as a sort of “post-deduction”. And that is it. Is that the idea?
December 1st, 2007 at 8:39 pm
TLG:- Well, being gay, I like that he has been favorable toward the so-called “gay agendaâ€
I thought you said you were “bisexual” have you changed your sexual preference since then?
December 1st, 2007 at 8:39 pm
e.g.s.,
I’m not familiar with the Australian GST, but they have one in Canada as well. It’s about 7% on top of the normal 7% sales taxes. However, they also have an income tax, and the combination of these pushes their tax burdens significantly higher than ours.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:42 pm
SGS, you got it. We pay a flat tax rate on income and receive a monthly check based only on number of people in household. It almost became law under Nixon but the Democrats wanted a negative income tax plus the welfare state.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:43 pm
D’oh! Premature post!
I think if we were going to do this, it would have to be through a Constitutional amendment, rather than just adding a new law to the code, since the government retains the power to levy income taxes via the 16th amendment. I don’t think there would be as much of an issue with the negative income tax.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Big S, the Australian rate is 10%. However in Australia there are no local or state taxes. The GST replaced all state and local taxes in Oz.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:44 pm
ESG – Would the monthly rebates be indexed to the cost of living?
December 1st, 2007 at 8:46 pm
SGS:
“Would the monthly rebates be indexed to the cost of living?”
Well they’d either be indexed to the cost of living or wages.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Who’s gonna post McCain’s endorsement by the NH Union Leader?
December 1st, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Three-fourths of taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. I assume none of these proposals change the payroll tax.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:54 pm
I thought you said you were “bisexual†have you changed your sexual preference since then?
Not changed, but rather admitted it to myself.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Feltcher. I support scraping the payroll tax or at least reducing it significantly.
December 1st, 2007 at 9:22 pm
DaveG,
Well argued. As an aside, it seems the Mike Huckabee=William Jennings Bryan comparison’s are gaining steam. Will is now taking Huck to task over the notion. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001785_pf.html
I’ve seen this echoed by other writers, so either alot of prominent conservatives are reading and parroting obscure bloggers, or this is a comparison which simply spontaneously occurs to anyone with a knowledge of history.
December 1st, 2007 at 9:30 pm
God, I love George Will. I’ve read more columns from him that are truly substantiative than from any other writer this year. Jay Cost of RealClearPolitics and Charles Krauthammer are also delights to read.
December 1st, 2007 at 9:42 pm
George Will’s targeting Huck on evolution while professing a supposed belief in no religious tests…hmmm…can someone say HACK???
December 1st, 2007 at 10:23 pm
TLG – wait, you actually believe Giuliani cut the size of NYC government? You might want to check facts on that one.
He “governed as a conservative,” you say. Er no. Not even for a day was he ever a conservative, even in New York. And you migth want to do some research on the City council – sure there are liberals, but there are plenty of pretty conservative outer borough people as well, including the big political bosses. Giuliani was toward the middle in New York – indeed, the spending increases in his second term when he aggressively spent away a surplus horrified some of the more conservative council members.
December 1st, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Read this and weep, those who believe Giuliani actually cut NYC government!
http://www.nyfiscalwatch.com/html/fwm_2002-04.html
See that little chart from 98-01 – see the numbers rise? Lots and lots of fat tax-funded jobs.
Mitt still has the momentum.
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:44 am
Nice article, DaveG.
Of course, I find it hilarious that you manage to go on for 9 full paragraphs without even mentioning Romney, who more than any other candidate is running a campaign which emphasizes the unity of the three main legs of conservatism. And I’m glad you appreciate the irony here…and play right into it.
It sounds like you are almost willing to let yourself make a real breakthrough. We Romney supporters are willing to hold your hand over the finish line when you’re ready.
December 2nd, 2007 at 4:47 am
Chris Lizza — thanks for the link! Clearly, you’re too lazy to read the actual article, but at least you got to see the pretty pictures. From the article:
In tone and substance, Bloomberg’s plan is a pretty sharp contrast with the preliminary budget offered eight years ago by then-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. Faced with a projected 1995 gap of $2.3 billion, Giuliani targeted 15,000 jobs[2] for elimination—and pointedly refused to rule out layoffs. In fact, the excessive size of the city’s workforce, and the need to reform work rules and boost productivity, was an insistent theme of Giuliani’s first budget presentation.
Giuliani in his first budget highlighted the fact that New York’s municipal workforce, as a percentage of private employment, was larger than those of seven other cities—50 percent larger than Chicago, for example. “My hope is that we can bring the size of city government in line with a realistic tax base,†he said.
It points out that the battle was eventually essentially lost, though. But let’s not pretend that he was complicit in an expansion of the workforce.
I’m going to bed, but tomorrow I’m going to need to look for things about Giuliani’s record in cutting bureaucracy that I’ve seen — bureaucracy is more than just statistics relating to the number of bureaucrats that there are. What agencies were eliminated? What regulations were slashed? Etc, etc.
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:21 am
[...] SchismBy DaveGThe minute he starts touting Milton Friedman is the minute he ceases to be a fusionist candidate. The reason McCain brings economic and social conservatives together with independents to actually win red and purple states is that McCain …race42008.com – http://race42008.com [...]
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:45 am
Ah, so now “the battle was eventually essentially lost.”
Meaning – he never did was he says he did. And he’s no fiscal conservative. You guys just dig the tough-guy act. Why is that so attractive?
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Chris Lizza, good article! Now we have evidence that Rudy administration tried to cook the number to make his workforce smaller than it actually is. Wow, not only did he left a fiscal mess for Bloomberg to clean up, but Bloomberg also had to adjust the actual number of workers from approx 250K to 388K, which is like, what – 35%? Rudy underestimated his work force by 35%! Yes, he was an excellent administrator!
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Speak for yourself, DaveG. I oppose both Giuliani and Huckabee because I oppose a more “pure” GOP that has either its social conservative or fiscal conservative element removed. Pity you don’t.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:17 pm
“In fact, so-cons would likely find it difficult to name more than one or two current governors or senators outside the South or Plains States that could be classified as culturally conservative.”
Larry Craig?…But I jest.
Good reflective comments, Dave. Many so-cons point a finger at Rudy’s supporters in the GOP and say they are abandoning the “conservative coalition” that has been so successful up until 2006. But to be part of a coaliiton requires some give-and-take, and I’m afraid too many of my so-con brethren, following the lead of James Dobson, are more into “taking” than “giving” this time around.
No political coalition lasts forever. As one who holds to conservative social values, I still believe that the Republican Party represents more of what I hold important than the Democrats, so for me, it’s a no-brainer in terms of who I’ll be supporting in ‘08, regardless of who the nominee is.
April 10th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
[...] that the nomination of the Mayor constitutes the jettison of social, cultural, and re source: Schism, [...]