Redstate

Posted at 11:35am on Oct. 18, 2007 The Case For John McCain

By jamespolk

John McCain is my first choice for the GOP nomination. Romney is probably second and Thompson third. Despite McCain's recent problems these are the reasons I still think he is the Republicans best hope.

1. Military/Foreign Policy Experience

Of the "big 5" (including Huckabee), McCain is the only one who served in the military (Huckabee might have been a JAG lawyer?) and the only one who faught in Vietnam. His miltary service is well known. He also has years of foreign policy experience in the Senate. I think this experience is vital right now. I know many think it doesn't matter but I think it does. McCain is the only one of the Republican candidate's who was critical of Bush's handling of the war WHILE Bush was actually screwing things up (now of course the others have jumped on the bandwagon and criticized Bush's handling of the war up until the surge that McCain had long been arguing for). McCain understands the threat of terrorism and he has the knowledge and experience to deal with it. He will be a strong and SMART leader in the GWOT.

Posted in Archived — Comments (19) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 6:40am on Oct. 17, 2007 Why Dobson CAN'T Support Rudy

By jamespolk

It seems like everyone who has commented on Dobson's latest comments and he and other Christian leaders' possible foray into a 3rd party are looking at it from the perspective of the GOP. Would Rudy be good for America and good for the GOP or would he not? But let's look at it from the perspective of the Christian right for a moment.
The Christian right started getting involved in politics in the late 1970's and really first coalesed behind a candidate in 80 with Reagan. Their big issues when they first entered politics were abortion and school prayer. They also talked about bringing morality back into politics. I think under George W. Bush they became even more in bed with the Republican party because Republicans continued to stand for those three "issues" (I'm defining morality in politics as an "issue" and I think that the whole "family values" convention reflects that) as well as a new fourth issue -- support for traditional marriage.

Posted in Archived — Comments (29) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 7:25am on Oct. 10, 2007 Who Should Social Conservatives Support?

By jamespolk

There have been several blogs recently which have degenerated into shouting matches between Rudy backers and social conservatives who won't support him even in the general. I certainly won't support him in the primary and probably won't in the general either. But that's not what this blog is about. It seems much more constructive for social conservatives to gather behind one viable alternative candidate and I'd like this post to provide a forum for that discussion.

Posted in Archived — Comments (16) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 2:24am on Apr. 29, 2007 McCain Surge?

By jamespolk

I'm not sure if McCain can pull this out, but here's how it could go down.

McCain's failure to make himself the "establishment" turns out to be a blessing. Rudy is now the frontrunner. McCain is looking older and tired, exhausted by his battles in the senate and failure to become the inevitable candidate by default ala Bob Dole. But his position as underdog rejuvinates him - he needs that status to go back out on the campaign trail with something to prove, just as he did in 2000. But instead of rallying the support of independents against the establishment candidate, this time he's leading an insurgency from the right-wing of the party. His own views haven't changed, it's just that the candidate he's running against is a liberal (in comparison to the mainstream of the GOP).

Posted in Archived — Comments (6) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 12:39am on Apr. 6, 2007 Rudy Can't Win

By jamespolk

There are a lot of reasons I would never vote for Rudy Giuliani, but I think one reason hasn't been addressed enough: if, on the off chance he won the Republican nomination, he couldn't win the general election.

There are two primary reasons for this -- he'll turn off social cons and won't be able to win the support of Independents/Moderate Democrats.

I realize that there are some social conservatives, including devout evangelicals, who are willing to overlook Rudy's support of abortion on demand, civil unions, gun control, and now government funding for abortion (in cases of rape/incest) because they think the War on Terror trumps everything else. But I think this group is a minority -- most evangelicals won't be willing to forget these issues. Dobson, Robertson, etc. will vehemently attack him during the primary and the support he now has from evangelicals who don't realize just how liberal Rudy is will erode. Many will vote for a third party candidate or stay home in the general.

Posted in Archived — Comments (42) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 12:39am on Mar. 16, 2006 Hah! KH to stay in race

By jamespolk

I just saw on Drudge that Katherine Harris is going to announce that she's staying in the race and will spend her entire fortune (10 million) on it.  Good for her.

I think Harris has a shot of winning.  It's slim, but I think he numbers will improve now that there's no longer any doubt about her dropping out.  These rumors that conservatives have been spreading for months have caused her fund rasing to be very low, and her poll numbers to stay at exaggerated low levels.  

The Republican Establishment can be pretty obnoxious from time to time.  I think that's why there are some people who may disagree with some of McCain's positions but admire him anyway.  Personally I'm not a huge Trent Lott fan, but I'd have been pissed off too if I were him and was treated as I was after his innocent Strom Thurmond comments.  So it's nice to see Harris bucking the establishment.

If she were to win I think it would make a terrific movie - the protagonist takes on the liberals media and the republican establishement and emerges triumphant.  

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (6) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 10:15pm on Feb. 11, 2006 "Human Events" Names Mitt Romny #8 RINO

By jamespolk

I guess they're showing their appreciation for all the liberal things he's done in the last few years -- like becoming one of the most vocal opponents of same-sex marriage, converting to pro-life, and balencing his state's budget w/out raising taxes.

Romney is not the most conservative Republican, but he's no RINO.  For being from the most liberal state in the country, he's surprisingly conservative.

(Chaffee, Snowe, and Specter were 1,2, and 3. BTW).

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 1:10am on Feb. 10, 2006 A Question About The Things That Offend Us

By jamespolk

So most of the American media is refusing to show us the cartoons that have inflamed much of the Arab world.  They say they  Islam, and because they don't want to offend American muslims.

So why then do they insist on showing us image after image after image of Danish, French, Norweigan, and other countries' flags being trampled on and burnt?  Aren't Scandanavian and French Americans offended by these images?  Isn't there at least as possability that they are?  I am.  So why is the American media so insensitive to all these people?

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (9) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 1:56pm on Jan. 31, 2006 Oscar Nominations

By jamespolk

While D.C. went right and voted Alito today, one could say Hollywood went left w/ its Academy Award nominations.

Best Picture Nominees:

Brokeback Mountain

Capote

Crash

Good Night and Good Luck

Munich

Two gay-themes films, a movie about Racism's pervasiveness in America, a film that is arguably sympathetic to terrorists, and a good old-fashioned anti-McCarthy diatribe (this is relevent to today, by the way, because, in case you missed it, we're not allowed to speak freely and dissent from our government - it's true, I heard it from George Clooney).

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (16) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 2:14pm on Jan. 28, 2006 Katherine Harris

By jamespolk

I can't believe how unsupported Katherine Harris is on this site.  It seems like people are convinced she has absolutley no chance of winning the Senate, and she isn't much liked anyway.

What exactly is wrong with her?  She's a solid conservative, has served as congressman as well as state-wide elected post.  It's almost as if everyone is buying into the idea that she did something wrong in the 2000 election, which she didn't.

Jeb Bush had more reason to cheat for Georgen Katherine Harris did, but voters didn't boot him out.  In fact, he's got a very high approval rating now.  I think if the Republican establishment in Florida (and nationally) would stop pretending they're going to get another candidate, and if the grassroots folks would come out w/ support and money, that Harris would quickly close some of the gap w/ Bill Nelson and it could be a very close race.  But the defeatism is becoming self-fulfilling.

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (63) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 12:45pm on Jan. 25, 2006 Is "American Idol" Homophobic?

By jamespolk

Gay rights groups have called "American Idol" homophobic and are demanding that Fox meet with them to discuss what they can (must?) do about it.

The controversy involves a couple of comments by judges Simon Cowell and Randy Jackson, telling a feminine looking and sounding male that he should wear a dress, and asking another contestant what sex he is.  I saw the show last week and wasn't really surprised that gay rights groups were offended.

Of course half the point of the show is that the judges make fun of people.  They've certainly made fun of overweight people and unattractive people, but I guess the fat and ugly don't have any special interest groups looking out for them.

My guess is that Fox doesn't change.  It's the #1 show in the country afterall.  

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (15) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 10:09pm on Jan. 21, 2006 Yet Another 2008 POTUS Analysis

By jamespolk

The question of who the best Republican candidate for POTUS in 08 has been asked (and answered) by several here, but I'll add my own two cents w/ an analysis of the candidates.

John McCain:

strengths: in 08, after several years of bitter partisanship, people might be looking for a moderate who will extend his hand across the aisle -- McCain fits this.  He's a strong leader type and has steller credentials in foreign policy.  He's pro-life, anti same-sex marriage, favors cutting spending, and would finish the Iraq War.  Oh yeah, and he'd win.

weaknesses: He's old.  He opposed cutting taxes and favors curbing the first amendment (McCain-Feingold).  Conservatives (somewhat unfairly in my opinion) hate him.

Rudy:

strengths: Strong executive type, would probably do a good job executing the Iraq War.  Has appeal to blue staters and would likely win (unless a third party candidate emerged which is possible).

weaknesses: Personal morality issues, and possible scandals (I wonder if there are any more Bernard Kerik's out there). Favors abortion rights, gay rights, and opposes gun rights.  He's very popular now b/c people think of him as a hero of 9/11, but my guess is that when people get to know more about him, his support would drop dramatically in the South and Mid-West.

Newt:

strengths: A true conservative, an idea man who is able to articulate a grand vision of the future.  A consistent conservative and a great debator.

weaknesses: Personal morality problems again, little executive experience, a polarizing figure who would be tarred and feathered by the MSM.  Just doesn't seem presidential.  Wouldn't win.

Mitt Romney:

strengths: A strong record of reform as a governor.  Proven appeal to blue-staters.  Charismatic and a good speaker.  Looks presidential.  Pro-life (though formerly pro-choice), and a strong fighter for traditional marriage.

weaknesses: As he moves to the right, some of his former more liberal positions will be questioned.  He won't be able to swing Mass to the GOP.  He's Mormon.

George Allen:

strengths: A Bush-like conservative who is affable and generally liked by national security conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and social conservatives.  Comes from the South and has gubenetorial experience.  Also has foreign policy experience in the Senate.

weaknesses: People might not be in the mood for a folksy Southerner after Bush.   Favors abortions in the first trimester (no doubt this position will change when he runs for POTUS).  Some see him as an ambitious empty suite.

Jeb Bush:

strengths: Governor of a large Southern swing state.  A Catholic.  Like Allen, he's liked by all branches of the GOP.  Seems like a strong, executive type who handled hurricanes in his state better then maybe his bro has.

weaknesses: His last name is Bush and he probably isn't running.  Otherwise, he has very few weaknesses.

Condi Rice:

strengths: Lots of foreign policy experience.  Articulate and charismatic.  Could help Republicans finally break Dems hold over the Black vote and single women.

weaknesses: probably isn't running.  Has never run for office.  Is "mildly pro-choice."  Has no geographic base that she brings with her.

Tim Pawlenty:

strengths: Governor of a medium sized swing state in a swing region.  Fiscally and socially conservative.  Young and charismatic.

weaknesses: Foreign policy inexperience.  Lack of name recognition.  Might not win re-election in Minnesota.

Pat Buchanan:

(I would never count him out of running for POTUS, he seems to do it just about every time).

strengths: ?

weaknesses: Iraq, Isrel/Palestine, immigration, globalization, lack of any experience.

Sam Brownback:

strengths: A true social conservative.  He will get the religious right energized and might swing some Catholic votes.  Personalbe guy.

weaknesses: Would probably alienate some GOPPers.  Lack of foreign policy experience, executive experience.   Probably wouldn't win.

Ultimately I think that Pawlenty and Romney are our best candidates.  They're both conservative governors whose appeal extends into blue territory.  I think both would also make great campaigners.  Pawlenty probably has the edge because he'd be a sitting governor, has a geographic edge, and doesn't have to deal w/ having reversed his position on abortion.  If he nominates a known quality w/ foreign policy experience and Iraq credentials for the VP slot(Rice or McCain?) I think it would be a great ticket.

My preference:

1. Pawlenty
   
   
2. Romney
   
   
3. Jeb
   
   
4. McCain
   
   
5. Allen
   
   
6. Rice
   
   
7. Brownback
   
   
8. Newt
   
   
9. Rudy
   
   
10. Buchanan      

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (21) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 2:29am on Jan. 21, 2006 Roe vs. Wade and the GOP's "Dirty Little Secret"

By jamespolk

I have read several articles in the MSM in the last few months where the writers make the same point about Roe vs. Wade and the GOP -- that the GOP leadership establishment secretly doesn't want to overturn it.  In Fact (according to these political analysts), Roe's demise is the last thing Republican leaders want b/c it would mean anger and backlash on a massive scale, the GOP would lose its majority and maybe become a minority party for the next two generations.  Republican leaders know this, so they're really just interested in throwing a few carrots to pro-lifers (parental notification, partial-birth), so it can look like they're making some progress and keep them voting Republican.

I think this analysis is completely off.  I agree that there would be some initial backlash in Roe were to be suddenly overturned.  There are a lot of pro-choice Republicans, and Independents who vote Republican frequently, who wouldn't like it.  But most of these people care about other issues more (national security, taxes), or else they wouldn't be voting Republican.  Terrorism is still going to be a huge issue, whether or not Roe exists.  Is a pro-choice upper-middle class soccer mom who normally votes Republican going to be so angry that she votes Democrat for the rest of her life?  I doubt it.  Especially considering that Roe's existence won't affect her anyway (abortions are relatively rare among wealthy suburbantites, and it would be very easy for they to drive across a state line and get one anyway of Roe were overturned and it were outlawed in their state).

Also, I think that while it might embolden pro-choicers, it would also embolden pro-lifers.  If evangelicals and conservative Catholics actually had power over their state's abortion laws imagine how many more would come to the polls on election day.  I think that anger would quickly dissipate when people saw that Roe's end doesn't mean that all abortions are banned, but rather that they now have a voice in deciding what kind of restrictions should be placed on it and when it should be allowed.

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (18) / Email this page » / Read More »