I’m reminded of why I lean towards Tim Pawlenty, after reading the Joe the Plumber thread. Because there are two groups in the Republican Party today, fundamentally at odds with each other. The first group is generally more conservative, especially socially, and they believe that a huge chunk of the Republican Party, the Republican establishment, the Republican commentariat, etc, have been infected with a beltway/blue state elitism, that causes them to A.) Dilute their conservatism, and B.) Act as co-conspirators in the relentless liberal assault on blue-collar Republicans (witness the treatment of Palin, Huckabee, Fred Thompson, Joe the Plumber, etc). The second group consists of this other chunk of the party: these folks see themselves as noble guardians of reason, logic, merit and ideas, who have the solemn obligation to stand against the forces of unreason, illogic, affirmative action, and lazy-class appeal. They’re prone to using precious phrases like “oogedy boogedy” to describe the other half of the party. Palin is the new heroine of the former group, while the latter group still searches for it’s gladiator.
The problem is, if it becomes that kind of fight, and we have red-state, blue-collar Republicans warring against blue-state, white collar Republicans, we’ve already lost the bridge- the centre will not hold. And it’s bound to become that sort of fight, unless we can find someone to bridge the gap. To unite religious, blue-collar, red-staters with agnostic, urban blue-staters. Pawlenty is as neat a fit for that role as I can envision. He’s religious, but not caustically-so. He’s down-to-earth, but not rural. He’s a blue-stater, but blue-collar. He’s value-oriented, but a wonk. He can still speak like the lunch bucket Catholic he was raised, but he’s comfortable as the wealthy lawyer he’s become.
Jindal could maybe manage a similar thing, but he’s culturally deeply red in a way that Pawlenty isn’t, and but he isn’t blue-collar in any meaningful way (his parents are, like, astro-physicists or something). He’d have to rope in the first group through his Southern background and Catholicism, while hoping the second group bites due to his sheer competence. But, regardless he’s not terribly likely to run. Instead, we’re likely to get a whole lot of candidates who’s appeal lies to one or the other group, and precious few who can speak to both. Pawlenty is one of those few. He’s not an elitist, but neither is he a member of the “oogedy boogedy” brigade.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:02 am
And which group do you fall in Matthew?
December 10th, 2008 at 11:09 am
I’m a member of the Pawlenty brigade. I’m someone who’s been surrounded by blue-collar family members, and so I have alot of sympathy for the view that the Republican Party is elitist. But, some of these blue-collar family members have fallen into bad neighborhoods, bad crowds, etc, due to a lack of education and a culture that doesn’t promote work ethic. So I’m not going to, long-term, have much use for a GOP that lives on class warfare, and doesn’t take the time to master really important issues.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Even as you and I didn’t see eye-to-eye in the discussion you reference, we both agree 100% about T-Paw. Even beyond that, I think it is wise to find Republicans who have won or could win in blue states but that are also at minimum acceptable (if not excitable) to the oogedy boogedy brigade.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Why can’t we just choose the most qualified person? Shouldn’t this be the desire of both groups — especially when you consider the current sorry state of international and domestic affairs?
Pawlenty is like oatmeal to me. He will probably never be able to fire up the party and speak our conservative message with passion. He’s a go-along to get-along politician and has a reputation for swinging between moderate and conservative positions to fill whatever the moment requires. I wonder if he’ll ever get the flip-flop tag?
December 10th, 2008 at 11:20 am
“Why can’t we just choose the most qualified person?”
When you can come up with a definition of “most qualified person” that a solid majority (60%+) agree with, that will work. Until then…
December 10th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Well, the first step towards uniting the party would be to ditch epithets like “Oogedy Boogedies” and “Elitists”. Oh, and give “RINOs” the heave-ho while you are at it. It is very hard to build a unified party if the members keep insulting anyone who doesn’t see eye-to-eye with them on one or two differing issues.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Charlie Crist is getting married on Friday. Does he now qualify for a discussion?
December 10th, 2008 at 11:46 am
I suspect, beck, that most people’s problems with Charlie Crist go far beyond whether or not he is married.
However, if you feel he is unrepresented here, may I suggest to contact Kavon? He is very good in giving a platform to all candidates.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Oh, give me a break.
First of all, who are Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. if they are not part of the Republican “establishment”? They are also part of the first group you defined. It is possible for the “establishment” and primarily socially conservative Republicans to be the same thing. Social conservatives have a major persecution complex.
Second, the blue-state Republicans are not necessarily diluted conservatives or co-conspirators as much as they are advocates of compromise. Having lived in blue states and dealt with the opposition, they realize that they might actually have to listen to them and make deals sometimes in order to get ANY of the Republican agenda enacted. The red state echo chamber, in which liberals and moderates are seen as an insignificant and unreasonable electoral contingent rather than the formidable group that they are, hurts the Republican party’s chances at gaining majority (or even plurality) support.
The calls from people like Kathleen Parker to shelve the oogedy-boogedyness doesn’t just come from their own personal preferences, but a realization that such an orientation makes it less likely that the governing contingent of liberals and moderates will want to work with conservatives on anything. Parker, David Brooks, etc. agree with conservatives on a lot of big issues but are seeing those issues take a backseat to unworkable (in this political environment) demands from the God Squad.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:49 am
#7, I gave Crist a thread last week.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:54 am
#9 sounds like he is advocating for John McCain to become the nominee again. of course, Big S did not support McCain last time.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Big S – Well said, I agree with you completely.
I’m a middle-class, very socially conservative voter living in a blue state. I’m against elevating a candidate simply because they are average and “just like me”. I want the most qualified, articulate, knowledgable, electable, and conservative person available.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:59 am
#11
I supported McCain but could not support Palin, and wound up staying home in my very blue state.
My objection is to the many false dichotomies – all based on personality and none issue-specific – Mr. Miller is drawing in order to make the case for his favored candidate(s). Of course, I’m just an elitist, so what would I know … ?
December 10th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
It’s the populist theme in the GOP this fall that caused me to leave the party.
But I disagree with Matt lumping Fred in with the populists. He may sound like one, but he isn’t. Neither in lifestyle, nor ideologically, nor in approach (which is philosophical/intellectual).
December 10th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Also, I agree that Pawlenty has the ability to unify the groups! So does Newt, but he has other problems.
December 10th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
The populist theme saddened me, as well, Metro. The turning point came when John McCain blamed “Wall Street greed” for the ecomony nose-dived. I knew then he was doomed. I had suspected as such, but that confirmed it.
The guy knows next to nothing about economics in a time of economic turmoil. His answer to it was “Joe the Plumber”.
December 10th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
I am a fan of Pawlenty, and would like to see him run. I also like Palin though, and I am not happy to see you fall for her stereotype as one of the “ogedy-boogey” conservatives. In her state, her reputation is for pragmatism, bipartisanship, ethics, and fiscal conservatism. That was what defined her before the media launched their assault on her. I’m afriad that in a way they have succeeded in painting her as a religious wacko simply because she attends church, is a sincere evangelical, and had a DS baby.
The media can try to paint her as a radical right-wing evangelical base candidate, but let’s not perpetuate that myth, please?
December 10th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Off topic, and for a laugh: Detroit’s bailout ad.
Not safe for work: excremental language…
December 10th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
#10. thanks I found it under misc. Enough said.
December 10th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Big S,
It’s a real dicotomy, whether you like it or not and it’s been noted by people far more knowledgable then I. Patrick Ruffini refers to as the disconnect between the grassroots and the establishment, which is perhaps a more apt framing- it helps explain why Rush Limbaugh and co, despite their status as powerful Republicans, are grouped with the “oogedy boogedy’s”. Whatever you term the divide, it amounts to the same thing.
And frankly, it’s emblematic of the divide that the Parkers’ and the Brooks’ believe they’re simply pushing for practical compromise. They “know” what’s best, and they’re determined to lead the masses to enlightenment. But, curiously, they only push conservatives away, through the framing of their arguments. They gain no new converts. Wouldn’t a “practical”, “pragmatic”, “non-echo chamber” , “uniting” group of Republicans manage to, you know, actually unite people? And if they failed so spectacularly in doing so, in column after column (cough, Kathleen Parker), and showed no signs of altering their tactics, would we be wrong in supposing that they didn’t want to actually create a more pragmatic GOP, but rather wanted to be seen as promoting a more pragmatic GOP? And isn’t that sort of attitude- an absolute belief in the ability of your ideas to bring the masses into harmony, despite a singular lack of success- a primary characteristic of elitism? Is calling whole chunks of the country “oogedy boogedy’s” uniting? What am I missing here?
December 10th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
If Pawlenty has the ability to unify the GOP, it’s because he’s more concerned with issues of governance than with conservative ideological purity, and doesn’t sabotage himself on some issues (e.g. environment) in order to remain ideologically solvent on others (e.g. regulation). For this reason, some will call him a RINO. If anything, it makes him a REALIST. This – not his background or identity – is what can make him competitive in a general election.
December 10th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
That is exactly what the “grassroots”/establishment contingent led by Limbaugh and others are doing: they’re advocating a “return” to purity of conservative ideology as a way back to power, with NO EVIDENCE that the masses actually want such a thing. To the contrary, the USA is an ideologically diverse nation in which Limbaugh and his ilk are a relatively small minority. Parker, Brooks, myself, and others advocate actually holding a conversation with the rest of the country – in mutually intelligible language, not “my God says so” – because we realize that such a strategy is necessary in order to advance your agenda with people who might not agree with you from the beginning of the argument. You’re never going to get 100% of what you want (you’ll be lucky to get more than 50%!), and to suggest so is not “elitist”. It’s quite the opposite, in fact.
December 10th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Big S,
“If Pawlenty has the ability to unify the GOP, it’s because he’s more concerned with issues of governance than with conservative ideological purity, and doesn’t sabotage himself on some issues (e.g. environment) in order to remain ideologically solvent on others (e.g. regulation). For this reason, some will call him a RINO. If anything, it makes him a REALIST. This – not his background or identity – is what can make him competitive in a general election.”
It’s due to all sorts of things, but his identity/background/style plays a big part. Let me give you a few examples. Pawlenty came up with the phrase “Sam’s Club Republican”. At the time he was facing a businessman in a Republican primary, so it was a useful rhetorical club. But, we don’t often hear the entire phrase, which was “we need to the party of Sam’s Club, not JUST of the country club”. It was an invitation to expansion. A pure blue-collar guy, ala Huckabee, would not have included that “just”. In fact, Huckabee said something rather similar, when he said he was “not interested in being the candidate of Wall Street, but of main street”. He left the “just” off. Because at bottom, Huckabee is largely defined by his blue-collar identity. It’s (the blue-collar stuff) incidental to Pawlenty’s identity and his ability to move effortlessly between the two worlds (blue-collar and not blue-collar), his ability to talk about “Sam’s Club” without sounding like he hates the country club, is a large part of his appeal. And it partly helps explain what you term Pawlenty’s “realism”- it’s borne of a comfort in a variety of worlds, and a genuine desire to reconcile them. The Parker’s of the world, in contrast, have no interest in reconciling competing worlds, anymore then some of the more extreme “oogedy boogedy’s” do. Because, they’ve either never been a part of these other worlds, or they’ve left them behind entirely.
December 10th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Not if these “conservatives” refuse to be united. The whole point of my argument (and Parker’s) is that we need to spend our time formulating coherent arguments on the biggest issues of the day, and reach out to those in the middle of the political spectrum who will provide the winning votes. The problem is defiant conservatives taking the “screw you guys! I’ll take my ball and go home” mentality while apparently oblivious to the fact that the game will still go on without them.
December 10th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
beck, we did not have ‘Crist’ set up as a category yet, sorry.
December 10th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
#14
“It’s the populist theme in the GOP this fall that caused me to leave the party.”
If you say that’s why, then I won’t question you on it. Appearances were/are something else, however.
On the populist theme being a real turnoff, we agree! It was a strategy from the top down, however, and is a major reason I didn’t want Sen McCain as the nominee in the first place. I thought it would be a winning theme at the time, but obviously I was wrong.
The divide in the party? Urban and rural, plain and simple. Urbanites need to quit calling ruralites hillbillies, rednecks, and country bumpkins. Ruralites need to quit calling urbanites elitists, snobs, and “not true conservatives.” We already have the media and Democrats calling Republicans all of those things and more (depending on the district), we don’t need to give them any more help.
We need to focus not on the irrelevancies (how much their wardrobe cost, what particular religion they are, etc.), but on substance (experience, record, plans for the future, governing philosophy, etc.). If we find a candidate lacking (as many are), argue against their ideas, not them as people. I don’t care about whether Gov Palin tried to fire a state trooper who had no business being in the uniform, but I DO care that she has yet to express her vision for how she would govern. I don’t care that Mry Giuliani dressed in drag, but I DO care about is general philosophy of governing. The list goes on and on.
Until the Republican party (both the base and the political elites) can figure all of that out, they will continue to lose.
December 10th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Big S, I appreicate you admitting your are an elitest and look down on working class people.
I am still unsure of what part of history you are ignoring. Republicans can never win a majority in congress or the Presidency without working class voters. There are not enough wealthy and military families to win.
Now, I am not advocating a populist agenda, but we must be able to speak to middle-class American’s, or we never win.
Nixon, Reagan and Bush (sort-of) were successful. McCain, Dole, Bush-1 and Ford were not.
December 10th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Big S,
“Parker, Brooks, myself, and others advocate actually holding a conversation with the rest of the country – in mutually intelligible language, not “my God says so” – because we realize that such a strategy is necessary in order to advance your agenda with people who might not agree with you from the beginning of the argument. You’re never going to get 100% of what you want (you’ll be lucky to get more than 50%!), and to suggest so is not “elitist”. It’s quite the opposite, in fact.”
To me, conservatism has always been about reconciling tradition with progress. This is the impulse that led Burke to oppose the French Revolution, after he cheered for the American Revolution. Because the American Revolution was an essentially conservative enterprise, that retained broad traditions and frameworks, while trying to right a great wrong. Parker and Brooks miss this sort of attitude entirely. When Parker, in all seriousness, demands that religious conservatives, abandon references to their faith in justifying their conservatism, she’s making just the sort of careless error that haunted those who fought for the French Revolution. She’s calling for a sharp break with traditions, without any attempt to understand WHY others have followed that tradition, and what purpose it’s served in the past. She’s dismissing a long strand of Western thought, that has insisted that reason cannot be entirely utilized without divine/eternal principles; that the two work hand in glove. And she does this as casually as she walks.
Someone attempting to reconcile an increasingly liberal country, with a certain strain conservatism, wouldn’t be so cavalier and dismissive. But, then Parker isn’t trying to reconcile these two impulses, she’s hoping to mow-down the latter, and doesn’t much care if the seeds of any coherent movement can grow in the newly plowed ground.
December 10th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
I hate to say it, but that phrase is a real clunker. It’s about the most uninspiring thing I’ve heard a politician say since, well, Sarah Palin told us that Wasilla, Alaska embodies the greatness of America. As I said then, it’s aiming low. Is Pawlenty really going to try to convince us of a better and brighter tomorrow … at Sam’s Club? I have no quarrels with Sam’s Club, but I don’t elevate it as my ideal, either. I suspect a lot of other Americans feel the same way.
December 10th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
I agree with the split in the gop and the solution is a Romney/huckabee ticket in 2012…stranger things have happened + pawlenty is just to boring.
December 10th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
#27, Metro keeps joining and leaving the party. He re-joined around the election and now left again for no valid reason.
He has bi-polar ideology.
December 10th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Kristofer wins the thread.
December 10th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
My ideology has never changed, and anyone who’s been here very long knows it.
December 10th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
#27: Richard M, you allege that was some obvious reason I left other than what I said. Huh?
December 10th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
How was it a conservative enterprise? I think you’re cherry-picking, and that it would be hard to find a lot of liberals these days who disagreed with it. The liberal/conservative divide has little to do with the establishment of our democracy and a lot to do with how the government reconciles the expectations of individual liberty with its effects on society given limited information and resources and a tendency toward the tyranny of the majority. Neither side has a monopoly on virtue, unless you define “conservative” or “liberal” retroactively to include all that is good to suit your own ideological needs – which is what you are doing here.
December 10th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
I don’t disagree per se, but I think Pawlenty is quite boring. Let’s face it, excitement is a big factor in presidential races. I really like Palin, and I think if she’s able to dispel this “oogedy boogedy” ness that you’re referring to, we’ll have a winner. An awful lot of that persona is a fabrication by the media (let’s face it, she’s already been lynched publicly for months by the news media).
December 10th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
#35: I got a distinctly different impression based on your many previous comments. However, if you say that Sen McCain’s populist campaign was what did it for you, I’ll accept that, and agree that populism is a very unattractive ideology.
December 10th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Richard M:
I take your point, but if there’s any weakness that I see here, it’s in the thin-skinned inability of some to take harmless tweaking. The spirit of “local boosterism” once named by the historian Daniel Boorstin is not necessarily destructive. The spirit of rivalry that logically arises from local boosterism needn’t be mean spirited.
Big S provides an illustration:
What’s the harm in claiming this? She didn’t say this in exclusive terms, ruling out the authentic contributions of metropolitan America.
This exemplifies the thin skin I mentioned, and it seems even to extend to the lessons our kids are taught in school: If Amy A-grade student receives praise for good work, Franky Failure acting up in the back row must be praised for something — honestly earned or not! So a future generation comes of age expecting — even demanding — praise for little applied effort.
We’re all great and good in our own way, blablabla, until we’ve rendered recognition a meaningless formality.
December 10th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
#38: Well, what the heck was that impression?
December 10th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Bottom line, it’s hard enough to win over 51% of the country in the battle of ideas.
Why would anyone, in any party, suggest one start a demographic battle on top of that? How can you ever win 51% if you have to win on both ideological grounds and demographic grounds? (By rejecting ideas altogether and running on identity politics… which is the endgame most of you are unwittingly pushing for.)
December 10th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
#40: Metro, it’s irrelevant and potentially divisive. I have no reason to think you would portray anything other than your honest impressions. I’ve been more than harsh enough on various other threads that I don’t need to do it again here.
December 10th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
MarkG, excellent point. I’m not suggesting we not critically examine candidates, because we should. I just don’t want irrelevant debate. Thin skin? You betcha! Both urban and rural have it, and both need to get over it.
December 10th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Matthew,
I agree wholeheartedly with the first half of the post and, given the benefit of hindsight, it may turn out that you’re correct about Pawlenty; but too many Republicans have too much emotional capital invested in Romney, Palin and Huckabee for Pawlenty to get more than a passing glance for 2012. Given his low-key approach and lack of name ID, the only way to sell the Pawlenty brand is with massive advertising that costs massive $$$ that Pawlenty doesn’t, and won’t, have in 2012.
Why throw away the pent up enthusiasm for Mitt, Mike and Sarah?
December 10th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Big S,
I was referring to a “conservatism” that in some ways meshes with, but doesn’t totally reflect, the modern conservative movement. Conservative as opposed to “radical” not conservative as opposed to “liberal”. And it was conservative in the sense that the men and women who guided the Revolution, saw themselves more as members of a particular state then of the British Empire, but still didn’t have any desire to overthrow many of the traditions that grew out of the British Empire. They wanted to fight a particular type of tyranny, but they understood the value of many English institutions, and they were content to mimic them, when it came time to set up their own governments. This is partly why the American Revolution managed to, relatively painlessly, assimilate it’s dissidents. Because they tried to reconcile Englishness, with the experiences that had shaped the individual American states, both rhetorically, and institutionally. The French Revolution tried to entirely overthrow centuries of ideas and was considerably less successful in assimilating it’s dissidents.
Another example is, perhaps, the American Civil War. Lincoln understood that those fighting for the South were, often, good men and that they weren’t JUST fighting for slavery, but also for a noble idea of states rights. Throughout he tried to frame his arguments in ways that reconciled a new conception of freedom, with a freedom that had a long lineage in American tradition. He failed to stop the war, but had he lived, he might have brought about a considerably different post-war world. The legacy of civil and racial discord, which has persisted in the former Confederacy to the present, has its roots in the failure of the radical Republicans to reconcile racial equality and a strong national government, with principles and ideas that Southerners could understand and embrace.
This is what I mean by “conservatism”, and it’s certainly not confined to what we now term conservatives. In fact, I’ve seen some promising signs that Obama at least understands this sort of conservatism.
December 10th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
31
“I agree with the split in the gop and the solution is a Romney/huckabee ticket in 2012…stranger things have happened + pawlenty is just to boring.”
Agreed.
December 10th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
I know the Martha’s and Quacknhacks hate the idea, but I think that Mitt & Mike would be a great team, better than Mitt & Sarah, if not politically certainly in terms of governance. Obama/Democrats couldn’t attack on basis of religion or it would open up the Rev. Wright controversy for fresh scrutiny.
In the 2012 primaries, Mitt would own the NE, but Sarah could cause problems for him out West and in the Midwest. Depending on how you look at it, Mike causes problems for Sarah (or vice versa) in the Midwest and South.
In the 2012 general election, I think Mike helps Mitt a lot more than Sarah. Because he’s a ’son of the South’ Mike can close the deal in GA, NC, etc. in way that Palin can’t.
December 10th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
I’m sorry but what is this “qualified” b.s.? The only qualifications for being president are being 35 years of age or older, and being born a U.S. citizen. There is no “qualified”. In fact, if we want to play the qualified game, we have to consider the fact that we chose the most qualified candidate in 2008 in John McCain….and we all know how well that worked for us. It’s about competence, dependability and issues. If a candidate is qualified, but I disagree with them on the issues or don’t believe them to be dependable on the issues I care about, what is my incentive to vote for them? “Qualified” is a ridiculous word to use when talking about someone being president.
My candidate is a social conservative that is reliable on those issues but doesn’t spout them out all the time. For me, if they aren’t pro-life, than I won’t support them. My candidate is a fiscal conservative that believes in the constitutional way….which is to say that the income tax was the dumbest idea since U.S. Grant as president. To be honest I’d take a Pawlenty, Jindal, or a number of other guys. I believe them to be reliable on the issues that I care about, but not an alienating presence because of those issues. It is exactly for this reason that I am not a Romney fan, because he is the most “qualified” and not the most trustworthy. He is the “what I’m stuck with” guy in 2012. If Pawlenty can’t get enough support, and Jindal doesn’t run….than I hope Romney can impress me because he’s not likely to get my vote otherwise.
December 10th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Now you’re contending that the American Revolution was not a radical thing? By your standards, everything is conservative as long as it maintains some semblance of values or standards from a previous era. However, I doubt you’d really endorse that view if held to it in certain specific circumstances. You’re playing a rhetorical game, using two of your own definitions of “conservative” to advocate for a particular political strategy while claiming that the best of American history is on your side. Your definitions will always change, if necessary, to maintain your initial biases, to have the effect of labeling all opposing views liberal or radical – and therefore easily dismissed.
December 10th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
I’ll admit that Romney and Palin are my two least favorite candidates, but if not Mitt & Mike, then Mitt & Sarah is our strongest ticket. My strong personal favorite is Huckabee (and fill in the blank), but I think Huck would enthusiastically campaign for Mitt & Sarah, which would help shore up some of their weakness in the south.
Regardless, I think all three need to mend fences ASAP, try to create peace among their respective fans and come up with a consistent message to sell for 2012.
*I’d greatly prefer ‘Mike & Mitt’, but Mitt can pay his own way. I’m not politically pragmatic in a Matthew M. sense, but neither am I blind to the importance of money in presidential politics.
December 10th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
“When you can come up with a definition of “most qualified person” that a solid majority (60%+) agree with, that will work. Until then…”
I think its pretty obvious that Mitt is that person. Whether or not we can get enough people to put away their bigotry and other differences I guess only time will tell.
I agree with some of what you are saying Matthew. But, to willingly back someone less qualified in order to appease both sides just gets us beat in the general (again) for lack of any enthusiasm. Its Romney who can articulate conservative positions with amazing clarity and skill. IF we get behind MItt, and stay there, we will beat Obama in 2012.
December 10th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Populism was definitely a blind alley that the Republicans went up this past election. Populism is just another form of identity politics which is at its heart an “Us versus Them” philosophy. It is in its very essense a divisive strategy. Republicans being in the minority can scarce afford a divisive strategy. We MUST be inclusive, or we will lose almost every time.
Now that we have gone up this blind alley, we must find a way to gracefully back out. This is never easy. To mix metaphors, once the genie is out of the bottle, it is very difficult to put it back in again.
There were a number of reasons I did not like Huckabee, but his major use of identity politics in the GOP Presidential campaign was one of the biggest. I made post after post here and other places stating that this was a big mistake. We can not afford that garbage. It ultimately helped us lose the election, and it is stilll a major problem today.
Once down the road to the Dark Side you start, forever your destiny it will shadow.
December 10th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
I like Pawlenty’s stand on the issues. I like the way he addresses the issues when on the cablenews shows. However, he does not inspire. His demeanor is laid back, which is good because he does not polarize, but he is too boring to fire up republicans and win over Obama democrats.
December 10th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Big S,
“Now you’re contending that the American Revolution was not a radical thing? By your standards, everything is conservative as long as it maintains some semblance of values or standards from a previous era.”
I’m not advocating maintaining tradition for the sake of tradition, but rather understanding WHY certain groups have held to a particular tradition, historically, and then trying to reconcile the best of those impulses, with a particular conception of “the good”. In my case, that conception would be influenced by reason, by faith, by experience and by broad principles derived from those things.
“However, I doubt you’d really endorse that view if held to it in certain specific circumstances.”
I think you’re quite wrong about this. I have always advocated this approach. For instance, on the issue of abortion, I have stridently resisted calling pro-choicers “murderers” or “pro-abortion”, because I don’t think it reflects how the vast majority of pro-choicers think about the issue, the values that inform their decision, etc. And I think that if pro-lifers are going to get anywhere, they need to understand why pro-choicers feel the way they do, and try to reconcile that belief with ideas that have a lineage in American History; ideas that they can embrace or at least understand. If I occasionally inconsistently apply this principle, it’s because I’m human, not because I’m not acting in good faith.
December 10th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
BTW, Mike’s message was splendid at Bell Shoals Sunday morning and the place was packed to the rafters. So packed, in fact, that I was unable to get my copy of his book signed. If I’d waited until the end of the 2nd service, I might have been able to get it signed, but I had to drive over to my church to catch our 2nd service.
From what I’m reading Mike was also solid on the Daily Show last night, stood up for marriage in a respectful manner. I’m going to watch the replay tonight.
December 10th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
“And I think that if pro-lifers are going to get anywhere, they need to understand why pro-choicers feel the way they do, and try to reconcile that belief with ideas that have a lineage in American History; ideas that they can embrace or at least understand.”
Historical rhetoric aside, African Americans, especially African American clergy, are key to the future of the pro-life movement. While I’m still praying Obama will have a road to Damascus conversion and become pro-life, one of the biggest reasons that I hope the GOP will find a way to give J.C. Watts a platform, is his unique ability (street cred) to resonate with African Americans. I think JC is the one guy who can truly change the demographics of the GOP and the electoral map.
December 10th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
There are a number of different flavors of populism. The one embraced by Republicans this past election amounted to little more than a self-esteem booster for “average Joes and Janes” in a time of economic turmoil and uncertainty about the country’s future. It wasn’t exactly optimistic, except when it was claiming that the fundamentals of our economy are strong – contrary to most peoples’ available evidence. Obama’s campaign was also remarkably populist (“Yes, We Can!”), but in a way that asked people to strive for something greater than what they already were or had. Even if you disagree with it, it’s hard to contend that it wasn’t more forward-looking than McCain’s even if in an abstract way.
My advice for Republicans: Aim high when it comes to goals, but be willing to make a few compromises to get closer to them.
December 10th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Illinoisguy:
Let’s say for the sake of arguement that Mr. Romney is the most qualified person. It still does not mean that anyone who is not in his camp is a bigot. Many people back various candidates because they liked their policies on balance. I think it is over the top to call people not in the Romney camp bigots. A few are, but I believe that most people just happen to prefer candidate C, D or E over candidate B. Yes, Mr. Romney is qualified, yes he would make a good President, but so would many other. Mr. Romney’s qualifications are a feather in his cap, but there are many factors to consider when choosing a camp. And certainly not all of us are bigots. After all, Mr. Romney was not the only candidate to face bigotry, racism, sexism, regionalism and so on.
December 10th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
mac,
Huckabee will never be on any Republican Presidential ticket top or bottom as long as he keeps insisting upon dividing the party rather than helping to unite it.
December 10th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
MItt is on Greta tonight.
Btw, let me just say this. I think one place where we make mistakes in our rhetoric, and unnecessarily lose a lot of votes, is putting our selves opposite of unions. We act as if ‘collective bargaining’ has no place in capitalism, and I happen to not agree. I’ve been in a wide variety of situations in my life: Religion: United Methodists, Disciples of Christ Christian, and now LDS (its my last one). I grew up on a farm and worked by butt off riding the rack wagon for 50,000 bales the last summer before hiring on in industry. I hired on in the union at the lowest level and worked my way up to running the complex machines that produce the parts; served in the Marine Corps, went through a two year training program, went to college while working 8 hours per day, became salaried for several years, went into management for my last 16 years, and moved up a little there. I’ve served in a dozens of church callings, scoutmaster, little league and pony league coach….what I’m say is I have a wide background. I said all of that to say this: I think unions have their appropriate place in a capitalistic society. They are merely the bargaining unit that represents the workers in coming to agreements with management on what the proper share the worker should have of the whole pie. To a large degree, those in salaried and lower management jobs owe what they have to the fact that there are unions. Unions also tend to help keep those who are not in unions paid better because of the opportunity those workers have of changing jobs to another company, having already the skill set required. THEREFORE, it would behoove us to stop driving away union voters by poorly worded rhetoric. Mitt is even guilty of it himself when describing the auto bail out. He should have made very certain that by the word ‘labor’ costs, he was not just referring to those in unions that needed to make big sacrifices. We all need to watch that and invite them into our fold. That’s my humble opinion.
December 10th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
OHIO, I didn’t state nor insinuate that all people not for Mitt were bigots. I don’t think that many are, in fact, but, there were enough of them to cause him to not get the nomination.
December 10th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
#50, ILguy, I think you missed my point. I intended to say what qualifications make someone “most qualified,” not ask for a person that defined “most qualified.”
December 10th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
#50, I certainly don’t think Romney is most qualified for the Presidency.
That is a completely subjective judgment since we all disagree on what qualifies someone for the Presidency.
Most of the experience I think is relevant, Romney lacks.
December 10th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
“…but he [Jindal] isn’t blue-collar in any meaningful way (his parents are, like, astro-physicists or something). ”
Geez, I hope we don’t have to dumb-down our appeal such that people with intelligence are disqualified.
December 10th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
“Oh, and give “RINOs” the heave-ho while you are at it.”
I second that, with a mighty “AMEN!” (or does that make me an oogedy-boogedy?).
December 10th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
#62 = You’re in the minority my friend….
Just what is your criteria anyway?
Even those who have other ideological preferences admit that Mitt’s resume is extremly attractive.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
65-Do you mean to say that EGS is in the minority in not thinking that Romney is the most qualified? Didn’t the primary finally settle that in your mind?
December 10th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Illinoisguy #65,
It does not matter whether one is in the minority or not. Being right is enough on its own.
To anyone who thinks that non-romney supporters are simply biggots, I will say this first. How many romney supporters have mormon friends. I have quite a few. Several of whom I would openly support for a position in the government. My anti-romney rhetoric is not based on him being mormon. It is based on a distrust for his positions on the issues, and whether his competence(he has competence i don’t think anyone can dispute that) is enough on its own. I don’t think right now that it is. I want someone i trust, and so far I don’t trust him. Could I learn to trust him? Absolutely. But even at that, I still think there are potential candidates out there that make better “candidates” and look just as good or better even to me on the trust issue, and their personal positions on the issues.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Oh yeah, and as far as being qualified goes. Who was the most qualified candidate in 2008 other than John McCain? Qualified to be president means you probably have a lot of government or military service under your belt. Mitt has 4 years as a governor. I don’t care if he ran a company or not. I’m not looking for CEO to be my president, i’ve worked for and met CEO’s and while some of them were good including one of my former boss’s who was a mormon named Larry Johnson…I want someone that is willing to stand up for the constitution, the rights of the people, the right to life and many other issues. Mike Huckabee had over 10 years as governor, and time as LT. Governor as well. I think he won the “qualified” label over romney in 2008. Though you can’t count out Dr. Paul with his 28 years or whatever of government service. So lets get off this Mitt Romney is qualified crap. EVERYONE is qualified. Like I said, you only have to be older than 35 and be born a citizen. Oh and you can’t have committed a felony. So there we go.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
You guys that think Pawlenty, Romney or Huckabee have a chance at being the Republican nominee in 2012 or 2016 are living in a dream world. Whether you think she’s qualified or not; whether you don’t like her Religious beliefs or not; the majority of grass roots Republicans in Red States overwhelmingly support Sarah Palin. There’s no amount of arguing that can change that. The only thing that can stop Sarah Palin is Sarah Palin herself. If she fails to learn, or screws up, she will fail, but it won’t because of arguments from Kathleen Parker, David Brooks or any other Northeastern Republicans. She’s got something none of the others have–star power and charisma. That is golden in politics. Just ask Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton or Barack Obama how far those qualities can take you in politics, whatever your other shortcomings might be. Pawlenty not only comes across as a complete lightweight, but he has all the star power and charisma of a Harry Reed or any other stuff shirt in the Senate or House. All you Palin haters better steal yourselves for the inevitable. It’s like trying to stop the tide.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
FYI: The first two primaries, and possibly five out of the first six, will be held in blue states.
December 10th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Jon.#69
I hate to break it to you but of those of us who don’t think Sarah Palin is up to the job, very few hate her. In fact, a goodly number (perhaps a majority) feel that she has a great deal of potential and only needs a little more seasoning.
She has approximately two and a half years to get ready for 2012. Can she do it? We shall see. I personally think it would be better for her to aim for 2016, or possibly 2020 if we manage to win against Obama in 2012.
Jon, if we choose a candidate that energizes the Red States, but turns off the purple or blue states, how do you propose we win the White House?
December 10th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Waterseeds – I’m sorry some of you feel Mitt is not trustworthy. I trust him much more than any other candidate. I wouldn’t trade Mitt’s experience for 10 terms of a Arkansas Governor. He is well rounded, and hasn’t spent his whole life in Government. To me, that is a really good thing, not bad. God bless you so that you may grow to trust this fine talented man as time moves forward.
December 10th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Oh, and wateredseeds, did you not see my response to OHIO JOE? I said I thought a relative few overall of Huckabee supporters are bigoted. I do, however believe it was enough to be a significant reason for him not being our nominee, and that the whole country is now going to suffer for it. Team tactics were the other part of it. Nobody could have withstood 6 against one like they threw at Mitt.
December 10th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
“The only thing that can stop Sarah Palin is Sarah Palin herself.”
That will be more than sufficient, I think.
December 10th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
The only solution to the problem is a return to a commitment to Federalism, State’s Rights, and small government. If everybody is responsible for making their own tent, we won’t have to try to squeeze into the leaking “big tent”.
December 10th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
You Palin detractors just keep up the wishful thinking. Every time the chips were down, the pressure was on, she performed like a star (the convention speech and the debate, not to mention the daily campaigning). If you think she won’t do the same in a presidential run, you’re kidding yourselves. She has what all great athletes and stage stars have–the ability to shine when the pressure is on. That’s a rare commodity.
As far as the primaries, Iowa, South Carolina and Florida, as well as most of the Super Tuesday states are shoe-ins for Palin.
Finally, no Republican in the last twenty years has taken the White House by winning blue states. Mccain lost the purple states because he failed to get out the base–four million fewer Social Conservatives showed up this election than the last one. Palin doesn’t have that problem. Besides, I’m talking more about winning the nomination than the general. The general’s outcome will depend almost totally on Obama’s performance and the economony’s.
December 10th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
“The only solution to the problem is a return to a commitment to Federalism, State’s Rights, and small government. ”
I beg to differ. If some well-known, almost heroic figure (let’s say a former mayor of a major US city) steps forward with those sort of commitments, and he happens to be pro-choice, he’ll be crucified by “The Base.” So, let’s dismiss the notion that the Republican Party stands for anything than a conglomeration of single-issue axe-grinders.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
John DeBoard,
You say she came through when the chips were down?
You mean like the Couric interview? Or the debate?
Or any time she talked to the press?
You Betcha!
December 11th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Newsflash!! Pawlenty will never be the nominee
much less president. Palin and Jindal (and Jeb Bush
mixed in) are the future of the party. They are the
only SUPERSTARS we have and only Palin is a true
superstar. Public opinion polls have shown her
(since the election) having a ten point bounce
in popularity. Contrary to the way you describe her
she has governed the MOST reasonably and
sensibly of them all. Do some homework!
December 11th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Mr. Miller, you don’t get it. There is a profound, irreconcilable philosophical divide
in the Party between those who want to use government to establish a godly society by force
(the “oogedy-boogedies”) and the rest of the Party base, who are committed to limiting government
to the protection of individual rights. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. No leader is
going to save the alliance, because it has become unsustainable. Stop looking outside to others
and start looking inside, at what YOU believe and what YOU stand for.
December 11th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
I dislike Mitt Romney, therefore cleraly I am a bigot.
I dislike Mitt Romney not because he’s a Mormon. I don’t associate him with Warren Jeffs, polygamy, or compounds in Texas. I find his religion- like anyone else’s- to be a non-issue. He could be a Muslim. He could be an atheist. Scientologist. Kabala. I don’t care. I dislike him because he is- sorry Alex- a charlatan. He was in the race for his own self-aggrandizing. Sure, he turned around some companies. But some very conservative somebody said earlier this fall that you’re an idiot if you think running the US is like running a company. There’s no comparison. I don’t care if he’s a Mormon. I have lots of Mormon friends. I would consider voting for Huntsman, much like I did Romney last year before I listened to him talk. I bet you, Illinoisguy, aren’t a big Harry Reid fan. Clearly, that makes you anti-Mormon. I know that’s not true, but that’s the poppycock you perpetuate when you accuse everyone against Mitt Romney of bigotry. So don’t say crap like “get enough people to put away their bigotry” in number 50 because a HIGH majority of people who don’t like Romney don’t give a crap about his religion.
December 11th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Robbie, who is calling you a bigot for not supporting Romney? If the shoe doesn’t fit you, don’t put it on. I said nothing untrue or unkind to anyone who is not bigoted, and I believe the majority of those against Mitt are not bigoted in anyway. But DON’T TRY PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH> TRy readying the whole of what I say, and not some tiny snippet.
December 11th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
[...] can bring balance to the force and resolve the great division between the two sides of this board. Writes Matthew: The first group is generally more conservative, especially socially, and they believe that a huge [...]
October 1st, 2009 at 8:32 am
[...] Ruffini. This doesn’t surprise me. I’ve been saying…well, since at least January, that Pawlenty’s greatest strength is his ability to be a bridge between the heartland and [...]