How A Social Moderate Can Win The GOP Nomination In Six Easy Steps
By Dan McLaughlin Posted in User Blogs — Comments (48) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
With Rudy Giuliani leading Patrick Ruffini's web-based straw poll of potential 2008 presidential candidates for the second month in a row, Karol Sheinin thinks the right blogosphere is being out of touch and unrealistic about the fact that a socially liberal candidate can really win in the Republican primaries. (Via Red Hot). And Rudy's not the only one: several of the potential 2008 Republican candidates, as well as unlikely-to-run "dream" candidates like Condoleeza Rice, face lingering questions about their pro-life credentials and other commitments on issues of importance for social conservatives.
Speaking as a fairly socially conservative voter myself - albeit a deep-blue-state social conservative - I believe that it is, in fact, possible for a candidate who has established a record or reputation as a social moderate or liberal to win the GOP nomination, if he or she follows six simple steps:1. Don't Run Against The Social Right
People vote on issues; they vote on personalities; but they also vote, on a deeper level, for that hazy space between the two, a set of ideas about the world and a sense that the candidate is more on their side than the other guy. Which is another way of saying that people can vote for a candidate they don't personally like (more than 50 million people pulled the lever for John Kerry), and they can vote for a candidate they don't always agree with, but they will not vote for a candidate if they identify him as being against them. And this is particularly true of social/religious conservatives (I use the two terms here as largely synonymous, although there are culture warriors on the Right like Stanley Kurtz who aren't especially religious), who are accustomed to feeling beseiged and sneered at by the leading lights of popular culture in journalism, entertainment and academia.
The classic example of running against social conservatives was the brief and unsuccessful 1996 presidential campaign of Arlen Specter, who openly cast himself as the man to save the GOP from the Religious Right. John McCain is perhaps a more graphic example: while McCain himself has a solidly socially conservative, pro-life voting record in the Senate (he voted for both Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork for the Supreme Court, among other things), he repeatedly picked fights with social conservatives in the 2000 primaries. Many of those fights were with the crazier people on the Right - Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Bob Jones - but what mattered was that McCain went beyond simply distancing himself from those figures to openly inviting the media to play the traditional morality play of Good McCain vs. Bad Religious Right. Unsurprisingly, the voters McCain thus implicitly portrayed as villains abandoned him in droves (see here for a contemporaneous example of the push-back).
The lesson: far more fatal than saying you disagree with voters is to abet the media's efforts to demonize them. Before people listen to your actual position, they want to know you respect them and are on their side.
2. Federalism, Federalism, Federalism
On many - indeed, most - social issues, what social conservatives fear most of all is to have issues taken away from the democratic process in the states and decided by federal judges. While social conservatives have certainly not been above seeking to use the power of Congress and the federal courts to push a social conservative agenda, a compromise position of preserving/restoring the authority of local communities over many social issues is a compromise that socially conservative voters are mostly willing to live with.
One significant advantage of taking the federalist position on issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, gun control and medical marijuana, among others, is that it can enable a candidate to come around to a functionally different position without the need to execute an unconvincing and transparent flip-flop: it's easier to persuade people that you've accepted a compromise than that you have actually changed your mind on a matter of high principle. (For a good example of this, see Mitt Romney's pledge that as governor of Massachusetts he would not seek to change the state's positions on abortion).
Moreover, as I have stressed before, America is both a progressive country and a conservative one: progressive in the sense that people are broadly accepting of social change, conservative in their resistance to having such changes forced upon them by the government, particularly by the courts. Consider a candidate who can say to social conservatives, in the primaries, something like this:
I, like many of my fellow New Yorkers, support a woman's right to choose an abortion, and support the right of gay men to express their commitment in marriage. But I also respect the fact that not everyone in this country lives in Manhattan, and not everyone shares the same beliefs. And so I will oppose any effort to force people in Texas and Alabama to live the way New Yorkers live, for the same reasons why I wouldn't want New Yorkers to be forced to accept the community mores and values of any other city or state. In short: this is a great country, and it's big enough for a lot of different communities and lifestyles.
That's a message that can easily be retooled into a winner nationally, even to socially liberal voters whose experiences in recent years have re-awakened them to the virtues of federalism. And, of course, it dovetails naturally with #1 on the list: supporting federalism is a way of giving some real backbone to the message that you respect the people you disagree with, respect them enough to let them govern themselves.
(Rudy, as a guy who pressed for huge expansions of federal criminal law as US Attorney, may be an awkward champion of federalism. But if he can't do it, another candidate can).
3. Promise to Appoint Conservative, Pro-Democracy Judges
Of course, pledging fealty to federalism and respect for differences of opinion is toothless symbolism if you put the likes of David Souter on the Supreme Court. So, a socially moderate candidate needs to make extra-clear that he or she is going to put conservatives on the courts.
But unlike a socially conservative candidate, a social moderate/liberal, to have a coherent message, can't just issue generalized paens to "strict construction" and denunciations of "judicial activism". Instead, the candidate needs to explain, clearly and repeatedly, that he/she believes in judges who will not use vague or unwritten constitutional theories to take power away from the people. (In fact, a message of constitutional "minimalism" appeals, rhetorically, even to liberals). And yes, that means making it explicit that you have no problem with overturning Roe v. Wade, even as you still support keeping abortion legal in your own home state.
An early way to signal this approach - particularly for a candidate, like Giuliani, who isn't already in the Senate - is to support John Roberts. What we've seen of Roberts so far has tagged him as precisely the kind of cautious but principled conservative that a pro-democracy, pro-federalism but socially moderate/liberal candidate can get behind. And the base knows that losing the Roberts fight would be a critical blow.
(The pro-democracy aspect of conservative judging is another topic I've covered before at greater length, here and here).
4. Show Some Backbone In Other Areas
One of the sneaking suspicions held by many conservatives is that a candidate who is pro-choice on abortion is probably so due to an inability to stand up and take some guff in his or her social circles, to be demonized as a right-winger by the media, etc. And indeed, long experience has shown that many pro-choice Republicans are the same sorts of people who run from a fight on the budget, or tax cuts, or other issues of importance to the base.
To rebut that suspicion, a social moderate/liberal needs to build a reputation as a real battler on a few other issues - foreign policy, crime, taxes, spending, immigration, etc. - and show a willingness to take the heat for those positions. For example, a governor who slashes taxes and spending can say, "yes I'm pro-choice, but I've shown that it's because I'm a principled fighter accross the board for smaller government." (This is one area where Rudy doesn't have to worry - as one of the most famously combative figures in American politics, there may be doubts on how much of an economic conservative he is, but there's no question he will stand his ground where he plants himself).
5. Do No Harm
Of course, on some issues the federal government has taken a stand on social issues. Understandably, on some questions - like stem cell research or gays in the military - a social moderate may want to change the existing policy. But such a candidate has to make clear that large-scale, radical changes in policy are not going to be the order of the day, and that for the most part, things will stay status quo on some of the battles social conservatives have won in the past, like some of the executive orders pertaining to abortion.
6. Nominate A Conservative Running Mate
Rudy or Condi could be on the ticket, but not both. Even after sewing up the nomination, a social moderate/liberal would need to convince social conservative voters not to stay home. While conservatives can't, after the Souter/read-my-lips fiascoes, be convinced solely by having a running mate from the Right, picking one will send an important message that social conservatives remain a valued part of the team.
Anyway, maybe Rudy Giuliani is the guy who can do it, and maybe he's not. (More: Michael Goodwin on Rudy). But I do believe that, by following the road map laid out above, a candidate who, for example, personally supports legal abortion could nonetheless win the GOP presidential nomination, and do so with his or her principles more or less intact.
I could only accept a "Federalism" candidate who very explicitly and strongly came out against Roe v. Wade, and made clear he would make this viewpoint a key factor in Supreme Court nominations.
That said, your poll doesn't differentiate between primary and general elections. I would most likely vote for a pro-abortion rights GOP nominee over his Democratic nominee in a general election. I can't see myself ever voting for such a candidate in a primary election, however, given an alternative. Indeed, were a strong pro-life Democratic candidate ever running for president against a pro-abortion rights Republican nominee, the Dem would almost certainly get my vote.
Sorry, I meant the poll to be clearer that I was talking about the primaries.
Roe is the key thing to me too.
All in all, it's a good post, but I think you need to take into account who exactly you're talking about.
A generic moderate could do exactly what you describe, but Giuliani has far too much of a track record as a petty tyrant to pull off federalism. Meddling is in his very nature.
It made him a fantastic mayor of New York. I remember how my native neighborhood (Prospect Heights in Brooklyn) changed after he became mayor. It was great.
But he's not a guy who lets go easily. And in my mind, that disqualifies him from being president, regardless of how much some straw polls are backing him now.
I also wonder whether several moderates could do what you describe. The problem (from a moderate standpoint, which I do not have) seems to me that right now, most of the candidates are pretty moderate, which means that if one good conservative can get in there and stake out the right, he'll be able to get a plurality in enough states that he'll have the nomination sewed up early.
At least, not without a bunch of other candidates meeting untimely demises.
The primary voters are more conservative and more religiously conservative than the bulk of the party as a whole. Abortion is a big, big issue to them, and a very large block will vote pro-life.
Can't even just split the pro-life block, since one of the pro-life candidates will eventually crumble, and the pro-life voters in the later states would cluster again.
To get past that, the candidate would have to draw the moderate wing of the Republican party into the primary process -- it would require something akin to a personality cult to get enough people in the process to counter the pro-life block.
Successful personality cult candidates are few and far between.
Agreed that the dynamics favor the rise of a conservative, although conservatives may yet rally around Allen, who seems to be the closest thing to a candidate who is in the middle of the party (other than Newt, and I can't put much stock in Newt).
A moderate can win the nomination, but there are a few things they cannot do. They cannot be anti-gun, and they cannot antagonize evangelical Christians, as the diary entry notes.
Rudy is actually pretty well liked by everyone, which gives him a fighting chance if he moves right-- but as others have said, federalism is the key. He has to promise-- and be believed-- that despite being pro-choice he's anti-Roe.
Rudy also has the advantage of being able to sell the positives of his candidacy... essentially a guaranteed general election win, maybe down-ballot help for other GOP candidates.
McCain is DOA, as is Hagel-- not that he was ever taken seriously to begin with. I don't know of any other 'moderates' even running, so I guess it's mostly the Rudy and Cain show.
I'd put Allen out in front right now too, but there are several people, notably Tancredo and Brownback, who could come in and play the spoiler from the right.
Of the two, I'd rank the Tank as being the more significant threat, first because he probably has higher name ID, second because he's a solid archconservative on everything, while Brownback is a tad shaky on guns and fiscal issues. I also think the anti-immigration people are far angrier than the pro-lifers at the moment, and the Tank's scrappier and has been raising money, while Brownback hasn't been.
I've heard anecdotal evidence of base conservatives receiving him enthusiastically in small groups. I don't know why, other than the way he reacted to the 9/11 attacks. I've heard him speak in person and he puts me to sleep.
I'm not convinced that McCain is DOA.
First, the primaries will not operate in a vacuum, we'll be deluged with The Glorious Hillary stories from dawn till dusk and the argument in the GOP side will slowly react to that with the dreaded 'electability' question, meaning, Who Can Beat Her?
Second, the calendar is tough for an upstart, no matter how interesting, to overcome. It's a quick calendar from Iowa to the end.
Third, media matters. Outside of Iowa and New Hampshire, possibly South Carolina, things happen so quickly and so feverishly, that the more the media pay positive attention to one candidate, or the more they negatively attack a candidate, their polls will go the same direction. (How many times will we see the Tancredo suggestion to nuke Mecca? I'm conservatively betting its over a bajillion.)
So, presuppose that McCain skips Iowa again (why wouldn't he, he knows his votes on Ethanol make it almost impossible for him to win). He wins New Hampshire in a walk. With Graham and Sanford campaigning for him, he probably wins at least a plurality in South Carolina. Then comes Michigan. I forget the rest of the calendar (where's that clip of Dean when it would be helpful?), but it moves pretty favorably for him for a while.
By the time he hits the rest of the South, he's got tons of good publicity, days and days of free media, and She Who Shall Save The World will be the clear Dem nominee.
I'd bet that a lot of people, even solid republicans, will start to think, yeah I may not like BCRA, I may not like his ego, but he is pro-life, arguably the most fiscally conservative (at least more so than the rest of the guys running), and he can beat Her any day of the week.
People will then hold their nose and vote for him, to make sure She doesn't get a clear path to the WH and give Bubba another four-eight years to play hide and seek with the interns.
Finally, Republicans have a historical tendency to nominate the obvious frontrunner or the candidate who's 'turn it is'. (How else do yo uexplain Dole '96?)
More than any other candidate (unless the slogan is: Cheney in Eight- We Know How to Defibrillate!) McCain can lay claim to that mantle.
I'm not advocating this, just saying it's a possibility. (If this makes you have nightmares in the middle of the night, my apologies. I've been wrong before, I thought Dole could actually win!)
DOA was too strong... I also think he has a chance. But the problem comes back to McCain himself. IF he would just take his ego down from hyperdrive to overdrive, IF he would make some effort to highlight his pro-life views, IF he was younger... a lot of 'ifs.'
He would almost certainly win the general, but there is no doubt evangelical turnout would dive downward, which is some places could negate coattails McCain would otherwise provide.
. . .the Republican nomination in the same way that a closer can occasionally win the Cy Young Award--by having a great season when none of the group that would ordinarily win the prize (i.e., starting pitchers or conservatives) have a particularly good season. IOW, if none of the conservatives in the field emerges as a strong candidate, Guiliani might squeak by the field and take the nomination. If that happens, I will be more than a little annoyed if the conservatives don't accept the results of the process and move to back Guiliani, particularly if he accomodates them by picking a conservative running mate.
if they are strong federalists. If they promised to appoint originalist/federalist judges, I would consider them, especially if they had pluses in other areas.
I think this is one reason to some degree Guliani appeals to me (although I don't know that I can vote for him in a primary over a candidate that has the social conservatism and the other credentials).
But a guy like Guliani I would trust on security, I would trust on crime, I would trust him in regards to fiscal conservatism (although he doesn't have a huge track record).
So I could consider him, if he made a strong case, but I agree with point one-he has to make a case to the religious/social conservatives, he can't try to distance himself from them and appeal to them at the same time.
But I think I would trust Guliani more than some of the other social liberals who are tossing their hats into the ring, and he actually appeals to me more than McCain-but McCain can probably reel me back in, if he would reach out to religious/social conservatives, instead of distancing himself. McCain likes the media attention too much for me to fully trust him.
In the past almost every social conservative ran against the religious/social conservative as much as anything else.
They should instead try to appeal to them-and the way to do that is with the federalism approach.
I am a social conservative, but honestly I am as much a federalist as a social conservative-give me a strong federalist candidate with fiscal conservative credentials, and a strong security platform, and you can possibly get my vote over some of the social conservatives in the race (but admittedly the socially liberal candidate is going to have to work hard for my vote).
I am not sure if a social liberal can do it, but if they do, they can't do it, by distancing themselves from the social conservatives-they are a key voting block in the base, and I do not see how a candidate can appeal by ticking them off.
Tancredo is a classic Buchanan-esque spoiler candidate - he can win a primary, but he's too crazy and too harshly anti-immigrant to win the nomination. Among other things, "Nuke Mecca" is not the kind of gaffe a prospective Commander-in-Chief can afford to make, and during Vietnam he got a draft deferment on grounds of mental illness - that's not gonna go over well with the press. And I'm not convinced that the anti-immigrant wing is that big, as noisy as it is. If anything, Tancredo's presence on the ballot could drain support from a real conservative alternative like Brownback.
Tancredo can't win a primary, nor a general.
He's more like Al Sharpton than anything. If he runs, it is to keep "his" issues in front of the camera. He has no chance to win. And if I had any power to make it happen, he would lose his Congressional seat too.
Finally, Republicans have a historical tendency to nominate the obvious frontrunner or the candidate who's 'turn it is'. (How else do yo uexplain Dole '96?)
More than any other candidate (unless the slogan is: Cheney in Eight- We Know How to Defibrillate!) McCain can lay claim to that mantle.
With Cheney not running, I think the next candidate whose 'turn it is', would be Rice. Bush 41 won not because he was next in line (although he was next in line), but more so because he was to continue the Reagan presidency. The next person to continue the W presidency is Cheney, but followed closely by Sec of State Rice. If she runs, she will be the 'establishment' candidate, not McCain.
Of course, I mean one state, as Buchanan won NH in 1996. Stranger things have happened.
A lot here depends on how the field shakes out. Allen plus a bunch of moderates makes it relatively easy to sneak in on the right.
Aside from what I said above, the big reason why I like the Tank better than Brownback is fundraising. Tancredo's out-raised Brownback by a ratio of better than 2-to-1 this cycle, and while Brownback has twice as much on-hand, that's natural given that Brownback won in a walk last Fall, while the Tank had a well-funded opponent (whom he beat by 20 points, but who still spent over $800k against him).
And Tancredo's leadership on immigration will help him raise even more money. I worked at Bush/Cheney '04's DC HQ last year in their mail-sorting operation, and it must have been every tenth fundraising reply form that said something like, "my wallet will open when our borders are closed." A lot of those folks even had stamps that they'd use for this purpose. They'll open their wallets to Tancredo.
I'll take the battle-tested looney who works his tail off and has a solid fundraising base over the guy who's never been tested and who isn't putting in the time.
And it's not as if Brownback's completely eschewed saying crazy things, having compared abortion to the Holocaust.
Neither has a great chance (together they're not even at five percent, I'd say), but if there's a divided Republican field, the Tank has the better chance of rolling into the convention.
What?
Based on what? And please do not bring up the Transportation and Energy bills.
Pawlenty, Romney, Newt have far more expansive records of true fiscal conservatism. Far better than a McCains completely inconsistent 22 year record in the Senate.
McCain's political ideology is McCain, and while that's good and great for Arizona, making him the poster boy of the party would then change our ideology from Conservatism to McCain... not good, and potentially a move that would split our party and leave the GOP in a situation reminiscent of the dems after Clinton.
the Bush fatigue will unwittingly push people to seek out new blood. Nobody wants the campaign to be a 24/7 rehash of the Bush Presidency which is what will happen with Condi or Cheney. I love Bush but I don't want to the entire focus to be nitpicking every Bush foreign policy decision.
All the professional polling firms so far show Condi losing to Hillary by a few points, and Giuliani and McCain winning by 10 or more.
Personally, I think Romney would make the best President. I want the most conservative candidate who can win, and the only Republicans who have the whole package to win the general election are:
Giuliani, McCain, Pawlenty (only if polling shows he can bring MN), Romney.
...and I don't think that will change much between now and Iowa.
One of the biggest challenges these days on the right is convincing many conservatives that they've won the argument.
Or, to put it another way, it's not 1979 anymore.
There are still lots of conservatives who are stuck in an ancient mindset. Before 1980, conservatives were a diverse group that banded together to oppose a Democratic Congress, an activist Court, a liberal media monopoly, and liberal rule as far as the eye could see. Republicans were generally divided into two distinct groups: moderates and conservatives. And there was a very real possibility that moderates like Gerald Ford could have stopped conservatives from ever gaining clout in the GOP. In fact, in 1979, it was unclear that either party would stand up for pro-lifers. That's why having a pro-choice nominee at that point would have devastated the pro-life movement.
But that was then; this is now. The GOP now controls Congress, and probably will continue to do so for a few decades. We have a center-right SCOTUS majority. The cable news channel with the highest ratings is the most conservative. And the GOP has been the official pro-life party, according to its platform, since Ronald Reagan. Moreover, the fact that we are the majority party means that there is no longer a clear dichotomy between "moderates" and "conservatives." Instead, you've got a whole range of different kinds of Republicans, with few true "moderates" in 1979 terms even left in the party.
At this point, having a GOP nominee who is personally pro-choice would not be the end of the pro-life GOP. To the contrary, it would simply be an exception to the rule. A Rudy presidency would be similar to TR's. Just as TR held some maverick views that were out of step with the GOP of his time, views that were personal to TR and did not rub off on the party as a whole, Rudy's liberal-libertarian views on a few key social issues would also be personal to him and not the foundation for a new direction for the GOP. By promsing to do no harm on the social stuff, to respect the Constitution and the principles of federalism while president, and by picking a socially conservative veep (who would clearly be the next party nominee somewhere down the line), Rudy would basically be assuring conservatives that the party platform will remain what it is on social issues long after his presidency is over. A Rudy/Sanford ticket, for example, would be ideal, as it would set up another fiscally conservative, pro-life GOP executive to succeed Rudy as well as guarantee at least 40 states in 2008.
One of the best I've read in a while.
I was just talking to my uncle tonight about Giuliani. My uncle is convinced that Giuliani will not get the Republican nomination.
I think that Giuliani and Allen are the only two who can get it. And unless Brownback, Gingrich, Huckabee, Barbour, and Tancredo all drop out after Iowa and endorse Allen, I'd have to say that Giuliani has the upper hand.
I am absolutely against abortion-on-demand and same-sex marriage. If I really believed that Giuliani was going to put judges on the court who would legalize gay marriage by judicial fiat, I would never support him. I believe that Giuliani is a conservative at heart, who had to say certain things to get elected in NYC. I don't hold that against him.
He was a great leader in NYC and he'll be an outstanding president.
Two pro-choice Republicans with spotty records at best? At a time where the GOP Primary is arguably the most wide-open race ever?
I hope that you're wrong, because that would mean the doomsday of the futre Republican Party.
The Bush plan is a proven winner, and I hope in 2008 we as Republicans, the party of conservatism, doesn't have to sacrifice issues. My guess the GOP's choice in 2008 will be someone very similar to Bush but and will be a dark-horse governor.
*note: I'm not talking about anyone in particular, but people familiar with my comments probably will be able to see who I'm pulling for.
have a chance, or the only two period who have a chance at winning the primary?
I do think Rudy could do a good job of selling himself. I have also heard some federalist oriented talk come out of him, although he hasn't come right out and said "I am a federalist" but back when Roberts was nominated, I got the impression that he leaned federalist.
And frankly I would take a pro choice federalist with strong credentials in other areas, than some of the "pro life" candidates who seem to want big government, lots of spending just with a conservative bent candidate.
I think Rudy's other big problem though, is that he hasn't had executive experience outside of NYC mayor (granted there are states with smaller populations than NYC).
The fact is that, while you might get conservatives to vote for you, you won't get them to work for you.
You won't get them to hand out flyers. Free Republic people won't be manning phone banks. Family Research Council people won't be canvassing neighborhoods. They won't be singing your praises on the 700 Club. Americans for Tax Reform won't help you with fundraisers.
Ruffini's straw polls are measuring votes among politically aware people with internet access.
They are not measuring the will to work for a campaign, which is what wins elections.
An aside: Crank, are you Ace of Spades?
until after the election of 2000. They were still united for Gore (I am ignoring the handful of moonbats who went for Nader), and expected to win. It was only after that election that the rad dems made their buig comeback and wreched the party to the left, undoing all Clinton's moderating work.
While Free Republic people won't GOTV for Rudy, Instapundit people would. I'm generally of the opinion that politics is a lot more fungible than most believe anymore. We're only a 50/50 nation because no one has broken the red/blue divide since Bill Clinton. And, BTW, Clinton's form of centrism didn't seem to prevent his phone banks from being manned.
They seem to be the candidates that you're describing. If I could snap my fingers and nominate one of them, I would. But they'd have to break through a field of giants to get there, and based on the way Republicans pick nominees, I'm not sure either can do it in 2008.
My blog is Baseball Crank. Ace did link to this piece, though.
I keep coming back to this and haven't heard a strong answer. Is Guiliani even planning on running for President (or anything) or is he happy making money.
Rudy could quite probably win the GOP nomination if he came out and said:
- He would nominate conservative judges
- He would take care of illegal immigration
- He would cut government spending
(and of course had specific ideas to back those up).
Those are THE three issues for conservatives these days.
- Free Republic people won't GOTV for Rudy...
Don't kid yourself; at least half of them would. There is a very sizeable "first we win, then we fight over the spoils" contingent there.
I think electability really matters for a moderate. The easiest way for a socially moderate candidate to get elected is to be so obviously "electable" that it squashes all the other objections, kind of like Arnie was in California.
To do this you really need a candidate who people unfamiliar with politics can still identify. I think Giuliani and McCain both qualify, and if they were the nominee I think a lot of Republicans would still come out and doorknock, fundraise etc for them. Certainly they need to convince conservatives they won't get sold down the river, but I think the power of celebrity could translate into electability. If they can peel off all the average Joes that might have voted Dem too that would consolidate a victory.
Find a instantly recognizable, credible centrist the right can live with and crush Hillary.
I can see some of the evangelical voters who came out in 2004 staying home. But does anyone seriously think that veteran activists on the Right would sit on their thumbs in a Giuliani-Hillary matchup?
Again, while I like Rudy a lot (I've met him several times, and as a NYer, a lawyer who worked in the WTC and the son of a cop I'm who you'd expect to be Rudy's base) and I'm leaning a little in his direction, I'm still very much undecided as to who I'll support in 2008. I'm just saying that a candidate like Rudy, if he makes the right overtures, would have no trouble mobilizing conservatives against Hillary.
he was talking more down ballot, Republicans gained in the house, senate, governorships, and state legislatures during Clinton's tenure in the White House.
a lot of it is going to depend on who the democratic candidate is. If its Hillary I think that the "any body but her" synergy that kept Kerry's campaign afloat in 2004 would work for the republicans here - Lots of social conservatives would mobilize to keep a radical out of the whitehouse, and painting Hitlary as an extremist won't be too difficult. While I would never vote for Guilliani in the primaries, I would vote for him in the national election, assuming the democrats nominate a NARAL/GBLA approved candidate.
Win the War on Terror
Stay the course in Iraq.
-TS
Looks like we're going through this again. Last time around there were quite a few who pointed out Allen as being pro-life at least according to pro-life groups.
But that was a work in progress ever since 1980. Clinton actually abetted it not by splitting the Dems but by his initial round of pay-backs to liberal special interest groups and above all by the Hillarycare debacle. So the warning isn't for the GOP to fear splitting their base, but rather to fear lurching too far to the right and alienating the center. The base has no where to go in either party (apart from a relative handful of extremists who will vote minor parties of either the extreme left or right). Moderates can and will walk-- which is the real lesson of 1992 when the GOP lost the "Radical Middle" to Perot and of 1980 when a whole lot of Democrats defected to Reagan or John Anderson.
Hardly. Gah. Don't tar Reagan with such ugly thoughts.
I believe that there is a better position for Rudy to be elected to.
Senator from New York.
If he were to run, every poll I have seen indicated he would defeat the shrew.
If Shrillary is beaten, anywhere, a lot the glamour of her candidacy is lost, making her a much weaker candidate for anything.
If she chooses not to run, first it looks like she is afraid to run a hard campaign. Second, a two year gap in the Clinton family holding Federal; office might well weaken the deathgrips she holds on certain federal officials who have likely been abbetting her hold on power in oposition to anything such a plebian decument as the Constitution might say.
Three choices leading to five paths
1a) she runs for Senator and loses, she doesn't run for President
1b) she runs and loses, she is a much weaker candidate for the office of President
2a) She doesn't run for Senator. She doesn't run for President.
2b) She doesn't runs for Senator. She is seen as a candidate unwilling to run a hard campaign. weaker candidate for any Presidential run.
3) She runs for Senator and wins a hard fought campaign. Some of the contributers are going to be unwilling to support another campaign so heavily so soon. Ditto for campaign volunteers. Some voters are going to be unhappy at seeing her turn her back on the Senate seat she was just elected to to run for President. (definately a soft spot in the center which as I recall is why Dole gave his seat up to run but the hard left doesn't care, which is why Kerry didn't have to give his up)
The first four leave the country in a better spot. The discontinuity of Shrillary in Federal office gives the country a chance to purge some of the political dependancies, if not the actual federal officials that are seemingly willing to support her in any manner even to the detriment of the country.
The last one leaves us in the same spot we appear to be in now.
It would mean Guiliani wouldn't run in 2006, but it would also mean another GOP senate seat and a weaker spot for the RINOs to hijack the Senate Majority to benefit the Democratic Minority.
P.S. it would also mean a clearer field for V.P. candidates Conservative/Rice or Moderate/Tandredo
and I remember it happening like this:
Oz: "So if I read what you're saying above, you're saying that George Allen is pro-choice and Mitt Romney is pro-life ?
That's a large flip from what I've seen in the press about the two men.
It's also precisely why I think Allen is the "best" current pro-life candidate while Romney is more of a Guiliani lite."
to which DaveGOP replied:
"Allen:
Supports embryonic stem-cell research
Up until at least 2000, expressly supported keeping first trimester abortions legal (if you don't believe this, a quick Google search should bring up some old news articles on the subject)"
Here's a quote:
Allen:
"I hold a position of reasonable moderation on the excesses of abortion," he says. He supports most of the movement's politically achievable goals, but not necessarily its ultimate ends.
That reasonable moderation is his acceptance of first-trimester abortions. The politically achievable goals are reasonable limitations. The ultimate ends? Well that couldn't be anything but overturning Roe v. Wade.
I dont like stumping for any one candidate, I try to stay unbiased with conservatism being my only influence for writing comments, so again I won't mention names.
But I believe the 2008 GOP primary will be the most open primary in modern history. Why? Because I disagree that there will be giants involved on the GOP side, with the exception of McCain, whom I just truly believe has angered too many conservatives to be nominated, and Rudy, whom just is too liberal, federalism or not.
Tancredo will NEVER get a VP slot.
He's the kind of guys people would vote against and just too much gasoline to add to a fire.
Yes ... I would like to see Guiliani run against Hillary for the Senate seat, but I think that ship has sailed.....
Okay .. I still remember something about pro-life ratings for Allen.
I guess I'm back to Sanford, Gingrich, and Pawlenty with McCain as a ugly fallback choice.
I do not believe if Allen has cast a single pro-choice vote while in congress, but considering his quotes it shows at heart he's pro-choice, well at least moderately so. Especially considering he ran in Virginia, where a pro-choice stance isn't neccesary.
pro life legislation, so Allen has a high rating. The pro life legislation has mostly been "no brainer" stuff IMO. Things like partial birth abortion ban, and the unborn victims of violence act.
Allen I think is a keep abortion legal, with some restrictions type pro choicer. Exactly where he falls on this, and where he falls on Roe and federalism, I am not sure.
But he isn't pro life. I think Romney's positions have been along a similar line, although I think he did the "I have changed my mind after further consideration on the issue and am pro life" which is a fair argument, if you can believe it is genuine and not a move taken to appeal to pro lifers.
I partially agree with you.
1. Agree. Rudy is liked by most, although many of us on the right disagree with him. McCain is hated not just by the hard right, but much of the mainstream right in the party as well. I was very surprised that he polls well here at redstate. The gun owners absolutely despise him now, and they didn't in 2000 until he turned traitor. Pro-lifers are lukewarm at best toward him despite a good record there. The Bush supporters also dislike McCain. Tort reform backers don't like him either.
Many of the same people who despite McCain, and like Rudy as a person, are hoping Condi Rice runs. President Bush supporters like her, as well as gun owners. Pro-lifers are the big question there though.
Personally I don't consider McCain a conservative or a moderate, but just an opprotunist who will bat for whatever team he can if it can get him limelight.
Re 2 - I agree.
Re 3 - My number one issue.
Re 4 - Agree again.
Re 5 - Unfortunatly, we don't know if the candidate will do no harm or not. A promise is one thing, but there will always be doubts.
Re 6 - It's more symbolism than substance, but it does matter. Cheney helped Bush with the Right in 2000. Sanford/Rice?
-------------------------------
I also think part of it is that a candidate can go moderate on one issue, maybe two, but not all - and much of it depends on the region. The main base of the GOP are fiscal conservatives, tax-hawks, pro-2nd Amendment activists, pro-lifers, evangelical Christians, and strong defense advocates. Bush went "moderate" (if not liberal) on the spending, ticking off many fiscal conservatives (like myself), but gained some economic liberal and social conservative votes.
Bill Richardson did the same to some degree with the democrats, running as a pro-2nd Amendment candidate. John Dingell has done that for years.
On a somewhat related note, I've seen two three different cases of "moderation" with three different results here in Michigan. I don't want to start a new diary over this, so I'll post it here. This applies to the general election.
In 98, a pro-choice Republican (no primary) faced then congresswoman Debbie Stabenow in what was then a swing district in Michigan. Geoff Fieger was on top of the ticket for the democrats so we had a shot. Pro-lifers skipped the race, and Stabenow won by 20 points. This had some lasting effects since Debbie is now a disaster in the senate.
2004 - Joe Schwarz, a pro-choice and strongly anti-gun politician won a five way primary with about 25% of the vote. The democrats didn't contest this race much, so Schwarz cruised to a victory, although third parties combined for 5% of the vote. The NRA for some reason gave Schwarz a B-, which I don't understand. He deserves a D or an F. I do expect Schwarz to get primaried again in 2004. There is a LOT of resentment among both pro-lifers, gun owners, and tax hawks. Making one group mad is one thing, three groups is a whole other story.
Also 2004 - A conservative Republican in a GOP leaning district North MI district was the deciding vote against a dove hunting measure. Outside of that one vote, he's pro-gun though. The NRA not only endorsed his democrat opponent, but gave him an F, which surprised me. The democrat won by 7% in a district Bush won by 16%
The base always has a breaking point. What the breaking point is depends on the region and candidates infolved.