The Candidates
The importance of the Northeast to Sen. McCain’s presidential prospects combined with LJ’s post below detailing the senator’s efforts to convince his money men to pay off Rudy’s campaign debts have caused my political spider sense to kick in. Could Sen. McCain be planning to offer his friend and onetime rival Rudy Giuliani the Number Two spot on the ticket? It’s certainly a reasonable selection in a race against Obama. Consider the following arguments in favor of a Giuliani selection:
1) Rudy failed in the primaries because social conservatives distrusted him on abortion while independents and centrists were turned off by Giuliani’s bellicosity on Iraq and laissez faire economics during a year when voters wanted politicians to feel their pain. But because the vice president has no constitutional authority to sign or veto legislation or to commit troops to war, Rudy’s policy liabilities become non-issues if he were to take the Number Two spot on the ticket. This is especially true given Giuliani’s age (he’ll be 72 in 2016, meaning that Vice President Rudy would likely never become the GOP standard bearer).
2) Rudy would most definitely fit the bill as a veep ready to take the reins of the presidency at a moment’s notice should the unthinkable befall President McCain while in office. He’s also a personal friend of Sen. McCain and someone who McCain can trust and who would not have his own agenda while in office.
3) As a white ethnic with a working class Catholic background from the Northeast, Rudy could help bring into the fold Hillary-supporting Democrats and independents in states like New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania who don’t want to vote for Barack Obama in the fall. Rudy could do so by reaching out to these voters on a cultural level. His very presence on the ticket would send the message that a McCain presidency would be friendly to all sorts of Northeastern voters, from fiscally conservative, socially tolerant metropolitan voters to gritty, politically moderate white ethnic working class voters in places like Brooklyn and Philly.
4) Rudy’s heterodoxies on issues like abortion would help create the perception that McCain is running something other than a base campaign and deviating from traditional Republicanism, which would benefit the senator in a year when most independents have a negative view of Republicans. This is the same effect that a Tim Pawlenty, who often irks pro-growth conservatives, would have on the ticket. Basically, any such veep selection represents a “Sister Souljah” moment for McCain, which he needs in a year like this, like it or not.
5) Rudy’s hapless campaign, for all its faults, did establish the Mayor as a supply-sider, which would help McCain shore up an element of the base that distrusts him due to his votes on the Bush tax cuts earlier this decade.
All in all, a McCain/Giuliani ticket would make a lot of sense given Obama’s weakness among Northeastern voters and white ethnic working class voters. These voters seem at present to be more open to McCain than they were to President Bush in 2000 and 2004, but it may take a cultural intermediary like Rudy to close the deal and assure these voters that McCain isn’t going to be Bush’s third term.
April 14th, 2008 at 12:37 am
Pro-choice, pro-homosexual, anti-gun Rudy RINO will not be VP.
April 14th, 2008 at 12:39 am
Rudy is a hell of a lot better than half the other schlemps that are being mentioned (Cox, Romney, Huckabee)
April 14th, 2008 at 12:53 am
Don’t forget California, it would be in play too.
Also, isn’t public funding allocated on a state by state basis? If that is the case then he would need a Veep that would help him take the fight to all the blue states. And because of lack of money, McCain would need someone who brings instant name recognition.
Personally, I would love that ticket. There are only a couple of other running mates that would make me more excited.
April 14th, 2008 at 12:57 am
Let’s not forget that I have had a pretty good track record with my predictions, ie Huck’s ascendency and spoiler role and McCain winning the nomination.
April 14th, 2008 at 1:23 am
Dave,
You write that, “Rudy would most definitely fit the bill as a veep ready to take the reins of the presidency at a moment’s notice should the unthinkable befall President McCain while in office. ”
And yet you try to reassure assure us SoCons not to fear “because the vice president has no constitutional authority to sign or veto legislation or to commit troops to war, Rudy’s policy liabilities become non-issues if he were to take the Number Two spot on the ticket.”
Can you say cognitive dissonance?
April 14th, 2008 at 1:30 am
Dave,
You also reassure us SoCons that Rudy isn’t threatening because “he’ll be 72 in 2016, meaning that Vice President Rudy would likely never become the GOP standard bearer.”
You seem to forget that Mr. McCain turns 72 in 2008.
April 14th, 2008 at 1:40 am
I really hope its not Rudy. However, I will concede that I see the possibility as quite likelly. Rudy and McCAin like each other quite a bit I think. I suppose I could over McCain picking Rudy, but I hope it doesn’t happen as for how it would effect electability, I would think it could in a place like Pennsylvannia where they win the senate seat by running a pro-lifer. I bet you have a lot of blue collar workers especially Catholics who don’t give a hoot about supply side ecconomic and whether McCain might have voted for a smaller tax-cut that wouldn’t have given as much money back to people that make alot more money than, but they’ll still sometimes vote Republican, because of the social issues - I’m thinking these are probably voters we don’t want to lose.
April 14th, 2008 at 1:42 am
6, I’ve got to think the Republican party won’t run two 70 year olds back to back.
April 14th, 2008 at 2:32 am
The big problem with this scenario is that for the most part, McCain and Giuliani both appeal to the same voter bloc. When Rudy’s numbers went down, McCain’s went up, especially in the winner-take-all states during Super-Tuesday. So this pairing does not expand the appeal of the McCain ticket much beyond his core constituency.
April 14th, 2008 at 2:50 am
You guys are in denial. It’s going to be Rudy.
I am loving it!
April 14th, 2008 at 3:06 am
The big problem with this scenario is that for the most part, McCain and Giuliani both appeal to the same voter bloc.
Yes. They’re called moderates and independents, and they will (as always) be the key to winning the White House in November. Hillary and/or Obama will NOT win the South and Plains States that make up the vast majority of the GOP Electoral College stronghold. States lke Virginia, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Jersey, Colorado, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Arkansas, West Virginia, and maybe one or two others will decide the election. Someone like Giuliani could help a great deal in many of these states, especially in Obama is the Dem nominee.
April 14th, 2008 at 3:18 am
i like rudy alot, i am just worried about the evangelicals sitting home. the question is does rudy help in states mccain can’t win on his own. i doubt it. i think rudy’s strengths would be nj, pa, and florida, all could go mccain against obama. the question is does rudy help as much as romney would in michigan and the mountain west. then again, who would evangelicals think was worse, a pro choicer or a mormon? i dont know, its a tough call. michigan and penn are real possiblities against obama, especially with gun-owning democrats and moderates. i dont know who is a bigger help. i think romney might help slightly more, unless those mccain/obama new york numbers are true, then rudy might help. plus i think mitt is a better organizer and campaigner, so i don’t know. rudy would make a great attorney general if not vp.
April 14th, 2008 at 3:24 am
11, But you can’t win with moderates alone. Barack will get a good portion of the moderates of the moderates and indys, and he will get all of the libs. So the Repub candidate needs to get as many Cons as possible. Plus there a type of indy/moderate that I don’t think you guys are considering. There is the blue collar people who sometimes votes Republican because they ” Cling to guns or religion”, but tend to not like Republicans because of they see them as being the party of the rich. We could totally miss an opportunity in getting these voters if we nominate a Social/cultural liberal who’s conservatism involves being for big tax-cuts.
April 14th, 2008 at 3:48 am
The primary damaged Rudy’s VP potential.
Rudy’s a risky pick. Rudy’s got more skeletons in his closet than Jeffrey Dahmer. The scandals we already know about Rudy would make effective Democrat campaign material.
The thing to remember is that Rudy finessed his pro-abortion stance. That’s not what tripped him up. His scandals and his personality defects were what hurt him most. In the general election his scandals and his personality problems would still be there.
If McCain wants to win he ought to pick someone who’s less likely to hurt him.
April 14th, 2008 at 3:57 am
There’s something to be said for picking Mark Sanford. He’s one pick I think nobody would be unhappy about. Pawlentry has hardline Cons who would be unhappy about his stance on global warming, Crist has a reputation for being a moderate perhaps more so than McCain, Rudy, Condi, KBH, and Tom Ridge are all pro-choice, Huckabee is really disliked by alot of Ficons, and I think by some DefCons, not to mention the Mormons he ticked off in the election, Romney has a hardcore group of peope who dislike because he seems phony to them. Not alot of people have Sanford as their number 1 favorite choice, but I would say he might generate the least nagativity.
April 14th, 2008 at 4:52 am
Rudy Rudy Rudy
April 14th, 2008 at 6:00 am
Rudy would be a catastrophe as VP. Literally, millions of conservatives would refuse to vote for this pair. You can only poke them in the eyes so many time before they would rebel. Romney is still the only guy who can help in Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, NM, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and I beleive several other states. Why Iowa, because while McCain got 14% of the vote in the primary, Mitt got 30% and was 2nd choice for Huckabee’s 39%. Minnesota? Absolutely, in spite of Pawlenty pulling hard for McCain, the people there that work hard to GOTV, and give money overwhelmingly chose Mitt Romney in the caucus; not to mention that a poll showed Pawlenty a 6% net drag on a McCain ticket if he were the VP.
As stated above, Rudy has tons of skeletons in the closet, but those that are in public are already enough to turn a lot of good people off. McCain will not be able to put any pro-choicer on the ticket and win. Mitt has the ability to raise tons of money for McCain, but can raise a lot more if he is VP.
We look at the polls now, and sometimes get a little complacent in seeing McCain a little ahead, but don’t forget this one thing: At some point in time, the 22% Hillary voters that say they will refuse to back Obama, will reduce to single digits. Where do the polls stand then? We will need our best three legged stool conservative on the ticket to beat the Dems, and I think McCain will do best by choosing Romney who can deliver the most states, raise the most money, and provide the economic intelligence to beat the heck out of any arguments the Dems are making during the campaign. Mitt provides the balance to the ticket we will need to win.
April 14th, 2008 at 6:10 am
Illinoisguy, don’t be so delusional. Socons love Rudy; just not being president but I think they would love him as Veep. The base will come out to vote to support McCain/Rudy because the alternative is just too horrible.
April 14th, 2008 at 6:16 am
WHAT????????? SOCONS love RUDY??? You’re nuts!!
April 14th, 2008 at 6:43 am
Aside from his liberal past, Socons do love him. If he is VP then his liberal past becomes increasingly irrelevant.
April 14th, 2008 at 6:52 am
As a Socon, I do not love Mr. Giuliani, while I might be able to hold my nose for him, I know fewer and fewer people would. I am not even sure that Mr. Giuliani is even the best economic Conservative. While some people argue that various candidates would help us with various midwest states. Mr. Giuliani would be a drag in OH, I, MO, Iawa to name a few. While he would help us in PA, (more of a northeast state)I fear he would be a net drag on the ticket and could cost us more than a few points in several states.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:30 am
Picking Rudy as VP is like trying to slice bread with a screwdriver.
There are so many better obvious choices.
I’d say the same about Huckabee, Mitt and Fred to a lesser extent.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:36 am
As a SoCon, I would be extremely unhappy with Giuliani as the VP. I don’t want a pro-choicer one step away from the White House. I think Giuliani would be much better as Attorney General.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:36 am
But because the vice president has no constitutional authority to sign or veto legislation or to commit troops to war, Rudy’s policy liabilities become non-issues if he were to take the Number Two spot on the ticket.
That isn’t true at all. What if McCain were to die in office? Then we would end up with Rudy and his “policy liabilities” as President.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:38 am
It’s going to happen. Brace yourself for it if it doesn’t sound pleasant to you.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:46 am
nowandlater while you’re prophesying mind telling me some stock prices for a 3 months from now?
April 14th, 2008 at 7:47 am
I like Giuliani better as AG.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:48 am
Nowandlater:
With respect, do you have some kind of death wish on our party? What makes you say that such a thing will happen?
April 14th, 2008 at 8:19 am
If you want a working class Catholic white ethnic from the Northeast, Donald Carcieri is a far, far better choice. He’s actually pro-life which is, historically, THE dividing issue that brings about 10% of Catholics who would ordinarily vote Democrat to vote Republican.
Just look at the down-ballot exit polls compared to Gubernatorial/Senatorial races. In 2006 Republicans ran 21 points better with Protestants then with Catholics in House races. In the gubernatorial races, Republicans ran around 10 points better among protestants. In the Senate, ditto. In fact, Missouri is a fairly clear example of this; a huge stem-cell issue was on the ballot, and Talent only ran above 8 points better among Protestants.
The abortion issue (and other social issues) is what draws Catholics into the GOP tent; when it’s not at stake, they largely go elsewhere. And while occasionally pro-choice Catholics show real strength with Catholic voters at the top ticket, this is by no means always the case. Note, in 2004 pro-choice Catholic Kerry lost Catholics to Bush by 5 points.
In fact, Evangelical Bush won Protestants by only 14 points more then Catholics (remember this year’s Congressional ballot had Republicans doing 21 points worse among Catholics). And there’s certainly no reason to believe that a pro-choice lapsed Catholic, on the BOTTOM of the ticket, is a particular draw to Catholic voters.
No, if you want to appeal to Catholics, relate to them on a cultural level (modest, quiet social conservatism). And there’s no evidence that Rudy can do this. He’s a good guy, but even if he wasn’t tainted by a billion straight primary losses (a near collapsed national image), he’d be a fairly dubious possibility, given our other options.
April 14th, 2008 at 8:23 am
No, no, no. Rudy ran the worst presidential campaign I have ever seen. He was the frontrunner for months. Wherever he campaigned, his polling numbers and actual results dropped. He ended up with one delegate.
Rudy is a figure from the past. Voters are rejecting politicians who have already had their turns in the spotlight. That’s one reason Bill Clinton isn’t effective now at helping his wife win. McCain needs to pick somebody relatively new to the national scene. I hope it’s Romney, but Sanford, DeMint, Pence, and some others would be fine, too.
April 14th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Marksal,
Actually…Rudy ran an OK campaign. He did seriously misjudge the importance on a win in NH however. Had he been victorious there, it would have propelled him to victory in FL and on super tuesday. McCain won NH though, and essentially absorbed Rudy’s constituency. This was, no doubt, a big mistake, but in the grand scheme of things Rudy was right in predicting that a moderate form of Republicanism would attract the most voters.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:03 am
I don’t like Rudy for the same reason I don’t like Mitt. They both had tremendous advantages this season and both ended up failing despite these advantages. Can someone explain how it would be different this time around?
April 14th, 2008 at 9:04 am
The conventional choice of a right-leaning running mate would destroy
McCain’s image. Rudy would be an excellent selection.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Matthew Miller is more accurate as far as getting Catholic voters. Someone like Donald Carcieri would be a lot better. Rudy does better with secular voters though.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Rumor has it that McCain is helping pay off Rudy’s debt.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Here is the link to McCain/ Rudy debt http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/04/11/mccain-campaign-directs-donors-to-aid-giuliani/?mod=WSJBlog
April 14th, 2008 at 9:22 am
grandma T, he is asking his contributors to do so, for all the people who complained how they disliked Romney being a self-funder, at least Romney has actually been HELPING McCain as opposed to having McCain HELP him, but grandma T, it isn’t like McCain is using his own campaign treasury to pay off Rudy’s debt, he’s just asking his contributors (many of whom maxed out to him already) to also help Rudy
April 14th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Good. The GOP doesn’t need Evangelicals. We can govern as a center-right majority without being beholden to radical fundamentalists. If a person is too religious to vote for McCain/Giuliani, then they’re a liability to the party anyway. McCain is just the sort of person to make a choice like Rudy. Let’s hope he does it.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:25 am
McCain/Rudy? Color me completely unimpressed, uninspired, and unmotivated to vote in November then. McCain’s saving grace right now is his ability to pick a conservative VP to assuage the nervousness and discomfort conservatives feel toward him. A pick like Giuliani would be yet another poke in the eye of conservatives. I think the McCain campaign realizes this and won’t go that far. At least, I hope they do.
We’ve seen over and over again the way to win elections is not to focus on getting that mythic “indy” or “moderate” vote, it’s to excite your base and get them to come out in massive numbers while appealing to enough indies or moderates to put you over the top. Focusing on the middle ground while leaving your base in the dust spells electoral failure.
And ultimately, the way to win over independents isn’t by making your positions more liberal — it’s about communicating and vision casting conservative ideals in ways that they understand.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:27 am
TLG (#38),
Glad to see you’re enjoying Kerry’s first term as President, since it was those nasty, evil evangelicals who put Bush over the top in 2004.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Clarence I read the article but is he doing this for anyone else?
April 14th, 2008 at 9:37 am
40 — How long can we keep winning with 51 (or less than 50!) percent of the vote, Matt C?
Is that really the ceiling you want? Really?
McCain/Giuliani would be center-right conservatism that could win 55% of the vote again.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:38 am
In other words: This ain’t 2004. And we were lucky to have gotten a lightweight like Kerry.
Radical Evangelicals are a total liability to the party now and have hijacked its image.
There’s nothing wrong with having religious people in the party — not at all — but the fundamentalists that demand total orthodoxy should be kicked out, as they do nothing but harm our prospects. If McCain panders to them, I’ll lose so much respect for him.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:45 am
ThatLibertarianGuy Says:
Yes, get rid of all those Bible thumpers and turn the party over to the Libertarian potheads… then we will surely win… just like the Libertarian Party… oh wait, never mind.
LTG, you are on a winning team because you want to win. Don’t delude yourself into thinking you can win without my help. (Oh, and turn away from your sinful ways.)
April 14th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Charles, have you even been around this site for very long?
I am not a member of the Libertarian Party. There’s a reason that I’m in the Republican Party, you know: because the perfect is the enemy of the good, because I’m a pragmatist, because I’m interested in getting 60% of what I want instead of 20% of what I want.
(And — my sinful ways? Isn’t the foundation of Christianity that we’re all sinful? Good grief. This is why we need to kick people like you out of the party.)
April 14th, 2008 at 9:50 am
You can be talking of the same Rudy (4%) Giuliani that go down in flames in the primaries.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:52 am
TLG, when you use hateful rhetoric like that I wonder what religious people must have done to you. Or perhaps you just hate certain people on principle. Anyway you’re letting emotion overwhelm any rational perspective on winning.
If you want a social liberal go for Colin Powell or someone else who’s not an abrasive scandal prone loser. Giuliani is a distraction from serious possiblities.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:58 am
What on Earth is “hateful” about my rhetoric? Sheesh. You people are touchy.
I actually had quite positive experiences with religion. I was highly involved in the church until I was 16 years old, when I became an atheist. I was quite sad to leave my church, but I couldn’t go when I didn’t believe.
I don’t think emotion is overwhelming my perspective on winning. Being beholden to an alienating group is never a good “winning strategy”!
By the way, I have been advocating Mark Sanford for a while now as an alternative to Giuliani.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:59 am
And, as we talk frequently, Clarence Claus can attest that I do not let emotions factor into my perspectives.
Clarence? A little backup on that?
April 14th, 2008 at 9:59 am
TLG: Like I said, you want to win… you are a small minority and a pragmatist. Evangelicals are not.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Well, then Evangelicals promote everything they claim to oppose.
People that back candidates that can’t win are completely irrational in that they cause detriment to their own goals.
If I demanded a pure, laissez-faire capitalist during every election cycle and would accept nothing lses, I’d see socialism faster than ever.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:06 am
I assumed it was emotions because pushing Giuliani as VP is irrational if winning is your goal.
I also assumed you were feeling hate because you used liberal/atheist pejoratives.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:08 am
I think “hate” is a little extreme for the light ‘pejoratives’ I used.
I said “radical Evangelical” and “fundamentalist” — that’s pretty tame.
That’s at least no worse than being called sinful by someone who is, in your theology, also a sinner. The self-righteous hypocrisy is astounding.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:15 am
The funny thing is that most voters who vote Republican *only* on social issues are Catholics not Evangelicals.
My mother, brothers and sisters only began voting Republican when Sister Angelica and Frank Pavone began focusing on the importance of the pro-life stance.
They disagree with Republicans on almost every other issue (anti-war, favor single payer healthcare).
April 14th, 2008 at 10:16 am
TLG,
I’m a pragmatist as well, but part of pragmatism demands that you keep everyone in the coalition that you can, without sacrificing other reachable voters. So pragmatism might suggest that Republicans would be better off if the stridently socially conservative didn’t control the party. But, in no universe would it suggest that so-cons ought to be kicked out of the party. What good would this do? What if Democrats suddenly said “let’s kick out those latte liberals, because they’re making our party look like elitists, which kills us with blue collar voters”? What if they decided that the best strategy was to construct their ticket and message in such a way as to piss off these latte liberals? Would this be a smart strategy? Or would they be better off nominating someone like Bill Clinton, who ostensibly shares the goals of the latte liberals, but can speak the language of blue collar voters? This is practically a rhetorical question it’s answer is so obvious. For those in the Republican Party who don’t particularly like the so-cons, the best option is to nominate candidates who ostensibly share the goals of so-cons, but speak a different sort of language/hail from a different sort of background. That’s certainly not Rudy Giuliani.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:17 am
The funny thing is that most voters who vote Republican *only* on social issues are Catholics not Evangelicals. My mother, brothers and sisters only began voting Republican when Sister Angelica and Frank Pavone began focusing on the importance of the pro-life stance. They disagree with Republicans on almost every other issue (anti-war, favor single payer healthcare).
But McCain is 100% pro-life.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Matthew E. Miller — When did I suggest kicking so-cons out of the party? In fact, I explicitly said that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with having religious voters in the party. The people I want to kick out are the hardcore, fundamentalist Evangelicals that will take nothing less than a True Believer. They stain the party’s iamge and make it look divisive.
And I still think that Sanford is our safest choice for VP.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:20 am
TLG, McCain has supported embryonic destruction.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:22 am
TLG, McCain has supported embryonic destruction.
That issue is moot now, though.
Are you really saying that McCain is not satisfactory enough for you because he was in favor of stem-cell research when that issue was relevant?
Fine, then, he’s not “100% pro-life,” but he’s pretty good on that issue, isn’t he?
You really need to learn to accept 80% of what you want so you don’t end up with 0% of what you want!
April 14th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Right… the Evangelicals desire to win is not as great as their desire NOT to compromise their ideology (with some notable exceptions who were checked by the masses this cycle).
And, you will never win and see a pure, laissez-faire capitalist elected unless you stop compromising.
You are not even getting your 60% in the Republican Party. The socialism of the Republicans varies only by degrees from the socialism of the Democrats.
(BTW: The sin joke was… a joke. I’m sorry your reflections at 16 have so tainted your outlook on religious folks now, but “put your childish ways behind youâ€. For the uneducated masses, that is a paraphrase from the Bible.)
April 14th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Right… the Evangelicals desire to win is not as great as their desire NOT to compromise their ideology (with some notable exceptions who were checked by the masses this cycle).
That’s stupid. You only get any of what you want by winning. If what you’re saying is true, is it about ‘unborn children’ or the pride of the Evangelicals?
I think we both know the answer.
And, you will never win and see a pure, laissez-faire capitalist elected unless you stop compromising.
No. I will never see it. I have learned to live with that. You need to learn to live with the fact that culture is progressing and it’s becoming more secular.
You are not even getting your 60% in the Republican Party. The socialism of the Republicans varies only by degrees from the socialism of the Democrats.
It’s better over here; plus, I tend to agree with the Republicans on foreign policy more often than I do the Democrats.
(BTW: The sin joke was… a joke. I’m sorry your reflections at 16 have so tainted your outlook on religious folks now, but “put your childish ways behind youâ€. For the uneducated masses, that is a paraphrase from the Bible.)
I wasn’t sure if it was a joke, given my reputation as the resident gay atheist.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:26 am
TLG,
But, why does it matter if “the hardcore, fundamentalist evangelicals” are in the party, if they have no real levers of influence? Do you think Democrats much care that they have truthers in their party? Only to the extent that it harms their image; my argument is that their are ways to placate even hardcore fundamentalists, that don’t involve kowtowing to them. I’m assuming of course that by hardcore fundamentalists you’re including only folks that voted for GWB in 2004. Any fundamentalist that thought Bush was too soft on evangelical issues is already effectively out of the party, for all intents and purposes.
You may be right about Sanford. I still think Pawlenty will be the guy, because he can excite so-cons, moderates, blue-collar voters, and a certain breed of fiscal conservative. But, Sanford wouldn’t be a bad choice and I don’t doubt that he’s likely to be the top choice of online Republicans.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:28 am
TLG, I wasn’t indicating how I feel about McCain or stem cells. I was referring to how he was portrayed on EWTN.
They portrayed him and Giuliani as slightly to the left of Hillary and Obama on social issues.
That’s a problem for your older Catholic voter who’s the ideological twin of Jack Kennedy or FDR.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Oh, but they do have influence, Matthew E. Miller. Maybe you don’t know many Democrats, but I’ve often received stunned reactions when I’ve told people that I’m a Republican — “Why are you in the party that hates people like you? Why are you in the party that wants to shove religion down peoples’ throats?”
That is what people outside of the party think of Republicans as, thanks to people like George W. Bush and Mike Huckabee! (Please note that I’m using the term ‘fundamentalist’ to mean ‘hardcore Christian’ — not just content with believing, but advocates of Christianized government.) But there is more to conservatism, more to Republicanism, and more to party-building than that. I know that. You know that. But many voters don’t and are repulsed by the conservative message’s current overt hardcore religiosity.
These hardcore Christianists aren’t like Truthers. No one cares about Truthers.
Pawlenty probably will be the guy, yes, but I’m holding out hope for Sanford.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:33 am
TLG, I wasn’t indicating how I feel about McCain or stem cells. I was referring to how he was portrayed on EWTN. They portrayed him and Giuliani as slightly to the left of Hillary and Obama on social issues. That’s a problem for your older Catholic voter who’s the ideological twin of Jack Kennedy or FDR.
And that’s what’s the matter with these Christianist voters — anyone portraying McCain and Giuliani as being “to the left of Hillary and Obama on social issues” is a deluded idiot. Unfortunately, there’s no reasoning with them. They’re for purist candidates only. It would be the equivalent of me portraying McCain as to the left of Obama on capitalist issues because McCain attacked profits and voted against the Bush tax cuts — annoying heterodoxies, to be sure, but my God, to the left of the Democrats?
And you wonder why these people drive me nuts!
April 14th, 2008 at 10:42 am
TLG,
“Oh, but they do have influence, Matthew E. Miller. Maybe you don’t know many Democrats, but I’ve often received stunned reactions when I’ve told people that I’m a Republican — “Why are you in the party that hates people like you? Why are you in the party that wants to shove religion down peoples’ throats?â€
That is what people outside of the party think of Republicans as, thanks to people like George W. Bush and Mike Huckabee! (Please note that I’m using the term ‘fundamentalist’ to mean ‘hardcore Christian’ — not just content with believing, but advocates of Christianized government.) But there is more to conservatism, more to Republicanism, and more to party-building than that. I know that. You know that. But many voters don’t and are repulsed by the conservative message’s current overt hardcore religiosity.”
Then we stop nominating folks Like Bush and Huckabee, and our party’s image will change dramatically. Reagan was beloved by evangelicals, by and large, no swing voters thought of the Republican Party of the 80’s as controlled by Evangelicals or Fundamentalists. Reagan succeeded because fundamentalists sensed that he cared about their issues, and swing voters sensed that he cared about alot of other issues more. 8 years of Bush is bound to make folks think of the Republican Party as too explicitly religious, but recall that we explicitly rejected Bush Republicanism this election cycle; it was barely able to cobble together a plurality in the Republican Party in 2000, and that was aided enormously by Bush’s legacy status. In 2008, after much of the evangelical base has become more prominent, and a with a much better spokesman, it fell flat. If Mike Huckabee can’t sell strident government driven religiosity to a plurality of a post-Bush Republican Party, then I very much doubt it’s a sellable commodity. I wouldn’t worry if I were you.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:48 am
I have no complaints with any of the above comments.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:12 am
66-
What was true for Reagan’s era is no longer true. Bush has emboldened the leadership of evangelicals. See Huckabee, Mike. If they were serious they would have been for Fred…
April 14th, 2008 at 11:15 am
TLG I am sure you have mentioned it before, but in what state do you live?
April 14th, 2008 at 11:16 am
The fact that both TLG, and I would be content with Mark Sanford is a little ancedotal evidence to back up my point that he would be the most unifying candidate. Now about TLG’s point regarding kicking hardcore SoCons out. I don’t think its being an extreme SoCon to not want a VP candidate that has indicated his support of Roe which he refuses to denounce, who has indicated taking away people’s money to pay for abortion( great capitalist move), and who’s an honored champion of NARAL. The fact that McCain is okay on Social issues is irrelevant ( and I think he was, I was a McCainiac) McCain’s okay on Fiscal issues to, but I’m sure the FiCons would be quite unhappy if McCain picked Huckabee for his VP.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:59 am
On the negative side it’s a coupla guys who dumped their wives for younger newer models, who don’t understand the economy and have an abrasive demeanor. On the up side, Giuliani has personality and would make things interesting again. My question - would they promote the global warming agenda and raise taxes?
April 14th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
TLG:
LOL… I had no idea. I will put you in the same category as the Mormons who fanatically support Bishop Romney (but not because he is a Mormon) when you rant against those insipid Evangelicals who cannot be reasoned with… In other words, you have zero credibility.
Perhaps this self-party-hate is just an extension of your self-hate? Why not join a political party where you would feel more comfortable with the coalition… instead of trying to drive Evangelicals out of the Republican Party? (Evangelicals are not leaving soon and homosexual-atheists are not a big demographic target for Republicans.) That might leave you more opportunity to resolve those internal conflicts.
April 14th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Charles,
When TLG argues against Evangelicals, it is because pandering to them will cost the GOP far more votes than it gains them in the future. White Evangelicals are constantly becoming a less and less significant voting block, to the point that it no longer behooves anyone to pander to them at the expense of other groups.
I doubt that it has much to do with hating anyone, but that it has more to do with creating a permanent center-right majority that will get far more done for the conservative cause than trying to find a candidate that agrees 100% with my social agenda. The only cost will be the pride of Evangelical leaders and a sacrifice of their dream of an American Christian Theocracy.
April 14th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
eric,
That is exactly the point. Well said.
April 14th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
grandma T — I live in Maryland.
And yes, eric, that is exactly my point. I’m loving the whole “he must hate himself” diatribe from Charles, which goes to show that only someone of my particular persuasion who hates himself could possibly feel at home in the Republican Party — I think that Charles proves better than anyone why we need to kick people like him out of the party.
April 14th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
TLG: You assume too much. I can recognize the superior political power of evangelicals over homosexual-atheists within the Republican party, without being an evangelical myself.
What are you, like six years into your exploration of your sexual preferences and theological studies from you revelations of 16?
Obviously you have issues, why else would everyone know that you are a homosexual atheist on a political forum? That would be like me saying “attention, attention, I am a conservative and I have sex with my wife.” Who the hell cares? And, who the hell cares that you have/desire sex with other boys?
Your hate/tirade against Evangelicals is transparent and pathetic.
April 14th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
TLG “If a person is too religious to vote for McCain/Giuliani, then they’re a liability to the party anyway.”
It seems to me this was a strong indication that you were saying the party would be better off without the social conservatives. Another thing, you act as if being socially conservative is exclusive of being economically conservative, and national defense conservative. That is far from true. There is a tremendous number of two leggers, and another very large group of three leggers. In total, you would kick out around 2/3 of the party by kicking out all those that are socially conservative.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Rudy is a good choice for McCain. I am an evangelical and out of fear for a Dem getting in office will vote for McCain no matter who he picks as VP. I am guessing many other evangelicals will do the same. Rudy would help lock up the independents and put several blue states back in play. Rudy has a good economic mind, would be tough on terror, and as is well known would be great in a crisis. I don’t think the Dems would have a chance in Nov if Mac and Rudy were the ticket. I guess we will know soon enough.
April 14th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
For a party to cater to its most extreme members is suicide (as the Dems are finding in re Obama and his extreme leftist friends in San Francisco). That is true of the extreme social conservatives, and equally true of extreme fiscal and defense conservatives (Abolish the federal reserve! Nuke everybody!) The few votes you pick up on the fringes are greatly outweighed by the votes lost in the middle.
I would recommend that folks ignore Charles — he’s obviously just a troll, getting his kicks by trying to stir up trouble. A couple weeks ago he was amusing himself with anti-Mormon bigotry. Now he has tired of that, and has switched to gay-baiting.
April 14th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
79, Agreed Charles. However, TLG seems to think that not nominating Rudy Guiliani to be VP would be catering to the radical SoCon. Like I said I don’t see where wanting a VP who isn’t a champion of NARAL, supported Roe V. Wade, and supported taking people’s to perform abortions is being a radical. That’s like saying we’re compromising with radical FiCon wing of the party if we don’t put Huckabee up. Now, if you did put Huckabee that could be considered bowing to radical SoCon wing.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
I just hope McCain is not stupid enough to put Rudy on the ticket. If he is, he loses, simple as that.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
BobH is a liar. But, I do love pointing out the anti-Evangelical hypocritical bigotry of the Mormon and homosexual factions of our party. Perhaps both should just stay in the closet if they want their opinions taken seriously.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Hmmmm…Charles takes HIMSELF just a bit too seriously now, doesn’t he?
April 15th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
It looks like my ardent prayers for a McCain-Giuliani ticket is coming to a fruition. finally. As I cited over and over again, Rudy will help the ticket garner votes in the blue
states where the Republican party in the past elections, as states not even contested
like the Northeastern sector, Wsahington , Oregon , New Jersey and even California. Additionally, Rudy can step in at a moment’s notice if need be. They are fast friends and
trust each other.