GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
I am sorry for the long hiatus, folks. End of the semester finals and papers have consumed my life for the past few weeks.
I am very intrigued by the recent discussion on this site pertaining to the influence social conservatives have upon the Republican Party and whether or not a split is inevitable. Forgive me as I stray from argument to argument. The thoughts below represent a loose outline of how McCain can position himself for the fall.
Though I do not believe the GOP circa 2008 is headed for a similar divide that saw the Democrat Party circa 1968 torn between hawks and doves, segregationists and desegregationists, it is obvious to all of us that John McCain will not win in November by following the road-map of Bush’s 2004 victory.
Suddenly, the GOP has a new face; a face rarely ever associated with party norms, a face wrinkled and old, one that has endured the bitterness of Washington politics and, before that, the horrors of war. Any Republican would begin the 2008 campaign facing daunting and nearly insurmountable challenges. The GOP goes in knowing that 1988 stands as the only time since World War II that a party was able to elect three consecutive presidents (Reagan in 1980 and 1984, George H.W. Bush in 1988). On top of the electoral history, the party is burdened with a very unpopular sitting president, a general public weary of two ongoing wars, and an economy buckling under the weight of rising energy prices and a faltering housing market.
Rolling out the conventional Republican talking points or relying on the ever-elusive “base” will not produce a win in November. Republicans must reinvigorate the party’s platform in 2008 and reach out to all Americans. Whether we like it or not, McCain must play to his strengths to hold off Barack Obama. Any attempts to recast him as a die-hard conservative to please the base are futile and counterproductive. By all means, let us emphasize his staunch pro-life record, but any hopes to defeat the Chosen One in a drawn out culture war would be ill-conceived.
“As the Party of the open door, while steadfast to our commitment to our ideals, we respect and accept that members of our Party can have deeply held and sometimes differing views. This diversity is a source of strength, not a sign of weakness, and so we welcome into our ranks all who may hold differing positions.”
The above quote appears in the preamble of the Republican Party’s 2004 platform put forth at the national convention. It speaks to the necessity of expanding our party’s support in today’s acrimonious political environment. John McCain has already established his ability to draw a unique constituency, as Catholics, the elderly, Hispanics, Independents, and veterans delivered him key wins in the primary season. In fact, McCain is the ideal candidate to vie for the coveted “Reagan Democrats,” those predominantly working-class voters who reside in Northern states such as Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Non-ideological in nature, these voters will be drawn to McCain’s common sense approach to spending, immigration, and defense.
The Republican Party, once united behind the pure ideals of conservatism, now has lost its way by polluting its true intention and scope. Shaping a fresh narrative for the American people must be a priority for the McCain campaign. As the Democratic candidates exude their party’s diversity, charisma, and (inexperienced) youth, the GOP must highlight examples of successful conservative governance. McCain’s ability to present a dynamic, efficient, and reformist platform will be imperative to his chances in the fall. He should encourage Republican governors Charlie Crist of Florida, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Sarah Palin of Alaska, Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, and Mark Sanford of South Carolina to stump on his behalf. This group represents the next generation of party leaders. Their active campaigning could dispel any beliefs that the Grand Ole’ Party suffers from a lack of youthful and inspiring officials. In broader terms, McCain will be best suited by adopting a realist and sobering tone: acknowledge the problems our nation is facing, point out his past objections to failed policies, and push results-driven market solutions.
Six and half years removed from the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks, the American public has lost faith in our international security policies. The semantics of a “War on Terror” has overshadowed American national interests and the overriding principles of our military action. John McCain must remind the public of the ever-evolving threat of militant Islam and other violent fundamentalists. He would be wise to showcase his quarter-century of foreign policy expertise and, before that, his time as a Navy pilot and POW in Vietnam.
One of the more regretful weaknesses of the Bush foreign policy was the President’s disregard for public communication. Whether he has had a general aversion to voter interaction or simply found it meaningless once his approval ratings dropped into the freezing range, it is obvious that Bush has accomplished more to secure our nation than is actually perceived. John McCain could reverse this trend by giving a continual series of policy speeches on our purpose and goals on the world stage. An emphasis should be placed upon our success in preventing an attack on the homeland since September 11th and the inroads we have made in fracturing terror cells abroad. Most importantly, McCain would be better well positioned to win the Presidency if he can harness the public dialogue that has been previously filled by misconception and general disconnect.
A McCain Administration must reconsider our aid to non-democracies such as Ethiopia, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. We cannot call for democratic reform in countries such as Egypt, Iran, and Syria while turning a blind eye to authoritarian and oppressive rule in nations that assist us in our struggle against radical expansionist forces. The push towards dramatic Middle Eastern democratization over the past five years is both admirable and long overdue. Yet the movement does not reflect the realities of Middle Eastern politics or the chance of achieving lasting liberalization.
The election of Hamas in Palestine is a prime example of what can go wrong if a long-suppressed and economically-distressed electorate is empowered too quickly. In the Middle East, The United States must carefully walk a tightrope between our duty to push for individual liberty versus the need for viable civic institutions and economic mobility. In countries such as Pakistan, where the military is the only true functioning body, we must not forget the fragile nature of governing coalitions and their unsteady grasp on violent groups waiting for chaos to erupt.
May 9th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Republicans in 2020 may be debating who is the true McCain Republican.
May 9th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
No.
support for Amnesty (after we’ve seen the failures of it under Reagan), tree-hugging policies, and little knowledge of economic issues will never be used for the standard of what a Conservative (or Republican should be).
This was the first nominating contest since Reagan’s death - Republicans had a chance to choose their new leader, someone who would set their direction for the next fourty years. Sadly, they blew that chance.
Well, it wasn’t exactly Republicans fault - its time we write independents and Democrats out of our nominating process, and that we switch to porportional delegation - so large, liberal states aren’t choosing our nominee.
May 9th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Yeah, proportional representation, that’s the ticket. For all your talk of wanting the Republican Party to not be like the Democrats, your fetishism for adopting Democratic party procedure is puzzling, doubly so in light of the fact that its been an unmitigated disaster for the Democrats this year.
May 9th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Sean P, forgive act-blog, he is our resident robot, not thinking, regurgitating the same thing every day, as if nobody had corrected him before.
Most of us just ignore him now.
May 9th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Act, aren’t you essentially arguing for having your own party? You seem quite eager to run everyone else out on a rail.
May 9th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
ACT, I can assure you more people ignore Metro than ignore you. He comes across as some liberal transplant to argue against everything conservative except economic issues, and that will NEVER BE WHAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS, and if it does become that, it will shrivel to nothingness in less than 5 years.
May 9th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
And national security. Economics and national security comprise 95% of a President’s daily business.
In fact, I’m overstating the 5% for social/cultural issues.
May 9th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
The 5% matters more than the 95% for many voters.
May 9th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
You just don’t understand the connection between the our moral fabric decline, and our economic woes, and national security for that matter. They are all interconnected. Its complex, but I believe most of us on here do see how they are all related. To try and convince anyone in a thousand words or less would be quite impossible. That’s what books are for, I guess.
May 9th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
#8 has nothing to do with whether or not I am a liberal transplant/troll and why I support the GOP.
#9, I think secularism teaches VALUES much better than fundamentalist religion. Earlier today, I pointed out that the kids who kill their parents or schoolmates, or plot to, are nearly always from Red America, and that Blue America produces well-adjusted kids. Excluding inner-city minorities (whom are also raised very religiously), our prisons are FILLED with the spawn of religious, SoCon Red America, and the kids of liberals are far much less likely to end up there. If you care about values and families, you’d take a hard, second look at religious fundamentalism.
May 9th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Where are you getting these statistics Metro?
May 9th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
“Yeah, proportional representation, that’s the ticket. For all your talk of wanting the Republican Party to not be like the Democrats, your fetishism for adopting Democratic party procedure is puzzling, doubly so in light of the fact that its been an unmitigated disaster for the Democrats this year.”
Its only a “disaster” because Republicans had a nominee early. I gaurentee to you that the Democratic nominee (whoever it is) will be a far better representative of their party than McCain could ever be of ours.
——–
Look, the Democrats also have a flawed system, but they are better on delegate allottment (minus the supers) than the GOP. Its fairer, and the final tally is more representative of the way the party feels than ours is.
If we had porportional allottment, we wouldn’t be stuck with a pro-amnesty, tree-hugging, economic know-nothing as our nominee.
The whole system needs reformed - and I’d like to see more changes than just the way delegates are handed out - the order of states, when the primaries are held, who can vote in them, when we have the conventions - the whole system needs as overhaul.
May 9th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
OHIO JOE, haven’t compiled any yet, but it’s common knowledge if you look at the geography and demographics of criminals.
May 9th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
The only “blue state” kid I can think of making headlines for killing someone was that goth kid in the SF Bay Area who killed Daniel Horowitz’s wife a few years ago to fund his pot-growing business.
That’s offset by dozens of stories of “red state” kids killing their parents, classmates, etc.
I mean, how the hell do you go off talking about how evil secularists corrupt families and kids, when it’s YOUR kids who are filling our prisons?
May 9th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Metro, yes understand that a few red states have a lot of criminals, but do they live in Red counties and do they really come from Red families. I can tell you that in my area, most criminals more from Bluer counties and Bluer neighborhoods within these counties, so I think it is a bit of stretch to say that Red kids are not well adjusted.
May 9th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
I excepted inner-city minorities, as a separate issue.
No, the crime stories about the youth are nearly always about ones from religious, socially conservative areas/families.
May 9th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Metro, your information is purely ancedotal and useless. Did it ever occur to you that the media might have a reason for telling stories about the upbringing of religous kids who go into crime but not about other kids, or has it ever occured to you that your own bias could lead you to noticing the former and not the latter? All you’re basing this off of is what you read about in the newspaper - that’s the depth of sloppy reasoing. That humans have biases and can come to the wrong conclusion if they just use ancedotal evidence, is common PSYCH 101 level stuff. You insult our intelligence by a barrage of logical fallacies and useless ancedotal information. So if you have stats for how many crimnals come from secular VS. religous ones, and how many come from redstates vs. blue states and how many are in our prisons fire away. Otherwise go away. Unlike you some of actually have a useful education. Actually alot of this is common sense and doesn’t even require an education, but apparently you even lack common sense and reasoning ability. For someone who tries to base their whole life on logic its pretty sad when you don’t have any better reasoning ability than a child.
May 9th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Well, it only follows to reason that, when conservatives have most of the kids, conservatives are going to have the most kids who do bad things.
May 9th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Metro just accepts what his media overlords tell him.
The fact is crime is mostly attributable to poverty.
It happens that most criminals are from the lower class. I suppose Metro wants to outlaw poverty too?
La-La-Land
May 9th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Metro, you’re wading into the bramble here. I’ve spent half of my life in the same community here in the backwoods, and none of the sad tragedies I’ve heard of fit the mold you’re trying to press them into. And this is a pretty conservative religious neck of the woods.
I’m not aware of any religious types around here linked with murder and other crimes. Any that I can think of are from pretty areligious/non-religious families. These folks often have a family legacy of poverty made systematic by indifference to education. Some are perfect models for dumb hicks — although quite a good many of what urbanites might dump into that category are quite moral and have good common horse sense.
There are also notorious poor families that have found various ways to milk the public welfare and assistance systems as a way of life, by the way. Their lives are certainly not guided by religious faith, but rather by belief in the Almighty Handout.
Your caricature is grossly inaccurate.
May 9th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
I just found this to be an interesting piece that needed to be stuck somewhere:
Refer a Friend | May 9, 2008
The People’s Court
In what is being called “a vindication of the will of the people,” the Michigan Supreme Court upheld the state’s marriage amendment as applied to state-funded domestic partner benefits. Upholding a lower court decision, the judges agreed that public employers cannot provide spousal benefits like health insurance to homosexual couples because it would violate Michigan’s constitution. By a 5-2 vote, the court effectively ended the policies of 20 universities, school districts, and local governments which covered an estimated 375 homosexual couples. The ruling was made possible by the 2004 ballot initiative defining marriage as the union of a man and woman. Passed with 59 percent of the vote, the amendment to the state’s constitution made the unique status of marriage impenetrable for homosexual activists. Justice Stephen Markman, writing for the majority, addressed the suit’s 42 plantiffs who claimed that the amendment was meant to ban gay marriage, not eliminate people’s benefits. The judge reminded them that both proponents and opponents of the initiative knew that the privileges of marriage would not be extended to homosexual conduct if the amendment passed. “The role of this Court is not to determine who said what about the amendment before it was ratified, or to speculate about how these statements may have influenced voters,” he wrote. “Instead, our responsibility is, as it has always been in matters of constitutional interpretation, to determine the meaning of the amendment’s actual language.”
Thank God for at least some good judges in America!
May 9th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/usa/Figure4.pdf
I sorted that list by white male incarceration rate.
Took at look at the 15 states with highest white incarceration rates.
9 of those are from the 15 states with the highest Bush% vote in 2000 (WY, ID, OK, SD, TX, AK, SC, AL, KY).
4 more of them are from Bush states that were swing states (AZ, CO, MO, NV).
1 of them was from a swing state that went blue (NM).
And only 1 of the 15 was from a blue state (DE).
And there you go.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Your problem, ACT, is that you still can’t accept the fact that McCain beat Romney, fair and square.
But look around, most of Romney’s other supporters have accepted the fact that McCain is the nominee and that he’s more acceptable than either Democratic candidate and have moved on. If we had the system you are advocating, the race would still be going on and both Romney AND McCain would be beaten to a fine pulp. Plus, the proportionate system — ie, the so-called “fair” system — is the one that is threatening to create a situation where the popular vote winner might not necessarily be the same person who won the most delegates, whereas on the GOP side McCain had a clear lead in delegates as well as raw votes under any possible calculus. Which means the number of resentful supporters of the losing candidate would be greater.
Plus, McCain was the better man. I hate to rub your nose in that fact,
but you still can’t let go, so there it is.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
The most fundamentalist group in America has the lowest crime rate of any population.
The Amish.
Based on Metro’s logic we should all become Amish because that deters crime and instills morals.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
IN fact only one Amish man has been convicted of murder in the last 50 years.
This is out of a population of several hundred thousand people.
In this time period a similar group of average Americans there would have been convicted of 1000 murders.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Metro, that graph only results in your conclusions if and only if you apply the standard left-wing, Hollywood, and Ivy League down-the-nose elitist characterization of the folks in “fly-over country”: that of the irrational fundamentalist religious fanatic — a stock character that barely exists on the fringes of society in the real world.
You should get out more.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Metro, the more I think about it, the more I believe you might have been duped by the stories of loons like Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh. If you look more closely, these two can hardly be described as religious or Christian. The press, of course, eagerly reported that they were in early stories, continuing the anti-religious, anti-rural bias of many urban, secular, left-wing journalists.
Go out into the country and see for yourself. You’ll hardly find more honest, more sincere “plain folks” who pitch in to help their neighbors in need than the rural true believers — many of them giving more proportionately than their wealthier urban cohorts could ever imagine. Even if I don’t always believe what they do, I certainly believe in them as a source of American strength.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
MarkG, is #22 not displaying on your screen?
May 9th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Doug, what fallacy would you be committing?
May 9th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
#22 - What a stupid conclusion to draw from that data! Have you ever thought about the fact that liberal states have more liberal juries, and more liberal judges, and that that they just may not be incarcerating people for for the same things that the more conservative states with more conservative judges are? To jump to a conclusion with this flimsy of data is disappointing Metro, even from you. I think its pretty evident that for the same crime, some communities would look the other way, choose to not prosecute, give someone a not guilt verdict, or a non-prison sentence, while another community would give a long prison sentence for a first time offense. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out which is the liberal community and which is the more socially conservative community.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Illinoisguy, would you like me to find data on charges rather than convictions? I’m quite sure the results would be very similar.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Even the charges can be greatly distorted because of the same bias I just described. The DA’s would not even bring charges in some liberal communities that they would in conservative ones, cause they know that they would just let them off the hook scott free. You need a lot better data than anything you’ve shown or offered to show.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Or should we move on to teen pregnancy rates, and divorce rates?
I seem to remember the South has higher teen pregnancy rates that just about anywhere in the entire Western world.
Time to stop talking about how SoCons have superior family values, when it’s seculars who have provably better instilled values in their kids.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Funny thing is the average age seems to have more to do with the crime rate than anything else.
That’s why a religious state like West Virginia (old average age) and non-religious state like Pennsylvania (still old) have extremely low crime rates.
It’s pathetic how clueless Metro is. If it doesn’t fit the fantasy world it’s not mentioned.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
move on when you’re proven to be lying.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
PROVEN to be lying? Where is the proof? I offered a correlation. You countered with some caveats.
Neither is definitive, but mine has the weight at the moment. Feel free to post some data of your own.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
The great thing about being secular/rational, is that when I learn things new things, I CAN adjust my thinking. I get the benefit of all the research and books being done by all the professionals in all the fields. So my outlook can better and better match reality.
But you’re forced to defend the Bible and your preacher, so you cannot adjust your outlook with actual evidence. You can only evade.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Metro, your statistics do not support your hypothesis. They don’t even indicate that the whites locked up primarily red states (another claim you seem to be making) are religious. The stats don’t say anything at all about religious affiliation.
Please avoid moving to the sophist argument that the religious majority is suppressing the non-religious minority in those states. What most of those incarcerated whites did is often simply to commit a serious crime.
I frankly don’t entirely understand your apparent preference for totally collectivist argumentation here. Is it perhaps that poor old Ayn Rand was also a dedicated collectivist?
May 10th, 2008 at 12:04 am
I can’t speak immediately for other states, but Utah is considered to be a failrly religious state I believe, and here are some stats for it:
Utah’s index crime rate (murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft and arson) Utah’s rate was less than half the national rate and represented a 21-year low.
Utah’s property crimes (burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft and arson) Utah’s rate was less than half the national rate and represented a 21-year low.
Utah’s burglary was 33 percent lower than the national rate and represented a 21-year low.
Utah’s murder rate was nearly one-third of the national rate. This represented a 21-year low.
Utah’s arson rate Utah’s rate was less than half the national rate
Utah’s robbery rate was less than half the national rate.
Utah’s motor vehicle theft rate was 71 percent lower than the national rate.
May 10th, 2008 at 3:06 am
Metro, the fact that you’ve boughten in to that “reality based-thinking” meme essentially proves you don’t.
May 10th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Sure McCain beat Romney fair and Square - well, he did lie about Romney’s record, so I’m not convinced on the “fair” part.
And yes, under my proposal, the race would have gone on longer, but we would have had a nominee who was a better representation of the party. If we had a porportional system, big liberal states like NY and NJ wouldn’t be picking our nominee, and neither would leftist independents and Democrats in places like NH.
Instead, we’ve got a system that has a built-in advantage for moderates, even though they make up a minority of the party. Instead of having a strong conservative nominee, who might actually do something useful if he won (or at least give us a direction for future elections if he lost), we’ve got a amnesty lover who hugs trees and has admitted he knows little when it comes to economics.
——
“Plus, McCain was the better man”
Really? what are you basing that on?
May 11th, 2008 at 9:27 am
If anyone lied about Romney’s record, it was Romney.