Redstate

Moderate Nixon/Ford gave us Carter, only after which we got Reagan.

Moderate Bush Sr. gave us Clinton, only after which we got W.

I'm not willing to see who we'd get after Moderate McCain in this pattern. Let's jump straight to the conservative now and break this trend before it gets worse.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

How is your voice? -oh wait, Medved and Hewitt do pretty well!

Spitballs?!?! / Yo No Soy Marinero, Soy Capitan

Seriously? Have you forgotten the presidency of Jimmy Carter? Thank God he was soooo bad that America woke up and voted for Reagan. And after H.W.? What about William Jefferson Clinton? Was that not a ratchet to the left? Sure we took Congress in 1994, but we lost again in 1996. Why is that? Because we put up a tired old candidate (just like McCain is now).

The R brand is not destroyed. Granted, Bush and the Republican Congress haven't exactly benefitted us, but the Dem congress isn't faring much better these days. Besides, if the R brand was destroyed, then there's no point backing any candidate because we'll lose. McCain is still an R (even if he votes like a Dem).

What you call moderate appeal, I call pandering to the left. McCain's by no means a standard-bearer for this party. He couldn't beat Bush in '00 because he was too much of a maverick and I don't think conservatives will forgive him for McCain-Kennedy in '08.

First, I will agree that the Republican brand needs revitalizing. No doubt that under Bush and the Republican Congress with their drunken-sailor ways, we have squandered a great opportunity. I'm right there with you on that fight.

The answer, however, does not appear to me to be to therefore make that approach the new Republican Brand: "Kinder, Gentler Conservatism!" That implies one, that conservatism is neither kind or gentle, and two, that the 'product' we peddled in the past -- product such as smaller government, federalism, and secure borders -- was inferior.

Maybe you're right that a term under McCain would give us a return to the core values of conservatism. If he's a one-term President whose moderate/independent ways get him in trouble. (See, George H.W. Bush)

But even your own response is what concerns me re: Ratchet effect.

"And maybe it will remind center-right voters that the party is not ONLY rock-ribbed conservatives. Since Rs have been shedding their center-right allies, that might be good for conservatives in the medium run."

You see, Adam, maybe I'm wrong on this, but I believe that mainstream conservatism of the variety represented mostly on Redstate, IS the Center-Right. If even we start to classify the Reaganite vision as "rock-ribbed conservatism" (which the Democrats and their PR wing in the media would call "radical right wing"), then what do we classify as Center-Right? Bill Clinton circa 1994? By that measure, Hillary Clinton circa 2008 would be "centrist" and Kucinich merely a "liberal". We would have to classify Fidel Castro as the "left wing", but perhaps not the "radical left".

I think there's a different way to revitalize the brand. As was done with New Coke, the answer may be to abandon the newfangled market-research-tested formula and return to Classic Coke.

-TS

"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt

"but I believe that mainstream conservatism of the variety represented mostly on Redstate, IS the Center-Right."

Then I have to ask, what's to the Right of Redstate? Seriously?

"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI

Mainstream Republicanism is something different, and RS is undoubtedly to the right of that.

HTML Help for Red Staters

W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm

He is the closest guy I could come up with to McCain. I'm not convinced it would be a great thing for the party or the country (see Bill Clinton in 1992), but he wouldn't be so bad that I would consider going over to the other side, either.

Only Huck would have me consider that, since he is worse than Nixon, even. At least Nixon had a clue on foreign policy, even if that was the only place he didn't completely suck. He could have a long term negative effect on the party. I don't expect McCain to do that.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I'm all for moving the nation to the right "little by little."

But to do so, you need to get the federal court of appeals stocked up with conservative nominees to counterbalance the Clinton appointments during those 8 years.

McCain kicked back and allowed the Democrats to continue their filiubstering of Bush nominees like Miguel Estrata, even though McCain never filibustered a single Clinton judicial nominee during those 8 years.

And while taxes were increased during the Clinton administration, when George W Bush tried to reduce taxes to counteract the Clinton tax increases, McCain voted against the tax cuts.

It seems that McCain has a stange "Stare Decisis" perspective when it comes to the Left wing agenda. He doesn't filibuster Clinton judicial nominees. But he will fight for the right of Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer to filibuster Bush's nominees.

Once Clinton raises taxes, he votes against attempts by Republicans to cut taxes.

And then you add it the idea of letting 12 million illegals stay here indefinately, give many of the permanent resident status and some Social Securtiy freebees and other freebees (costing, according to the Heritage Foundation, over 2 trillion dollars).......

It's not conservative.

...and how many years McCain would serve. I believe that McCain could be a great one-term fix to winning in Iraq & getting a judge or 2 on SCOTUS to tip the balance against ROE. It is nearly impossible for a party to win a third in a row when the incumbant is unpopular & the political pendulum is swinging back in the other direction, so at times it is better to stop the pendulum in the middle for a term...

Spitballs?!?! / Yo No Soy Marinero, Soy Capitan

They were conservatives or they became conservatives when they realized how much sense President Reagan made. Something is very strange when more than half the country self-identifies as conservative, one party can run as far liberal as they want, and the other party convinces itself it needs to position itself left of center.
The result of this is that the democrats get the liberal votes, the solid conservative votes stay home, some moderates flip a coin because they can't tell the difference, and the others vote democrat because even if they are to the left, at least they are clear on where they stand.

"the solid conservative votes stay home,"

In your outline above there is clear culpability here.

The "take my ball and go home" voters are obviously not reliable. Why court them? One false step and they've abandoned you anyway. I find it hard to call that "solid". And that could be a contributing factor in why politicians run to the left of those voters. They are trying to appeal to those who they think will vote in the absence of 100% agreement.

absentee

You argument is the same poor argument used in the whole Rudy arguments months back. Voting is not automatic. Every election day, every eligible voter has to get up, figure out where the polling place is, make arrangements for the kids, job, dog, whatever, travel to the polling place, perhaps stand in line, and then vote.
That is why true "independents" don't vote much. That is why it is necessary to nominate someone who represents your base. If you don't have someone that inspires the base, somewhere along that timeline they drop off the process. For most they make excuses to themselves and don't think of it as a big deal.

I also take great offense at you "one false step" characterization. I could in good conscience vote for Fred, Rudy or Mitt, and would do so in the general. That is a pretty wide spectrum. The other two currently viable candidates from the GOP are too far left for me on issues I care about a great deal. Note that I said I will vote for Rudy and I have always been a single issue pro-life voter.

Ronald Reagan is a hero and maybe a demi-god amongst Republicans and conservatives, but I think many forget why specifically. He is revered because he won AND he stayed true to his principles, which were very far to the right. I say not only can we have both, but that it is difficult to have one without the other - for the reasons I laid out above.

I didn't know you were a "no vote" voter. I was merely addressing your hypothetical group in your previous comment. No offense intended of course.

My point is regarding the perceived movement of the platform in response to voters. In as much as one perceives that the candidates move leftward or rightward to court voters, it seems logical that they would target those they were most likely to win votes from for the least amount of effort. Again, to the extent one thinks the campaigner does so at all of course.

absentee

I just think you are wrong. My whole point is that Reagan won by bringing the independents to him, not by going to them. 1994 was the same formula. When Republicans and conservatives win big, it is by making a stand and being credible, not by advocating positions that will be accepted by others. Republicans will not gain one vote by adopting "green" policies...people who have drank that koolaid will vote Democrat anyway. That is just one example.

The thing I can't answer -- because frankly, I was too young and not an American at the time of the Reagan presidency -- is whether Reagan appealed to the "moderates" and the Reagan Democrats by shifting with the times, or by refusing to do so.

My sense -- and perhaps the elder statesmen here can back me up -- is that Reagan actually gave the moderates a taste of true conservatism: strong defense, fullthroated advocacy of the free market, federalism, and respect for values. Americans heard that and realized that it appealed to them.

Part of it surely was Reagan's gift for communication. It's too bad that Thompson is no Reagan.

But if Reagan had run on a platform explicitly designed to triangulate and appeal to moderates and Democrats and Independents... would we really have had the resurgence of conservatism in the last 25 years?

I agree that moderates need to support our ideas. I just disagree that we need to change our ideas to earn that support. In fact, I believe that we need to stop diluting our ideas and put forth the best candidate who can best represent our ideas, and then let the market decide.

If we lose after that, then fine -- let us declare the Reaganite vision dead, and look to "update conservatism for the Information Age". Not until then.

-TS

"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt

"My sense ... is that Reagan actually gave the moderates a taste of true conservatism: strong defense, fullthroated advocacy of the free market, federalism, and respect for values. Americans heard that and realized that it appealed to them."

Yep. That's the way it was. There was nothing wishy-washy about Reagan.

I'm a Fredhead, but I'm not blind (I don't think...)

President Giuliani doesn't do the same thing that President McCain does. Because Giuliani never really sought the moderate/independent vote the way McCain has. He started out being perceived (and probably being) as a moderate, and if anything, he's campaigned to the right of his perceived starting point.

Romney also has staked out a conservative position, and a win by him in the primary and the general means that running as a conservative will be seen as a successful electoral strategy. This is even if, like Romney, you're a relatively recent convert to the conservative platform. So if Thompson drops out, Romney might be the best in terms of setting expectations of future office seekers.

President Huckabee would pose the same challenges as President McCain -- because it sets forth a new template for electoral victory. But again, at the very least, Huckabee is running to the right as much as he could, while his record and his rhetoric on economics conflict with the conservative platform.

Ron Paul is not worthy of serious discussion.

Of all of the major candidates, only McCain has actively triangulated to court moderates and independents. That may very well be a successful strategy both in the primary and in the general. If that happens, then we do have a new template for GOP electoral victory.

-TS

"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt

Your conclusion with regard to Giuliani seems a little thin. The fact that he moves rightward doesn't necessarily mean your principle with regard to McCain doesn't apply.

Why wouldn't the conclusion be that the winning formula is to move way left and then come back right slightly?

absentee

I think he doesn't provide a template for future electoral victory the way McCain does, primarily because the Giuliani candidacy is about one Historical Event: 9/11.

Without 9/11, would Giuliani even be considered as a serious candidate?

So any future "start left, then go right" candidate would have to count on a major historical event, then responding appropriate during that event. It's too long of a shot.

McCain's strategy, however, is valid no matter what -- it's classic triangulation: be mostly conservative, but appeal to moderates and independents using selected issues.

If I were your garden variety GOP politician eyeing higher office, I'm far more likely to adopt the McCain strategy (assuming it was successful) than the Giuliani strategy (wait till 9/11 happens, then respond beautifully).

-TS

"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt

I mean, we did have a realignment and all. How do we know they're not all Republicans or dead by now? It's been almost 30 years since Reagan first won after all.

HTML Help for Red Staters

and... I guess I still haven't seen a heartfelt defense.

For example:

On McCain-Feingold, I agree that this bill is a blot on McCain's record. The 527s have worked out pretty well, but the 60-day gag rule is a monumental mistake. Fred Thompson gets dinged on this too because he voted "aye" right along with McCain. And of course George W. Bush gets dinged too because he signed the goddam bill.

On McCain-Lieberman, that's another one I disagree with McCain about. It would be counterproductive to try to cut CO2 emissions, especially when we don't know the true impact of CO2 on climate change.

These don't strike me as ringing defenses of McCain policies as being conservative ones.

In fact, the overall tone and tenor is in line with what I've said: "McCain has unconservative policies, but we overlook them or forgive them because he's right on what matters." See Leverkuhn's defense.

You know what? I'm okay with that in a sense. You have every right to take that tack in selecting a nominee: he ain't perfect, but he's good enough where it counts.

But let's not confuse that with a defense of such policies as conservative ones. Because they're not.

So at the end of the day, what you and Leverkuhn and absentee and others are willing to accept is a triangulated "good enough" candidate. Perfectly rational, perfectly believable. And one that I think is a bad idea, at this point in time, for the reasons I've listed.

-TS

"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt