The Candidates
A frequent commenter on this site, MetroRepublican, made a comment today that addresses a fear that many socially conservative Republicans have. Socially conservative Republicans have long wondered whether recent Republican nominees and many Republican activists really care about the issues we care about such as banning abortion or if they just use those issues to get blue collar voters to vote against their economic interests. That is what Barack Obama has claimed. He thinks that white, working-class voters who would benefit more from liberal economic policies vote Republican because of social issues.
Well, MetroRepublican confirmed a fear that a lot of these voters have. He said the following:
And social conservative issues are fantasyland that serious people don’t take seriously. They’re just scare tactics used every 4 years.
Many other Republicans who claim to support our issues promote socially moderate candidates for Vice-President and endorse socially moderate candidates in primaries under the guise of pragmatism. Furthermore, even though Reagan and the Bushes have been President for 20 of the last 28 years and have appointed 7 Supreme Court justices, Roe v. Wade hasn’t been overturned.
MetroRepublican raises an interesting point. Do our politicians just use issues we care about as a “scare tactic” in order to win? If that is the case, we should perhaps consider an alternative strategy. I am not withdrawing my support of Senator McCain at the moment. I will give him the benefit of the doubt, but I am wondering if any so-cons out there believe what MetroRepublican is saying that the Republicans only use social issues as scare tactics. If so, does anybody have any suggestions for an alternative strategy we could employ? I am glad to know MetroRepublican is just as elitist as Barack Obama is. He just went on to say that pundits rarely talk about social conservatism either because they don’t take it seriously, so that makes me wonder even more if we should pursue a different strategy than blindly supporting the Republican party.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
At this point, I am just going to raise my hands and walk away from this post…
In fact, why don’t we just all just “take all of our balls home” and walk away?
There are plenty of Kossacks/Moonbats who will gladly fill the void we leave.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
It works both ways, there are far to many social conservatives who don’t care or are ignorant about conservative economic principles.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
I have not withdrawn my support from McCain or any other Republicans, but it is something to consider if people like Metro just think we are a group not to be taken seriously anyway who politicians just appeal to as a scare tactic.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
I am not an economic liberal, but there probably are some in the Republican party. I don’t hear them saying, “No one takes fiscal conservatives seriously anyway.”
May 8th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
So you are saying that Social Conservatives are being pushed around by other factions within the Republican Party????
Did you seriously type that?
What planet have you been living on for the past 28 years? And I say this as a Socially Conservative Christian Republican.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Clarence,
I don’t think social issues are used as “scare” tactics, but I think social issues are always more poignant in times of social unrest. We’re not in such a time, so they’re generally not discussed, except to rally the base. It’s also true that, currently anyway, there are fewer policy decisions available to presidents on social issues. So while I think that elected Republicans generally take social issues seriously, they are little disingenuous in acting as though (when election season approaches and they need to rally the base) they’re 1/3 of the agenda, rather then the 1/10th or so they really are.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Clarence,
I’d also agree with Kavon. Social conservatives have a huge say in recent years. Rudy Giuliani would be our nominee right now if it weren’t for their influence. Instead he won 2 delegates. Mike Huckabee, who literally wasn’t conservative on ANYTHING but social issues, might have been our nominee had he caught fire at the beginning of December, instead of the beginning of November. Social conservatives certainly aren’t marginalized even if, sometimes, their issues simply as numerous at the federal level.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Kavon, Metro was the one who said that no one in positions of power takes social conservatives seriously.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
There’s some truth to what you say, and I’ve wondered I’ve also wondered if the party is using us. Even the last two justices didn’t seem to be true originalist However, there are no other options, while Roberts and McCain’s clones of Roberts may not get Roe V. Wade overturned, Obama’s nominees are likely to scour the constitution for a constitutional right to gay marriage and all kinds of liberal policy. Reading Obama’s statements on the Roberts hearing is pretty scary. Democracy is at stakes in the courts and the Republican party is our only vehicle to get there.
On another point, I don’t really think Metro’s wing of the party is any more relavant than the SoCon wing. Radical Ayn Rand Economic philosophy has very marginal support - they’re just a fringe group of people who hang out on internet sites… Actually I don’t know if there’s a single congressmen, that comes even close to the pure economic “conservatism” that Alex and Metro argue for. SoCons otoh have a large number of people who advocated our views just as strongly as we do - not nearly the whole party, but we’ve got more than the radical ECO-Cons have.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
But then the Republicans will wonder whether Socons are angry and bitter, which may cause them to cling to their guns, fetuses, heterosexual wedding vows, etc…
May 8th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
I did not see it myself, but somebody said they saw a show where Rove laughed at the Christian conservatives and called them wackos but said, “We have to deal with them. They’re our base.”
May 8th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
MarkG, Metro said once that he basically agrees with Obama’s bitter comments.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
I’m not an economic conservative so most of my identification with the Republican Party is on social policy.
Here’s how I approach the Republican Party. I look for the candidate closest to me views who’s still close enough to the mainstream of the party.
Social conservatism will never advance until we broaden our focus. First we need to look beyond things we want to outlaw and look at things we support. Secondly we need to be more active at the local level. Today’s Republican Party started in local races 20-30 years ago.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Does anyone think that we’ll still be arguing so-con positions a generation from now? I do not. They will make the party less and less relevant every decade until we drop them. My guess is that the vast majority of people under 40 are either liberal or indifferent on many of the social issues that we argue now. Am I out to lunch on this? I live in a midwestern city surrounded by farmland, and virtually my entire peer group (almost all silent GOP voters) is either indifferent or liberal socially.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
#9: Untrue. The “Ayn Rand” portion of the GOP has had enormous success. When I discovered Ayn Rand in 1986, there wasn’t a single GOP member of Congress who would entertain the idea of scrapping the IRS or privatizing Social Security (except Ron Paul). Now, ideas like those, thanks largely to CATO, are mainstream in the GOP.
I see my comment has prompted a whole thread, but I don’t have much time to participate.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Eric, perhaps people like Doug who are not economically conservative should base their vote on fiscal issues and vote straight Democratic then since socially conservative issues, according to you, will be irrelevant in a generation anyway.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
I don’t see Karl Rove saying that Clarence. He is a Texan and his boss Dubya is very sincere in his beliefs. Plus, Rove is too smart to say anything like that on TV.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Jonathan, it may not be true. I’ll ask the person more specifically about it next time I talk to them. I don’t think Rove said it during an interview though. I think someone overheard him or something. I’ll find out more…
May 8th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Jonathan, you really think Dubya is sincere in his beliefs? He was asked about it in a debate with Kerry and wouldn’t even answer the question despite being asked by Lehrer three times. He just said, “no litmus test” which is what all the moderates say. His actions have been fine though, so maybe his non-answer was just political.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
#15, so you and Mike Hucakbee are buddies now since you both want to scrap the IRS. Ayn Rand was a nut bag (and really wake up, no one in the mainstream cares about her anymore). Bush’s privatizing social security was the most fatuous policy proposal ever. He wasted tremendous good will that could’ve gone to making an optional flat tax. Privatizing social security like, like drilling in ANWR will never, every happen.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
I was referring to the President’s religious beliefs. I think he wrote in his memoir that discovering his religion helped him beat his drinking problem. To me, that says that he is sincere about them. Just my 2 cents.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
What about the reverse question:
Isn’t the Republican Party using scare tactics to get economic conservative votes?
Deficits, spending and government growth has been worse under Bush than under Clinton. Tax rates haven’t been different for the majority of workers.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Think social issues don’t matter? Think Alito/Roberts then think Ginsburg/Stevens, then wonder no more.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
16,
CC that is my prediction.
My further prediction is that those that are truly fiscally liberal and leave will bring us a net gain in votes when they are traded for all of the white-collar dem voters who are comfortable financially but can’t tolerate the GOP pandering (which is exactly what it is) on social issues that hardly ever actually come up anyways.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Metro’s wing funds the Republicans and the SoCons are the ones who cast votes. Advantage: SoCons.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Eric there are fewer Democrat white collar voters than their are Republican blue collar voters.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
15, Maybe I’m wrong, but doesn’t the Ayn Rand ( I haven’t read Ayn, this is just the impression I get from you) philosophy argue for eliminating all government welfare programs - all assistance to the poor, public education… Who supports anything even close to this except for Ron Paul. I on the other hand probably could run off a list of senators and congressmen who not only share all of my socially conservative goals, but who are more socially conservative than I am. I think strict pro-life is way more in the mainstream than strict Laisezz Faire doctrine.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
See, statements like Eric’s are exactly what I am talking about.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Actually, the Democrats are moving in Eric’s direction. Obama will do very well this November with white collar, socially liberal voters while blue collar voters who voted for Hillary will leave the Democrats en masse and vote for McCain. Eric may find he’d be more comfortable with the Democrats.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
I would like to point out to some of my friends here that many, many Catholics would have never considered the GOP if it weren’t for Roe vs. Wade. Before that, most Catholics were solidly Democratic (the party of Kennedy and all that rot).
May 8th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
“Deficits, spending and government growth has been worse under Bush than under Clinton. Tax rates haven’t been different for the majority of workers.”
That’s because people cling to tax-cuts always increasing revenue as an item of faith when sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t. I tend to think maybe Bush senior was right in calling Reagan’s policies voodoo economics.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
IR-MN, you really think partial privatization is that Draconian? It was optional anyway for heaven’s sake and was only like 1 or 2% of one’s FICA tax that was going to be privatized. I think drilling in ANWAR is totally reasonable also and is a good idea considering our gas prices, though it won’t change them dramatically.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
The Democrats are the party of race, big government, and moral decay. Each of these elements, properly understood, is a political party in its own right, with its own celebrities, pressure groups, publications, and constituent groups. The party of moral decay includes Hollywood, the pornography industry, the gay lobby, the American Civil Liberties Union, and ardent atheists and agnostics. Does anybody really think that the Democrats in office aren’t going to facilitate the transit of Americans to Hell?
The Republicans are the party of economic freedom, national security, and religion. The strongest of these parties within the party is the latter. Subtract it from the coalition and we’ll be lucky to elect anybody anywhere. Metro is rock solid on 2/3rds of the coalition, although he frequently lets his animus against religion sabotage his rational faculties. This limitation of his isn’t sufficient reason to abandon religion’s only viable political defense of all that is righteous and holy, although I sympathize with Clarence’s lack of patience with some of our more wayward allies.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
#20, Ayn Rand is just an extreme example, the economic conservative movement is far bigger than her. What I described in #15 is a massive sea change of success. Add school vouchers to the list, and more.
Meanwhile, what’s happened with SoCons? George Bush and Dick Cheney are both for civil unions, putting them to the LEFT of Bill Clinton during his Presidency.
Gotta run.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Interesting. I have always believed that national republican leaders are not “true believers” and simply mouth the words in order to get votes. McCain is a bit worse than most because he simply does not champion social issues. Its not elitist to recognize politics in the use of social issues, its wise.
Oh, I also thought Obama was correct in his assessment. Its simply a matter of fact that religious observance and intolerance increase in economic hardship. The problem was his description of people as bitter (even though that is true as well).
May 8th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
If folks like Metro and his wing of the party put more money into charities there wouldn’t be as much clamor for government help for the poor.
When I was 11 I lost my father and my mother had a job making 1.5X minimum wage. There were 5 of us still living with my mother (3 had moved out already). Without government assistance we’d have been homeless and without food.
I’m not ashamed for having spent my youth eating government cheese instead of going hungry.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
I have voted in every election since I was 18 and have been politically active in Republican politics for years despite living in a New England state and constantly hearing Republicans say, “I’m concerned that the religious right is damaging the party.” If that’s not patience, I don’t know what is.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Speaking of hypocrisy, I just read that a GOP congressman has just disclosed fathering a child out of wedlock. Its NY so he’ll probably not get booted by the voters, but the GOP doesn’t need this right now.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Doug, there are circumstances (like the one you were in) where the government can and should step in, I don’t think any rational person could disagree with.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Metro has an excellent point about Bush and Cheney being to the left of Clinton on civil unions. That is why we should rethink our strategy. I don’t agree with linking religious observance with intolerance. Religious people are usually more tolerant than secular people. The most narrow-minded people I know are usually secularists. However, one aspect of what Obama said is right. Religious observance goes up in times of economic hardship because if people are less happy in this life, they are more likely to be focused on eternity. That is a positive thing, not a negative.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
34, But Ayn Rand is the philosophy you seem to hold into, and its far less sucessful than Social Conservatism. I think your philosophy has between zero and one supporters in congress. As for the massive sea change of economic conservative stuff - please, Bush along with two Republican branches of Congress expanded government. Remember Compassionate Conservatism? You got tax-cuts we got judges.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
39, No, I think people would disagree - TLG and Metro. I’m with EGS on this, my hardworking Grandparents retired from farming in their old age, and got on Medicare and Medicaid. Without this my Grandfather probably would have died of a heart - attack due to not getting heart Caths. I don’t relate to the wing of the party that equates all welfare recipients with being lazy drifters and wants to do away with all government assistance.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Deficits do tend to go up more under Republican Presidents. Republicans cut taxes and increase defense spending but cut domestic spending which is a smaller percentage of the budget (although Bush didn’t even do that). Democrats increase taxes, cut defense spending, and increase domestic spending.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
43, On economic policy on probably in line with what Bill Clinton did in office - however, thats what he did in office not what he wanted to do.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
That is part of the Republican problem. At the federal level at least, they have lost credibility on spending because the Republican Congress spent more under Bush than Clinton. Iraq has not worked out the way they would have liked. However, they continue to blame the so-cons as the cause of the party’s recent failures.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Actually I don’t spending is the whole problem, we need to have keep up a strong military, and while I’m certainly for cutting out waste and not giving financial aid to people who really don’t need it, I don’t think was should abolish welfare and go with a Laisezz Faire system. Therefore, I’m not seening four hundred billion dollars in the budget to cut. I think we’re going to need to raise taxes.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
At least the Republicans won’t enact laws contra to the social conservative movement. Democrats will. I’d rather tread water than start sinking.
And even if you want to send a message to Republicans to take social issues seriously, this is NOT the year to do it. If the Democrats win the White House, gain 6 seats in the Senate, and gain 20 seats in the House (all of which will happen without full conservative turnout), the Republican party has the serious potential to become an irrelevant minority for a generation. The Supreme Court- which is showing HUGE progress in their decisions- will change drastically for the worse. Activist judges will fill the Federal judiciary.
Thanks, but no thanks.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
John Mark, I think that would only happen under Obama because McCain has not voted for a tax increase in the Senate that I’m aware of. Also on social issues, I suppose we should not blame McCain for what some of the Republicans like Eric and Metro say on this site. Metro didn’t support him for the nomination. I’m not even sure he supports him now. I, on the other hand, came on board the minute Romney lost.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
rnst_p, you are probably right. I think we should get behind Senator McCain this time, but we need to rethink our future strategy.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
When are people going to run that almost all of America’s strength comes from a strong social structure? A strong military is dependent on a strong economy, and a strong economy is dependent on strong character, morals, and values.
Look at Europe. They let their social fabric decay, abortions rose, marraige was demeaned, births fell, and now the entire continent is on the road to extinction or takeover by either Muslims or (should they inch that way again), Russia.
Feel free to throw out social conservatives (or refuse to work with them - forcing them out), and you can wath this country go to hell in a handbasket in 30 years.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
And do people really think that its social issues putting us in the dog house? If you want to get rid of anything, get rid of economic conservatism or foreign policy conservatism. Those are the reasons people are mad at the party.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
I suppose we should not blame McCain for what some of the Republicans like Eric and Metro say on this site. Metro didn’t support him for the nomination. I’m not even sure he supports him now.
That’s the irony behind all of this. Most of the people who comment regularly on this site did not support McCain in the primaries. They supported other candidates who didn’t win because not only were those candidates too far from center, they were so far out that most REPUBLICAN VOTERS couldn’t stomach them. And then the supporters of these candidates, still completely unable to comprehend that the center of political gravity in this country is worlds away from their own instincts, have the audacity to lecture ME when I present them with actual empirical evidence of the views of the majority of Americans and suggest that we need to win the votes of those Americans.
McCain won the Republican nomination because most actual Republican voters support his heterodox views, which are only heterodox when one goes through the looking glass into the world of online conservatives. In real life, the online activists are the ones at the poles of American political thought. And McCain is a mainstream Republican. And I know how to read numbers. As such, I worry very little about the tantrums of online activists, and very much about the real people who decide real elections in the real world.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
“McCain won the Republican nomination because most actual Republican voters support his heterodox views”
McCain won the Republican nomination because huckabee was a perfect fit for Iowa, and because NH Democrats thought Obama had the state sewn up.
That is why we need closed primaries with registration dates 100 days in advance, so that the nominee is a good representation of the base.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
“And McCain is a mainstream Republican.”
Most Republicans support a shortcut to citizenship for illegals?
Most Republicans support limiting the ability of conservatives to promote their message?
Most Republicans support driving up energy prices to save some long-eared moose?
Most Republicans opposed the Bush tax cuts?
Most Republicans opposed a ban on gay marraige?
May 8th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Actblog, for any voter to be undecided between McCain and Obama is illogical because they are polar opposites both on age and on the war, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. People probably were uninformed enough to be undecided between those two. The NH Legislature tried to pass closed primaries a few years ago. They did not get the votes. DaveG is onto something. McCain was a compromise choice. As opposed to being fiscally conservative and socially liberal like Giuliani or fiscally liberal and socially conservative like Huckabee, he was moderate on both.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Actblog, McCain is not at the left of the Republican party. Though he does differ on the issues you mentioned, if you had Lincoln Chafee on the extreme left wing of the party and Tom Coburn at the other end, McCain is right in the middle if not closer to Coburn. I’ve disagreed with DaveG on many things, but that is not one of them. McCain is a mainstream Republican.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Can’t the national GOP require states to have closed primaries, and then dock delegates or refuse to recognize the results from states that don’t follow the rules.
We have to come up with a way to stop the moderates, independents, liberals, and Democrats from choosing the nominee of a party that is overwealmingly Conservative.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
DaveG, do you think McCain is still pedding cheap cologne.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
peddling, my bad
May 8th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Actblog, I support individual states passing laws to have closed primaries, but I think having the RNC require it would not be very “conservative”. We are a states rights party. Plus our voters are not overwhelmingly conservative, I wish they were, but they’re not.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
The problem for Social Conservatives has little to do with politicians. Sadly society has changed and social conservatives are on the losing side of that battle. There was an earlier comment that conservative social values do not hold that much weight with the upcoming generations and society is to be accepting of all actions even the immoral.
The SC should not be used as a measure of social conservative success. They are simply 9 people with extraordinary and “uncosntitutional” powers. There should never be any litmus test, simply because of the slippery slope that would be created.
The US, like every great civilization, is killing itself from within. I am a strong foreign policy conservative and national security is the top responsibility of our government. I personally would like the government to get out of any social issues, but the other side has used the legal system and government to promote their views, so the battlfield has already been chosen.
Social conservatives should not complain that much, they were not united behind a candidate and someone else won the noimination. That’s the change that should occur. Social conservatives have a lot of power in the nominating process, more than other members of the coalition. this year, they squandered that power. Suck it up and stop crying!!
May 8th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Again, this whole “McCain wouldn’t have won if we had closed primaries” is absurd. Look at Florida. We have as broad a range of Republicans in Florida as there is in the country, and we had a closed primary. McCain won here and believe me, that was one of the last things I wanted but those are the facts.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Johnathan, that is not completely true. There was no real Democratic contest in FLA and so some people voted in GOP, I guess Operation Chaos was not Rush’s creation!!
May 8th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
“Actblog, I support individual states passing laws to have closed primaries, but I think having the RNC require it would not be very “conservativeâ€. We are a states rights party.”
We are a states rights party sofaras issues that do not have national consequences. It is undeniable that the primaries have national consequences, and should be governed by a single national policy.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Let’s be fair to Reagan and the Bushes, they HAVE appointed appropriate justices in that timeframe. Souter was the only disaster from the Republican side (and you could argue O’Connor was, but she was courteous enough to step down while a Republican was still in office). Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas were all solid. It’s not their fault that Kennedy had a last minute change of heart when Casey was decided. Consider what the democrats have done since then (Ginsburg, Breyer) before you complain too much about the Republican appointments….it’s not like a democratic congress is going to let Edith Jones through (Bork surely didn’t make it).
May 8th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
If Independents were not allowed to vote in Republican primaries, and if registration dates were well in advance of actual voting, and if delegates were handed out according to a porportional-by-percent system, John McCain wouldn’t be the nominee, and this party would be a lot better off.
Our primary system is broken, but its not the dates that are the reason - its the built-in advantage givin to moderates, who make up the minority of the party.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Clarence wrote: I did not see it myself, but somebody said they saw a show where Rove laughed at the Christian conservatives and called them wackos but said, “We have to deal with them. They’re our base.â€
Perhaps what you’re referring to is this excerpt from an interview Chris Hitchens did last year with New York magazine:
NY: Has anyone in the Bush administration confided in you about being an atheist?
Hitchens: Well, I don’t talk that much to them—maybe people think I do. I know something which is known to few but is not a secret. Karl Rove is not a believer, and he doesn’t shout it from the rooftops, but when asked, he answers quite honestly. I think the way he puts it is, “I’m not fortunate enough to be a person of faith.â€
NY: What must Bush make of that?
Hitchens: I think it’s false to say that the president acts as if he believes he has God’s instructions. Compared to Jimmy Carter, he’s nowhere. He’s a Methodist, having joined his wife’s church in the end. He also claims that Jesus got him off the demon drink. He doesn’t believe it. His wife said, “If you don’t stop, I’m leaving and I’m taking the kids.†You can say that you got help from Jesus if you want, but that’s just a polite way of putting it in Texas.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
#63, No that is not true. Unlike Michigan, everyone’s name was on the Democrat ballot. The registration deadline was the first week of December 2007, long before anyone voted. Every single Democrat I talked too fully intended on voting in the Democrat primary, sort of a sticking it to Howard Dean mentality.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Well the people in FLA knew that there votes were not going to count, and no one campaigned in FLA at all! Many would think that there vote would not count and might do what was encouraged by DEMS in Michigan: Vote in the GOP race.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
I won’t say that Florida went to McCain because of independents/Democrats (though there party change deadline was MUCH too close to the voting), but McCain was only competative in FL because he won in NH, which he would not have done without independents and Democrats.
Our nominee wasn’t decided by our party.
———–
But my biggest problem is really the fact that we have so many WTA states, and that said states are usually more moderate, and larger. That creates the built-in advantage for moderates (the minority of the party) that I talked about.
Yes, we look at the Democrats and say “what a mess”, but their nominee is going to be far more representative of the party than McCain is of the GOP. A porportional system would have given Romney nearly as many delegates as McCain, driven it to later states, and if it had gone to the convention, we would have gotten the Conservative nominee we should have.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
That did not happen. The chairwoman of the Democrat Party of Florida along with all the state’s top Dem’s, all urged their voters to vote in the Democratic primary. Their logic was that if there were enough votes, then the DNC would have to count them. And again, Obama, Edwards, and Clinton were all on the Democrat ballot.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
#70 Act:
The deadline was almost 2 Months before the Florida primary. There was no big announcment a couple of days before hand or anything like that. Not a single vote had been cast anywhere and Rudy Giuliani was 15 points ahead of everyone else in the state.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Well actually you do not know that it didn’t. Chaiwoman or not, who cares what she said. No one campaigned in FLA and it was already known that none of their delgated would sit = WORTHLESS VOTE!
May 8th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
I thought the deadline was Dec. 31 - only a month before the primary?
May 8th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
From what I remember, it was at the very beginning of December. Besides there was a very important constitutional amendment on the ballot for the 29th and the state Dem’s pushed very hard to turn out voters to defeat it.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
ilfigo,
Turnout was nearly the same for the Dems as it was for the GOP in the Florida primaries — 1.4 million Democrats and 1.6 million Republicans cast ballots. The primaries were not only closed, but if you were an independent or a member of another party, you had a deadline of December 31 to change your registration in order to participate in the primary of your choice on January 29. The results from the Democratic primary in Florida will eventually count, and at least half of the delegates will be seated at their convention. What remains to be seen is whether the DNC can convince Hillary to graciously accept a popular vote victory posthumously.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
ANYWAY, I DON’T CARE ABOUT FLORIDA - beyond the WTA thing, and it you want to debate that, we can.
But McCain would have been done LONG before FL if he hadn’t won NH, which he only did because of independents and Democrats who crossed over, thinking Obama had the state won.
If those people hadn’t been allowed to vote, McCain couldn’t have gone on, he would have been done after NH. Romney would have gone on to win Michigan, competed strongly in SC, maybe won FL, probably taken a lot more delegates on Super Tuesday, and, at the very least, the race would have gone on longer, and given us a more conservative nominee.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Never mind, it was December 31. I was wrong and I apologize.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
I don’t like winner take all either. NH is not winner take all on our side.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
“but if you were an independent or a member of another party, you had a deadline of December 31 to change your registration in order to participate in the primary of your choice on January 29″
Exactly - one month in advance, far too early.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Act blog, keep in mind that the party hacks would rather have NO nomination contest. If they do have one, they just want it to be over as fast as possible and get the most moderate nominee we can. That’s what we’re up against.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Act: I agree, with you, I didn’t want McCain to win Florida either! Except for I think LJ, no one else had McCain as their first choice. If anyone should be mad about McCain winning, it should be Rudy supporters. If McCain had dropped out in September, this could have been a Rudy vs. Romney or a Rudy vs Thompson race.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
50 act,
You don’t honestly believe that Europe’s woes have anything to do with some mythical “social fabric decay” do you? What no earth does that mean? Marriage was demeaned? That has zero to do with them adopting doomed economic policies. Nothing.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
OK I am seeing less and less in common with the Republican party, and I consider myself pretty hard core conservative socially, fiscally, what else is there? I’ve been looking for some alternative, and there is no way I’ll vote for McCain since I don’t like the direction he has pushed the country in for the last 20 years, along with other democrats and liberal repubs. So what is the suggestion for folks like me? I honestly don’t think that McCain is a conservative nominee. He was definitely foisted on mainstream American families like myself. Something ain’t right with my country….
May 8th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
“NH is not winner take all on our side.”
No, it isn’t, but FL, NY, NJ, MR, AZ, all were. And CA does some kind of crazy district system.
It should be porportional-by-percent. You can have a 10%-15% delegate WTA bonus, but the rest should be awarded by percent.
That would gaurentee the nominee was a good representative of the party.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
I’m a biased McCain supporter, but as far as his position on abortion goes he refers to it as a human rights issue and he has always been front and center on human rights issues. I don’t think there’s any substantive reason to question his sincerity; and since he is percieved as a moderate he may actually be better equipt to influence others into adopting his pro-life stance.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Eric - true, some of their woes due result from socialist econ policies, but look at the entire continent, its dying.
If they had a stronger social fabric, and more sound social policy, I bet you they would be in a much better position.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
winner-take-all is the fairest system. In the general election you don’t get 48% of the electoral votes from a state for getting 48%. We are Republicans here, you have to win before you get rewards.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
And for the guy who doesn’t understand the term “social fabric decay”, where do you start to school a guy like that? OK, remember the barbarians who raped and plundered themselves and others and there was no progress? The social fabric, usually based on some solid moral code, prevents that. Capiche? Good grief.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
“I’m a biased McCain supporter, but as far as his position on abortion goes he refers to it as a human rights issue and he has always been front and center on human rights issues”
I never got the indication he gave a damn about it until he could use it against Romney. His voting record is pro-life, but it seemed to be more out of convenience (I don’t care about the issue, so I’ll vote the party line so I still get some respect).
Didn’t McCain once say he could never support the overturn of Roe?
—-
Anyway, I have less of a problem with McCain on social issues as I do on immigration, taxes, etc.
—
Also, the “moderates can convince people” argument only goes so far - and doesn’t usually extend to deeply-held moral and values issues.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
I’m back.
It may surprise you, but I am sympathetic to some SoCon ends. It is the means, not the ends, that invite derision. Clarence refers to secularists being the narrow-minded ones. But it’s not narrow-mindedness about your fundamentalist religious views, it’s the insistence that those views not be mixed with politics. That you don’t try to use government force to foist your version of social engineering upon us, the same way we don’t want liberals to foist socialism upon us.
I have a lot of ideas for how SoCons could make progress on their agenda, partly inside politics, but mostly outside politics. Not outside politics because that’s what I prefer, but because that’s a better route to succeess. The fundamental mistake of SoCon strategy is to think it generally works to use government force to change morals. That’s 180 degrees from reality. It’s morals that cause government policies, not the reverse. Convince the masses you are your brother’s keeper, and you’ll get socialism.
I think there’s a whole ton of things that could be done entrepreneurially to advance SoCon ideals within the culture. Politics will follow as a matter of course.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
act/dubai, this secular social liberal doesn’t deny the problem of the decay of the social fabric. I think it’s appalling we have a culture of disrespect, among other things.
Where you’re wrong is that working against gay unions or stem cell research will fix the problem of our social fabric. You aren’t even getting near the essence of it with those issues.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
“winner-take-all is the fairest system. In the general election you don’t get 48% of the electoral votes from a state for getting 48%.”
Don’t think I’m opposed to doing away with the electoral college. In any case, all states (save CO, I think), have WTA for electoral votes.
———
And why is WTA the “fairest” system. Wouldn’t it be fairer to have a nominee who recieved the most support period, rather than giving a built-in advantage to moderate/liberal Republicans who play well in lefty states like CA,NY,NJ,etc?
May 8th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
90 - I believe that is a quote taken out of context, as he has a strong record of being pro-life.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
My memory is a little fuzzy, but the last President from California, what was that moderate to liberal’s name again?
May 8th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Metro - you can only do so much, but when the government sanctions (by that I mean permits) abortion mills, tries to hand out condoms in schools, refuses to allow children to be exposed to alternative ideas about the origins of man, and so on, its a losing battle.
At the current point, states that WANT to ban abortion can’t even do it.
——
Well, I’ve stated my proposal for gay unions - if you have to change the current system (which I don’t think is a good idea), then you allow any two people to form a legal “union” for the various rights that they want. You then limit any financial/tax benefits to couples who have kids.
As for stem cells - I don’t want my tax dollars, or the governments hands, involved in the mutation and destrution of what I consider to be innocent human life. If there is that much promise in it, private companies can fund it, and seek donations from the public.
Now, once we can get stem cells from embryos without destroying them, fine, THEN the government can fund it.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Also, regarding Roberts and Alito, while SoCons may consider those SoCon successes, those appointments do not offend people like me. In part because they will help economic conservatism with respect to the Commerce Clause.
And federalism and judicial restraint are not offensive. They have nothing to do with mixing religion and politics.
Kavon’s been right all along that the way for the EconCon/libertarian wing and the SoCon wing of the GOP to get along is via federalism.
But even then, we have to intervene when SoCons go to far and support things like racial segregation.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
act, those proposals are fine — but ignores the fact that harping on them does nothing to address the current state of the culture.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Metro, not a single social conservative I’ve ever met has supported something like racial segregation. That is an accusation too far.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
“My memory is a little fuzzy, but the last President from California, what was that moderate to liberal’s name again?”
???
You can’t use state natives as examples - thats like saying MA isn’t more liberal than most states because it supported Romney, a Conservative.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Jonathan, most all of them did a few decades ago.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Fine I won’t use the native-son analogy. Let’s look at 2000, John McCain’s last fight was on Super-Tuesday that year. He had just won Michigan and Arizona and had performed well in WA and VA. He mainly targeted New England/New York and California. McCain lost everywhere except for New England. Then Governor Bush, the more conservative out of the 2 won places like New York and California. California was winner-take-all and New York was winner-take-all based on congressional district. How was that inherintely not fair to the more conservative candidate (Bush) as opposed to the more moderate one (McCain).
May 8th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
“but ignores the fact that harping on them does nothing to address the current state of the culture.”
it maintains the sanctity of marriage, it helps stop abortion.
Strong marriages and a culture that promotes life, among other things, will help greatly.
—-
Now, I agree that there are other things that need to be done, but those are two of the big ones.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
“Strong marriages” — you throw it out Romney, style, like an advertising scheme.
Wouldn’t granting gays marriage rights cause more strong marriages? And how does doing so weaken heterosexual ones?
May 8th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
“How was that inherintely not fair to the more conservative candidate (Bush) as opposed to the more moderate one (McCain).”
He won the states, ok, fine. That doesn’t mean an inherent advantage favors Conservatives, it just means that Bush, as the strong favorite, and the choice of the base, was able to overcome the moderate adantage. Also, the country didn’t have the same attitude towards Bush-style conservatives eight years ago.
You have these large, liberal states, where even the Republicans are farther left than the rest of the party, that are WTA. Other states, which are more conservative, are porportional. How is that not an advantage for moderates?
May 8th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Hey! I’m to the right of act-blog on a social issue. I (very tenatively) oppose even privately funded embryonic stem-cell research that destroys the embryo.
May 8th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Texas is a big conservative state that is winner-take-all and Florida wasn’t supposed to be. We changed after the RNC took away half our delegates. So conservative states are proportional and lots of winner-take-all states are more moderate. So what? Is that not those states’s own fault? I know this whole thing revolves around Romney so here it goes; he won caucuses. Out of Romney’s 11 wins in the primaries, 9 of them were caucuses, and of the 3 primaries only 1, Massachusetts was proportional. Michigan and Utah were both winner-take-all.
May 8th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
“Wouldn’t granting gays marriage rights cause more strong marriages?”
It would create more marraige, maybe, but it wouldn’t create more strong families.
—-
“And how does doing so weaken heterosexual ones?”
Because, it takes the deffinition of marraige from being a union of a man and a woman, who are designed to live together and have famlies, to being a way for any two people to get special privledges from the government.
If you redefine marriage outside of the natural union, then you have no basis for stopping the redefinition for ANYTHING - group marraiges, polygamy, sibling marriages, even, as time progresses, marraige to robots or other things yet undreamed of.
May 8th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
ACT,
How has current marriage not led to brother-sister marriages?
May 8th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
It would be far more fair, far more democratic, and far more likely to produce nominee in-line with the party if all states were porportional.
Unless you can dispute that argument, what grounds do you have for keeping WTA?
May 8th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
How much have SoCon families been weakened, because their gay kids learn to despise themselves, and tend to be the gays who engage in drug use and unprotected sex as a result of SoCon teaching?
How much damage are you doing to your own kids, for God’s sake?
May 8th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
I dispute that argument completely. As I said, in the general election, the electoral college does not give out votes proportionally.
May 8th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
[...] Clarence Claus asks a question about our political leaders: Do our politicians just use issues we care about as a “scare tactic†in order to win? [...]
May 8th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
[...] a strong social conservative Republican, I wanted to respond to Clarence Claus’s post below with two [...]
May 8th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
“How much have SoCon families been weakened, because their gay kids learn to despise themselves, and tend to be the gays who engage in drug use and unprotected sex as a result of SoCon teaching?
How much damage are you doing to your own kids, for God’s sake?”
As opposed to completely doing away with any concept of the traditional family?
I’m not sure what you are suggesting metro. Are Social Conservatives supposed to fly in the face of everything the bible (not to mention nature) tells us? Are we supposed to support handing out condoms and birth control pills in schools?
Don’t you think the concept of risk-free sex would only encourage more people to become involved?
May 8th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Part of the reason I oppose Gay marriage, or any equivalent label granting equal rights to gays is because I am an economic conservative as well as social. Think about just one issue for a minute, Social Security benefits. Today, when a husband dies, the living spouse gets his social security check until she dies. Social Security is in a very bad situation as it is, and without a great overhaul will go broke. NOW THINK about the impact of granting this same benefit to other couples, gay or not. It will go flat broke much, much, much faster, because they would be paying benefits to the surviving ’so called spouse’. Now, you say, so there’s only x% gays, so it wouldn’t have a huge impact. WHOA!! Oh, yes it would, why? Because all of a sudden you woudn’t have just gays agreeing to a civil union or ‘marriage’, but nearly all people not actually married, i.e. man and woman, would see the huge monetary benefit to become ‘hitched’ together. Also think of the huge problems that gives us in medicare, medicade, etc.
Like I said, I vehemently disagree with the marriage between anyone or anything other than a male and female human being, but even if I didn’t, I would still be doing my best to stop it on an economic basis. We just flat couldn’t begin to incorporate that drastic of a change into our current systems. After all, these are the very reasons why they are trying to get it to be legal to begin with, otherwise, they would just keep doing whatever they do with each other in the bedroom.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
But these unions are very difficult to get out of Illiniosguy. Men and women already have the option of creating a union to take advantage of SS law. Are they currently doing it? Legal marriage is already nothing more than a civil union.
That ficon argument (while unique) is about as lame as they come. And is not why you or anyone opposes gay marriage.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
I don’t think there’s gay kids or straight kids, there’s just kids. Sexual deviancy, ideally, should not be introduced until MUCH later. But our culture is light years from that already
May 8th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
I don’t think there’s gay kids or straight kids, there’s just kids. Sexual deviancy, ideally, should not be introduced until MUCH later. But our culture is light years from that already
What’s a “kid” to you?
People are aware of their sexual orientation from the onset of puberty.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
There is absolutely nothing lame about the ficon argument! You saying it doesn’t make it so. There is no doubt in my mind that is exactly what will happen. We’re talking about huge dollar impacts to those systems that are already in trouble, perhaps a trillion or more; I haven’t heard any exact estimates, but enough to blow the current ideas for rectifying the problems right out of the water.