Content by ugadawg
Posted at 1:52am on Jan. 30, 2008 4 Years for Conservatives to Make Things Right
By ugadawg
I know there are a lot of disappointed conservatives out there tonight. McCain basically locked up the nomination with his win, and now we will have to hold our nose and vote against hillary/obama. And if we are lucky, we will get an economically illiterate, amnesty pushing,global warming believing, MSM endorsed, democrat friendly president. It will, of course, be better than the alternative...and McCain certainly has some strong points (such as National Security). But lets be honest...McCain's victory is crushing for conservatives. He was the one candidate that we sought to defeat coming in...and we FAILED.
Posted in Elections — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 8:33pm on Jan. 17, 2008 Eliminating Huckabee/McCain
By ugadawg
To all the Mitt and Rudy supporters in South Carolina, I just want to encourage you to vote for Fred this Saturday. I am sure you probably think I am crazy...but just think about this:
If Fred wins (and he would win pretty easily if Mitt and Rudy supporters got behind him), that would basically eliminate McCain. He would have only 1 primary win (NH again) and absolutely no momentum heading into Florida. He would be short on money, and many would conclude that he simply wasn't viable if he couldn't win the state with the largest per capita population of military personnel in the nation.
Posted in Archived — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 3:56pm on Jan. 6, 2008 Beating Obama
By ugadawg
For the past year, it has been assumed that the Democrats would nominate Hillary for President. However, after numerous stumbles and the rise of Obama, it is looking more and more like Obama will be the nominee. I think that this forces Republican voters to reevaluate who they support.
I have long felt that Obama would be a much more formidable candidate than Hillary. I always wanted Hillary to get the nomination because she has such high unfavorables and would really help to get out the Republican base. She is also a known quantity so I doubt that opinions will change much on her. In addition, she has a definite problem (like Bill) of stretching the truth and getting caught up in lies(but unlike Bill, she can't hide behind the press thanks to blogs).
The belief in hillary's inevitability led many Republicans to rally behind Rudy b/c they felt, initially, that he was the only candidate that could beat her. I think over time that many republicans have come to believe that all of our candidates can beat her.
But Hillary is no longer inevitable. And to be personally honest, Obama scares the crap out of me. He is very charasmatic and likable. Despite being to the left of hillary, he is successfully painting himself as a uniter. He is going to attract a great deal of independent voters. As the first viable African-American candidate for President, you can also expect minorities to come out in full force at the ballot box. In short, it is going to be an uphill climb to beat Obama. And it is going to require an unbelievable get-out-the-vote effort on the Republican side. I also believe that it is going to require the Republicans to beat Obama on issues. We are not going to be able to outcharasmatic Obama. Our only hope is to focus on the substance of the issues and the differences between Obama and the Republican nominee. There are many weaknesses (such as political experience and national security experience) for Obama, and the Republican candidate is going to have to focus the conversation on those issues. While that may be an uphill climb in today's 30-second soundbite political environment, it is possible.
This brings me to my analysis of which candidates offer the best chance against Obama.
Rudy: Rudy's best bet against Obama is to zero in on his lack of national security experience. Rudy will also be able to highlight his effectiveness in bringing actual "change" (I guess that is the new word for Democrats) to New York City.
The problem with Rudy, as I see it, is that he will fracture the Republican base. Social conservatives, even if they come out to vote for Rudy, will not participate in the grassroots push for the election. In addition, some evangelicals may be swayed by Obama b/c he has embraced religion more than any other Democrat (and does it in a way that appears authentic). And I do not see Rudy successfully taking away independent voters from Obama.
In addition, it will be nearly impossible for Rudy to overcome the struggles in his personal life and charges of corruption (such as spending city money on police escorts for his girlfriend). Against Hillary, those issues would be left alone b/c she has more than enough baggage of her own. But Obama looks, as far as I can tell, squeaky clean. I just think many Americans, after hearing about corruption in Washington for years, will gladly vote for a candidate who projects an image, rightly or wrongly, of strong character.
Overall, I believe that Rudy is the 3rd best candidate we can nominate, but I just don't see him winning.
However, I think nominating McCain will effectively remove one of the Republican's best issues, illegal immigration. Americans of all political persuasions are simply tired of Washington doing nothing to stop illegal immigration. As one of the namesakes of the shamnesty disaster, I do not believe he will be able to garner public trust in this issues, despite his newfound "conversion" of securing the borders first.
I do believe that McCain may be able to swing some independent voters who are attracted to the idea of unity due to his many years of stepping across the isle to work with democrats. However, I believe this may turn off many republican voters. In addition, his notorious temper will undoubtedly arise at some point and turn people off.
Despite his flaws, I believe McCain would be the 2nd best nominee, especially if he could focus the discussion on national security issues. I believe he would probably damage the Republican name on many conservative ideas (like Bush), but for many it would be better to elect a psuedo-conservative (one loves working with Ted Kennedy) than have a Democrat in office.
Mitt: Against Obama, I think that Romney would be the second WORST candidate to nominate. While I believe that he has a great grasp of the issues and his resume speaks for itself, he is going to come off as a phony to the average voter because he has continually changed positions to fit the political environment he is in at the time. Obama, on the other hand, appears authentic. Against Hillary, I have no doubt that Romney would win; I just think his image will haunt him against Obama. It probably won't help that Romney is now using the democrat's "change" message. It's probably not the best strategy to latch on to the opposing parties talking points. While I believe he will effectively hold on to the base, I just don't think it will be enough.
Think about this: Romney has spent millions and millions of dollars on his campaign. He says almost all the right things. He panders to all the right crowds. And yet, despite running a flawless campaign and spending all that money, he still is not connecting with Republican voters. I just think he will get crushed by Obama.
Huckabee: I believe that Huckabee will also be a DISASTER against Obama (and against Hillary too). While his message will resonate with social conservatives, I believe ficons will leave in droves. I believe national security conservatives will likely stay despite his naive foreign policy b/c the democrats will offer nothing better.
However, I do not believe indepedents will vote a Baptist minister as President (rightly or wrongly). In addition, I believe Huckabees's greatest asset, his charasmatic persona and down-to-earth style, will be ineffective against Obama because Obama is actually better at it than huckabee.
Finally, Huckabee lacks the substance on issues that will be necessary to draw a contrast between himself and obama. When huckabee makes statements like "we will be oil independent in 10 years" no one is going to take him seriously. (what is he going to do, offer for the government to pay to replace every car in the United States??????). And even if they do, do you really think or want him to win a bidding war on illogical ideas with the Democrats. I can only imagine the damage to the Republican party that would do. Huckabee simply is not a principled conservative, thus it would just be a pissing match between the two candidates about who can offer more to the American people (and thats a way of thinking that I want to leave squarely with the democrats).
Paul: I am putting Paul b/c I actually believe he has a better chance of winning than Huckabee (and maybe Romney). He would effectively take the anti-war message out of the equation. And you can't argue he doesn't offer change. And while I disagree with him greatly on foreign policy, I can actually see some of what he says resonating with the American people.
In addition, the fact that he has continued to rise in support despite all the opposition and lack of media attention shows that he is actually a good campaigner. He would definitely have to overcome the nuttiness of his supporters. And I think once the american people realized that making money more valuable would lead to a recession it would really hurt his candidacy. (go back at look at reinflationist after the civil war...people with loans make less b/c the dollar is stronger, but will have to still pay back loans that were taken out on a weaker dollar). But at least he is principled and represents authenticity, despite his numerous flaws.
On the flip side, he would probably turn off a large chunk of the republican base (but then again who would they turn to unless a 3rd part occurred). However, I really don't see any way he wins the nomination, so I think that it is a moot point, thankfully.
Fred: And this brings me to Fred. I will admit that as a Fred supporter, I may be a little biased. But I really think he would offer the best chance against Obama. He would effectively keep all 3 legs of the republican party together. He is the BEST hope of keeping the conservative party united. In addition, he would actually be able to contrast Obama effectively on the issues. He is not afraid of telling the truth to the American people, and I believe that this quality will resonate. I also believe his plans on gay marriage (leave it to the states but no state has to recognize another state's laws) and abortion (overturn Roe v. Wade and then let the states decide) will actually have some appeal to independent voters.
I do think he would have to become a little more charasmatic and run one heck of a campaign. But if you look at what he did in 2 1/2 weeks in Iowa during the holiday season (doublinig his support), I really think that is possible. I also think he appears the most presidential of all the candidates. While he will certainly not out-charasmatic Obama, I do not believe any of our candidates can do that. And if we try, I think we lose. We are going to have to talk about the issues. And people are going to have to view the nominee as someone they can trust. I believe Fred is that man.
He will also be able to effectively use the illegal immigration issue. I believe that issue is the key issue to getting independent voters, and Fred has put out a very good policy proposal for dealing with the issue. His belief in attrition through enforcement (which has worked in Georgia), is the perfect way to overcome those who demagogue the issue by saying you have to either award illegal immigrants by allowing them to stay or round them up and deport them. He is the only candidate talking about attrition through enforcement, and I think it is a winner.
I also believe his support for entitlement reform will also resonate simply because americans are not used to being treated like adults and told the truth. People may not like what he says, but they will respect the fact that in today's political environment, he actually has the testicular fortitude to say it.
In addition, his foreign policy experience will be useful in contrasting with Obama. And like he always says, who would you rather be sitting across the table of our enemies?
Simply put, he is the best candidate for preserving the party and combating Obama with ideas not style. We are not going to be able to out-style Obama...we have to come to terms with that. Running on the ISSUES not sytle is our only chance next november.
Conclusion: I know this was a VERY long post. And for those that read it all, thank you. I really feel that we need to go ahead and expect Obama to win the Democrat nomination. And I feel we need to elect a candidate who can contrast Obama on issues, who is free from a lot of baggage, who can communicate conservative ideas effectively (I do think Fred needs to improve here a little bit), and is acceptable to all segments of the Republican voting bloc. Fred is not perfect, but I believe he is the candidate most up to the task. He is authentic and level-headed, driven by love for his country and a sense of duty, and right on the issues.
Posted in 2008 — Comments (13) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 4:41pm on Dec. 30, 2007 Fred in His Own Words
By ugadawg
There is not much to add to this. It is just another example of Fred being Fred, talking about his love for America and his hope for a greater tomorrow. It was truly refreshing to watch a politician speak from his heart, and not according to the latest poll or focus group. I hope everyone, especially those voters in Iowa, will take the time to listen to Fred and his vision for America. I know it is lengthy, but some things just can't be condensed into 30 second sound bites.
Posted in 2008 — Comments (51) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 11:51am on Nov. 15, 2007 Paid Off??? This is all the NRLC needed to see....(Romney Hit Piece)
By ugadawg
Over at the Brody file, David Brody links to the following You Tube Video from Romney's 2002 Governor's race. Say what you want about Thompson's pro-life history or his opposition to the HLA, but at least he is not on tape running away from a pro-life endorsement or calling his mom "bold and courageous" for supporting abortion back in 1970 before Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court. (with 3:40 left on the video) Paul Weyrich may want to review this before he blasts Thompson for bribery.
Hillary's campaign has to be licking their chops just thinking about the attack ad possibilities for Flip Flop Mitt.