Redstate

Not that I think it's entiretly relevant, but I believe, if anything, he actually gets attention because of his name.

What's more likely to stand out to you? Newt or Bob?

If I had been him, I would have lengthened my name before entering politics -- to "Newton." Then he would have had the Sir Issac Newton and Wayne Newton references sewn up, and we could have called his predictions and newsletters the "Newton Meter -- The Crucial Measurement of Force"

I am a hawkish warmonger with a crusty demeanour and a heart of steel. But I have a softer side.

-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

If these guys want to run on a third party ticket, then they might as well remove themselves for the party now. If they did that and caused a loss for the Republican ticket in 08, then I can't see them getting any support from the party upon returning to the Senate. The only thing is if their Senate terms are up in 08, and I don't know about that. If they still have time left in their term and don't step down for a third party run, I would hope that the Republican leadership in the Senate would slap them hard by removing them from seniority positions, possibly even asking them not to caucus with them in the Senate.

Standing athwart history yelling stop!!!! http://nationalwhig.blogspot.com

McCain's name.

I can tell you why I won't vote for him-

1. McCain Feingold
2. Media whore
3. McCain Feingold
4. Loves to play the maverick too much for my tastes
5. McCain Feingold

I also find him a bit self centered, and I do not trust him, and until he says "McCain Feingold was a horrible mistake" I won't be voting for him.

Okay, I will probably vote for him, if he wins the primary, because it is doubtful the DNC could nominate somebody more palatable than McCain.

Guliani right now is sort of acceptable to me-I don't think I could support him in a primary, and as the primary season proggresses he could move to the unacceptable column.

I do think Guliani appeals very much to the center and center right crowd, because often the people in that area tend to be a little less socially conseravative, and Guliani isn't a social conservative by any stretch of the imagination. Guliani comes out as a sort of libertarian on most issues, but on matters of security, and crime more conservative-he sort of floats on that quasi libertarian/coservative line. I think he appeals to those in the center (and by center I mean politcal spectrum center, not the GOP center). I think Guliani has a real tough time with the base, so I am not so sure he will survive the primaries. I don't think McCain survives either-he has burned too many bridges with the base, and everytime he looks like he is about to break out the saws and hammers to do a little rebuilding, he ends up pulling out another lighter.

6. Gang of 14/Haynes nomination

Globle warming.
"Peace had a chance"

-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

What has he done to make us think he will appoint good judges? Nothing.
"Peace had a chance"

I think the only thing you can say about McCain is he supports with his votes the belief that a president has the right to nominate whoever the heck he wants for SCOTUS and the senate should vote "yes" barring any clear reasons they would be unable to perform their jobs unimpeachably.

I don't think I have ever heard him on what kind of judge he would choose, and I am not convinced he would nominate a Scalia/Thomas style justice. Although he might.

I don't think I have ever heard him on what kind of judge he would choose, and I am not convinced he would nominate a Scalia/Thomas style justice. Although he might.

A Scalia/Thomas type would strike down his attempts at CFR, which does seem to be one of the things he is most passionate about. He certainly cares more about CFR than say, Roe being overturned... it's not even clear if he wants that... he has certainly been contradictory on it.

---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Refering to Guliani. I do think McCain would do ok with judges. But he trys to "work" with the left so often I could see another Souter.
"Peace had a chance"

position is on judges. He may have one, and I think this position would be key to whether he can get any support from the GOP base.

I do recall when Roberts was nominated that he was a strong supporter of Roberts, and while I don't remember the exact words from the interview I saw, I had the impression that Giuliani supports more of the strict constructionist/originalst type philosophy, but it was an "in general" impression where I read between the lines on what he was saying about Roberts and his judicial philosophy.

I do think this is the major area he has to not only make promises in, but follow through in.

But that does not mean that he would nominate him, personally. In fact, if it came down to it, I find it hard to believe that Giuliani would look for a Robertsesque nominee first. Similarly, if McCain got the nod, I'd support him too, but he is certainly not the guy I want in office.

I watched the interview I was left coming away with the impression that Giuliani wanted to see the court move in a more originalist oriented direction.

It has been way too long since the interview, and I don't recall the words actually said, but I actually think Giuliani would probably be good on judges-won't swear to it, and this is something he absolutely has to clarify, promise and follow through on, if he were elected.

Why do you assume he wouldn't?

You are completely right that on most of the issues important to traditional conservatives, McCain is far more conservative than Giuliani.

I think the main reason Giuliani polls well is because, at this stage, when the general public is asked about Giuliani their first thought is 9/11. Most people seem to assume that as the primaries and caucuses near, that will start to shift. People will ask about other issues. Many people don't know his position on other issues. Others do, but at this stage are giving a first instinct reaction, which is often "I like him".

But, there is no doubt that Giuliani has a much greater grip on the affections of conservatives than McCain, and many others who are more conservative than Giuliani. This applies even among the closely informed. Take a look at Leverkuhn's diary on Redstate: he describes himself as a two issue voter (national security and abortion). He writes in endless detail about the pro-life positions of other candidates, invariably finding them wanting. And yet he loves Rudi. IIRC correctly he even adds that he knows he shouldn't, but he does anyway.

Finally, don't forget that not everyone here is a traditional conservative. There are more libertarians on RedState than on, say, FreeRepublic. Libertarians here are by no means a majority, but a significant number nonetheless. Many of this group do not share traditional conservative views on gays and abortion (though nearly always they do on guns). There are also people who are not strictly libertarian in this sense, but who do not prioritise abortion and gay issues as highly as many traditional conservatives (perhaps esepecially in federal elections). There is such a thing as looking at a candidate and saying: "I agree with him on A & B, but not C or D, but I care a lot more about A & B, so he gets my vote".

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

Virtually all the respondents are rating themselves as highly conservative, yet they are approving the most liberal of all the possible choices. George Pataki is more conservative then Rudy.

I put it down to Rudy being an empty vessel into which they are placing all their fondest dreams. Since he does not hold any office they are able to imagine that he would favor all their own favorite causes.

It has been strange to me for a while, but I think once the primary starts, his support will drop in the party as a whole.

I didn't see him getting 1st choice by the higher rated conservatives.

Not to mention that is a self defined scale-my definition of what makes an 8 may not be your definition, but we both might rate ourselves an 8. The scale is pretty subjective and meaningless for pure scientific purposes, but then the whole poll is unscientific.

But I readily admit I don't find McCain acceptable, I don't care for him, I don't trust him, and the only way I would vote for him is if he somehow managed to win the primary (which is next to impossible I think, because he keeping ticking off the base).

This is where Guliani has the advantage. He hasn't burned a single bridge with the party base. He actually is pretty respectful of them to date. Also, some in the base may not know just how much to the left he leans on social issues, because at this point he is known mostly for his security stances.

Also, for some pro life people, they might take a pro choicer, if that pro choicer appears to be a strong Federalist. I think this issue will play itself out in the primaries, and in the end I do think it is going to hurt Guliani, but right now he has appeal, and I admit that there is something about him I do like-and I could vote for him in a general far more happily than I could vote for McCain, but I don't think I could vote for either in a primary.

at this point he [Rudy] is known mostly for his security stances.

Can anyone say what his security stances are? I agree that their is a widespread perception that he is some sort of ultra-hawk on security issues, but it's based on nothing solid that I am aware of. If he has has made specific proposals for the war I'd like to hear of them.

but he has made the rounds on the various news shows-both the quick interviews and the Meet the Press type, and his opinions on those shows is pretty conservative and pretty much in the support for the GWOT camp, not the "torture, torture, shut down Guantonamo" type.

I also think his record in New York and as a prosecutor indicate he doesn't have much sympathy for criminals or crime-I suspect that attitude translates just as well into fighting the GWOT.

But I haven't heard him make any "if I was in charge this is what I would do" type proposals, and most of his talk show circuitry has been supportive of the GWOT and the administration-something McCain can't lay claim to.

The point I'm getting at is that there would be no little or no difference between Rudy and any of the other likely GOP nominees when it comes to conduct of the war. I think even McCain would be very solid, in spite of his fixation on "torture". Any president will be constrained by the same realities which Bush has had to deal with.

Unless Rudy has a specific agenda which others do not have, I don't see what the basis is for the whole "He'll be fantastic on the war" viewpoint.

Eliot Spitzer is another New Yorker with a record as a prosecutor. I'd leave the country if he became president.

You just had to say it, and never mind the long, sad line of celebrities whose collective sacrifice has just become all in vain. Now Spitzer will become President, and never mind just how... all because you threatened to leave the country if he did.

Dude. There's, like, gnomes or something that listen for these sorts of announcements.

Kharma gnomes.

Hmm.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

>>The point I'm getting at is that there would be no little or no difference between Rudy and any of the other likely GOP nominees when it comes to conduct of the war. I think even McCain would be very solid, in spite of his fixation on "torture". Any president will be constrained by the same realities which Bush has had to deal with.

But there is one other factor to consider. The Vietnam War was not lost by policy on the battlefield. It was lost in terms of public opinion, mostly in the US, but also to a lesser extent abroad. Rudi would be a more articulate exponent of the cause that some, if not all, of the alternatives, both because of his personal charisma and his background as mayor NYC.

I am not suggesting this is the only or even a decisive factor, but it *is* a factor.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

Once he starts to actually talk about his positions on the issues, he has nowhere to go but down. He could win this thing, if only he could get through the primary and general in stealth mode, without every saying anything substantive.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

I admit I do like Guliani-something about him appeals to me, but I can't say that I like the package to the point that I am willing to compromise on abortion issues, and he also isn't exactly party line (or anywhere close to it) on the issue of guns.

He is populart, and well liked, but I am just not convinced he can survive a primary, and I don't know that he will have enough appeal for the base to get behind him.

And purposefully electing the "electible" candidate hasn't ever proven to be a good move for either party-Kerry was considered the "electable" candidate, and do we want to even talk about Dole?

A highly competent, principled liberal Republican that's very popular with independents and the few remaining conservative Democrats vs an incompetent conservative who seems to take special joy in ticking off movement conservatives? This isn't a hard choice.

Myself, I gave acceptable/unacceptable votes more based on personality, perception of competence, and relative lack of scandal than on policy (except for squishing Trancero, who may be with the GOP base on his only issue, but he's still wrong). Hence both Rudy and Brownback are okay (given the alternative of any plausible Democrat nominee), even though Rudy's far more socially liberal than I, and Brownback's far more socially conservative than I, but McCain (who's positions are probably closer to how I actually think) isn't.

... my complete list of acceptables was Rudy, Brownback, Romney, and Huckabee (who I don't know much about, but hasn't done anything to disqualify himself that I know about), with a preference for Romney.

You might want to check out the Club for Growth's section dedicated to the guy.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Is a good man
"Peace had a chance"

Part of the problem with McCain is that he seldom uses his media clout and 'independent maverick' bonafides to advance and champion conservative ideas. Of course, if he were to do so, then he would no longer be a 'straight-talking maverick', loved by the media, but it would be nice to see him be as passionate about, for example, righting the Court, as he is about passing his leftwing amnesty/giant increase in legal immigration bill with Ted Kennedy.

it isn't that he is never on the conservative side, he probably is on the conservative side of the issues more often than not, but he doesn't use his senators bully pulpit to further those causes, but instead runs around playing the media darling for his maverick ways. He also keeps sticking his foot in his mouth with the religious wing of the GOP. And while there is certain some dislike for this wing of the GOP, the reality is that they are a huge part of the base, and you get more flies with honey.

Rudy is apparently doing great on the grassroots level. Every story I read about his touring in red states, including southern states, is that the grassroots love him, especially groups of conservative women. He is making overtures to the religious right to the maximum extent possible given his own views. He is "America's mayor".

Those are the side details. Here's the point: Rudy puts New York's electoral votes in play. Can any other GOP candidate do that? Can a Democratic candidate lose New York and still win the election???

but he is still kind of dark horse, and I think people outside of NH and the blogsphere mostly don't have a clue who he is.

I think governor of Massachussette's is going to be a hurdle he will have to jump perception wise. Massachussette's and conservatism aren't really associated in the eyes of most real life red staters (as opposed to blogsphere redstaters).

He can just forget about getting my vote. I'm sick and tired of lily-livered Republicans (Prez, Senate GOP) squirming on this thing. We need a guy who knows what he believes, and believes what is right. We need a leader!

Newt's in that collumn for me right now.

Without a firm stance against illegal immigration (and against amnesty/earned citizenship) he'll be a non-starter for me.

Romney on Illegal Immigration

An enthusiastic supporter of legal immigration, Mr. Romney not only opposes illegal immigration, but he told National Review that he is also "against an amnesty and against anything that provides an incentive for people to come here illegally." - http://washtimes.com/op-ed/20060314-095241-8553r.htm

Immigration has been an important part of our nation’s success. The current system, however, puts up a concrete wall to the best and brightest, yet those without skill or education are able to walk across the border. We must reform the current immigration laws so we can secure our borders, implement a mandatory biometrically enabled, tamper proof documentation and employment verification system, and increase legal immigration into America. Source: Mitt Romney's PAC

Romney vetoed a bill in 2004 that would have allowed illegal immigrants to obtain in-state tuition rates at state colleges if they graduated from a Massachusetts high school after attending it for at least three years and signed an affidavit affirming that they intended to seek citizenship. Romney vowed to veto the bill again if it ever made it to his desk, arguing that the bill would cost the state government $15 million and that the state should not reward illegal immigration.

Immigration

"The current system puts up a concrete wall to the best and brightest, yet those without skill or education are able to walk across the border. We must reform the current immigration laws so we can secure our borders...and increase legal immigration into America." Mitt Romney

2003

05-01-2003, ROMNEY VOWS TO PROTECT ENGLISH IMMERSION LAW

2005

01-28-2005, ROMNEY EXPANDS ADULT BASIC EDUCATION FOR IMMIGRANTS

"Peace had a chance"

There's a lot of really awful candidates on this list. I marked Romney and Gingrich as acceptable.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

I get the impression that most people responding to these polls are voting on image more than on policy issues.

It raises an interesting question - is Bush's (and the GOP's) low popularity due to their inability to sell themselves, or to some of the actual policy decisions they have made?

is back at the UN, working with the French on another "robust" Resolution that will ensure that Iran does not get the bomb.

Come on guys. Everyone on the ballot has been on the ground in Iowa making noise.

Condi isn't running, won't be running, doesn't want to run.

*MIGHT* she be talked into a VP role?

One can hope. But it won't be with McCain or Rudy since she's considered a moderate already. She'd have to be paired with Romney or Allen or Huckabee.

and I admit I don't know anything else about him:
1)Romneycare
2)he is the gov. of Massachusetts
3)and he's Mormon

For whatever reason, most discussion about him centers on 3) above, as in, will being a Mormon hurt him, does it make him unelectable, etc, which is dumb.

Meanwhile, nobody talks about 1 and 2, which trouble me greatly. Romneycare, I predict, will hurt him, when people finally start talking about it, just about everywhere but Massachusetts. "Telegenic presence" aside, why should a conservative be interested in Romneycare?

On the other hand, he would probably be an upgrade from Kerry and Kennedy in the US Senate from Mass.

was supposed to doom his chances, but we know what happened. I'll take Governor Romney from the blue state of Massachusetts any day of the week over Hagel from the red state of Nebraska, or McCain from the barely red state of Arizona, both of whom are Senators, which is already a strike against them. Like I said, I don't agree with him on some social issues, but you can't get everything. Those who think so are apt to be sorely disappointed.

but you evidently do.
How do you feel about Romneycare?

But as someone who marked Romney as only 1 of 3 acceptable choices (the other two being Giuliani and Huckabee - and Huckabee only got an acceptable because I don't really know much about him so he hasn't disqualified himself in my book as of yet), I thought I'd chime in.

Honestly, I'm torn between loving Romneycare and hating it. I hate the fact that the government is mandating that people get insurance and telling folks how to live their lives, requiring it by law. However, I love the fact that no new government agency, no new government jobs, and no new government oversight was required to implement this, so it's not bigger government in that sense of the term. I like that it will be up to individuals and private companies to get health insurance, with no interference from the government, and that the government doesn't get any $ from the deal. I also like that it shows Romney is willing to think outside the box and go out on a limb to solve problems, and that he has said he wouldn't necessarily implement this kind of system across the country because it was tailored specifically for Massachusetts.

So I oppose Romneycare on principle, but I kind of like how the details of the plan play themselves out. Overall, I'm pretty agnostic about the whole thing, but I like how Romney at least is trying something to solve the problem.

That probably doesn't help at all, but there you go!

--------
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.

about Romney being a Mormon. You were the one who raised the issue, albeit as a non-issue in your mind. Since you brought it up, I felt the need to point out that the general public may not care either, and used the JFK analogy to make my point. As for Romneycare, I couldn't have said it any better than HeavyM did just below.

just above

Mormon than JFK was a Catholic but that's also a moot point.

How about you go and read some policy reports about his healthcare plan? The Heritage Foundation has done some great work in detailing why this plan is actually pretty good. You are a blogger, so obviously you have a computer; go do some reading. And about his being governor of Mass., come on! This is like the Left hating GWB because he was governor of Texas. Very shallow minded of you. As well as his Mormonism.

Here's why a Conservative should be interested in Romneycare:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/bg1953.cfm

Standing athwart history yelling stop!!!! http://nationalwhig.blogspot.com

The plan does have a lot of sense, which is why Blackwell has proposed something similar. And isn't everything Blackwell does, by definition, conservative?

Singapore has a similar system for its pension arrangements. There is no government sponsored system like social security, but everyone is forced to save 10% of their income. I am intuitively uncomfortable with the compulsion, but given that costs are forced onto other people when people are not ensured, I struggle to find a better system.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

Wierd; I can see that the Romney folks are itching to make his religion an issue. Sorry, not interested. Anyway,

as for Romneycare, a proposal that requires employers to foot 100% of the bill for employees' healthcare, it may indeed be brave, outside the box thinking on a GOP blog, but it is pretty routine, inside the box fare on the other side of the aisle and anywhere else where government is viewed as a solution giver, not a problem maker. To this shallow mind, Romneycare has "job-killer" written all over it.

We'll see what Romneycare does for the MA economy over the next couple of years. I have a feeling the candidate won't want to talk about it much in 08.

Romney vetoed the employer pay part of the bill. It was overridden.

I had the same worry when this came out a few months ago, but whatever portions of this are job-killers, Romney is not responsible. The portions that he wanted out of the bill were put there by the Democrat legislature. He had to compromise in order to get the good parts of this bill passed. This is the essence of our system of government, compromise.

Standing athwart history yelling stop!!!! http://nationalwhig.blogspot.com

Someone who leads us in the right direction on one issue, but fails miserably on every other one, is not really leading us anywhere, now is he?

on what the issue is ...

There will be voters voting strictly on GWOT in 2008.

I'm not one of them and Guliani isn't my guy (still in Romney's camp pretty solidly at this point), but I'd take Guiliani over McCain.

On the other hand, if, when it comes to judges, Guiliani WONT make the pledge everyone assumes he will ("strict constitutional") then he will fall.

At this point I think my list looks like:

Primary:
Romney
Huckabee (because he's unknown but theoritically conservative)
Guiliani
Allen

General:
The Republican Candidate

And Condi wouldn't make a difference on my preferences.

But disagree that it would apply to Rudy. He would lead us in the right direction on taxes. He would lead us in the right direction on the GWOT. He is pro choice, but how much leading can the President do on that issue if he promises to appoint orginalist judges? He has taken some hits on social policy, but he also stood tall trying to keep art museums from displaying filth with public funds.

In my opinion, someone with his experience (8 years as the excecutive in the largest and one of the most dysfunctional cities in America) would be more effective than someone who was more conservative but had no experience outside of being a Congressman.

Fortuna Favet Fortibus

He may be very effective, but effective towards what ends? If he is effective in leading the party towards the left are you willing to stand up and applaud him?

I don't buy the whole "Congressmen make bad presidents" argument, since there are few examples to base it on. Many Presidents, including W, would be well served if they understood Congress better.

There's a good reason there are few examples to base that on. Just as there are few supporting examples of "Chronically unemployed circus clowns make bad Presidents." It's possible one could come along and make for a great President, but it's more likely he would not, and he would never win the election, anyway.

You could also hire random people off the street to design bridges or perform heart surgery or play in a symphony. It's possible they might do a great job... there's just nothing to indicate they actually would, and the odds would be stacked against it.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Abraham Lincoln? LBJ?

I don't think its all that hard to find examples of effective leaders with little or no prior executive background. Look at the British; all their PMs are former members of parliament - Thatcher, Blair, etc.

Don't forget LBJ was VP for three years after leaving the Senate: though what that means in terms of executive experience is open to debate. He wasn't really part of JFK's inner circle.

He did very effectively rule through Congress, even though his party was deeply split on much of his programme. In that he was rather like a British PM. But the British example is not generally instructive, as the system is different here. We do not have the strict separation of powers. All PMs, by the way, are *serving* Members of Parliament. In many ways the position is more comparable to a Speaker of the House in US terms.

Usually, you do get to see how people perform in executive roles before they become PM (Blair is the first exception since the 1920s) as they will have held other cabinet positions, which are, on the whole, more significant than in the US as (theoretically) we have cabinet government, not Prime Ministerial government. Cabinet members are also individually accountable to Parliament, whereas in the US they are accountable only to President as head of the separate executive branch.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

I don't think that analogy works. The PM has considerably more power than the Speaker of the House. Among other things, I understand that he now appoints members to the House of Lords, which would be a bit like the President getting to appoint US Senators. British foreign policy is largely set by the PM, as American is set by the President. With different Prime Ministers the UK would not have gone to Iraq or the Falklands.

In any case I think the basic point holds, which is that the PM is not somebody with prior executive experience in the sense that Americans use the term, and yet they are often very effective leaders.

Carter had executive experience as govornor, and he was one of the least effective presidents in US history. LBJ, whatever his politics, was a more decisive leader.

I meant the model of accountability is similar to Speaker of the House.

There is no real comparison between the House of Lords and the Senate - the latter has HUGELY more power. Yes, new members of the House of Lords are appointed on the PM's advice, but there are conventions to maintain political balance, in that some are appointed on the advice of the Leader of the Opposition. Also, they almost all serve for life. Just because the President appoints Supreme Court Justices, it doesn't mean he has the Supreme Court he wants.

PMs don't have prior executive experience in the same sense as in the US, because there are no states for them to be governor of. But, John Major had previously been Chancellor (Treasury Sec.), Foreign Secretary and Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Dep. Treasury Sec) - all cabinet level positions, and had held several sub cabinet jobs. Margaret Thatcher had been Education Secretary. Her predecessor, Jim Callaghan, had been Chancellor, Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary.

You are right about Carter, of course. Also, many state governors (including Reagan and both Bushes) had no executive experience prior to becoming governor.

I would maintain that someone's performance in a prior executive role can tell you a lot about how they would govern. Performance in a legislative role tells you a lot less.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

would be my model for an effective executive coming from the legislative branch. But be that as it may, both are from another era; before the days of politician as TV personality.

Having served sentences in both branches, the skillsets are vastly different. Legislative experience is all about putting the necessary pieces on the table to get 50% plus one, and it takes a Helluva bunch of "get along, go along" to do that. Even a legislative staffer has to have that kind of personality because they're usually the one answering the questions, suggesting the compromises, and carrying around the "chit sheet." And frankly, it is the rarest legislator or staffer that has any taste for real conflict and confrontation; they have to get people to like them to get elected and they have to do it all the time if they're in a two year body. Senators and Executives can afford to be somewhat more prickly since they don't have to run as often.

A Republican executive has to be an autocrat because he/she is almost certainly trying to run a bureaucracy predisposed to hate him/her. All that "get along, go along" training just turns your government over to the bureaucrats and you get nothing done while they wait for a Democrat to come along and restore the natural order of things.

Also, it is the rarest legislator who has more than superficial knowledge of subject matter or of governmental operations and the more powerful they were in the legislative branch the less disposed they are to digging down and learning about anything. A huge percentage of legislators don't read a thing in a bill beyond the sponsors list and base their judgements as much on which lobbyists come to talk to them about a bill as anything else. An executive has to know what to do and enough about the doing of it to be able to call BS on all those "subject matter experts" in the executive branch.

While there certainly may be some who can come from the legislative branch to the executive and be effective, I propose it will be because they learned some good management skills somewhere before they came to the legislature. Since a very typical career path is a few years as a lawyer, then some political gadflying, then a run for office and if successful, becoming a career legislator, most don't have the background or skillset to run anything.

In Vino Veritas

But there is no empirical evidence to back it up.

Many effective presidents had little or no executive experience. (I don't consider VP as such.) Many of our most ineffective presidents did have experience as a governor.

Carter, McKinley, and Cleveland were all former governors, but are considered failures. JFK, LBJ, Truman, and Nixon were all senators. The latter two had stints as VP, but I don't consider that as real job. Whatever about their politics, they were all strong presidents. Lincoln had basically no prior experience either in an executive or legislative capacity.

The sterotype is that former legislators are dithering and indecisive, unlike former governors. But while some sterotypes have a basis in truth, this does not seem to be one of them.

Nixon, were pre-TV, and I posit that TV has wholly changed the electoral process. Carter, though of the TV era is an aberration elected by the recoil of Watergate. The kind of man elected/appointed in the 19th and first half of the 20th century was very different in experience, outlook, and associations from those in politics today.

In Vino Veritas

The real advantage which governors have is that they are typically "moderate" figures who have to please all the people in their state. Congressmen, especially Congressional leaders, are expected to be partisan figures and therefore hate figures for the opposition. See Gingrich, Delay, Pelosi, Kennedy, etc. I think that is what has changed over the last forty years and is what makes it harder to reach the WH from Congress.

Modern media probably does weed out a lot of good people would make great leaders and whose personal foibles would once have gone unnoticed. But I think thats a seperate discussion from whether a legislative or executive background is a better indicator of presidential success.

And a great site it is, too! Plus, if you visit now, you'll also get 50% off on all your purchases from dogsandcats.com and this handsomely-bound volume of French Military Victories! Act now! Operators are standing by!

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

The problem is:

1) He's never been a governor (or mayor of NY) which is one of my first criteria.

2) He's terrible on immigration

3) His perception level is simply one of an anti-abortion guy

And I just don't see him being able to break out of single digits.

Ditto for all of your points. With respect to abortion and gun control...

Abortion: The only way abortion gets outlawed is by constitutional amendment and that won't happen. So we get more regulation by the various states. The current SCOTUS, in my opinion, will allow more regulation even without overturning Roe. If W gets another appointment, Roe is bad history. If not, I expect to see an "Alito/Roberts" pledge from Rudy. He may be socially liberal, but he's also a proven law & order guy and will appoint constructionist judges.

Gun control: Never, ever, get it through Congress. He will address it as a "local" issue and then ignore it.

He has been the chief executive of a huge city. He understands that there is only so much he can do and he will prioritize and be very focused. His record in NYC shows that he's not afraid to fight the entrenched politicians and bureaucrats, the unions, or the liberal wackys including the NYT. And when he fights them, he wins.

I, perhaps foolishly, think that Rudy has the tools to be man who sets the standard for positive accomplishments that make the country better and safer.

-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Gun control: Never, ever, get it through Congress. He will address it as a "local" issue and then ignore it.

It wasn't *that* long ago that the horrendous AWB passed. It wouldn't take that much of a realignment before that becomes a possibility again... especially with conservative Democrats seeming to become a rarer and rarer species and no shortage of liberal Republicans.

We also have *zero* protection from the courts on this matter. We might as well not even have a second amendment as far as they are concerned. We are entirely dependent on Congress and the executive to continue this right. If they wanted to, they could ban private ownership of guns entirely, and I doubt SCOTUS would say a word about it.

In order to earn my support, he would have to totally repudiate gun control as something that doesn't work. I don't really expect that to happen.

I'm not really concerned about his pro-choice views, because if he picks the right kind of judges, it won't matter. If he doesn't, it will be bad on every issue... not just abortion. Judges are what matters. That is an unknown at this point... but there is more reason to trust him on judges than there is to trust McCain.

---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

I don't disagree with what you've said, I just believe that when Rudy sits down to prioritize the few things he will do that gun control won't be on the list. Because of his experience in NYC, I think he understands that in an organization the size of the US Government there are very few things ANY chief executive will be able to accomplish and he has to choose his fights. Given Rudy's long history of picking fights with well entrenched liberal establishments and unions, and winning them, and the fact that while he's "talked" a liberal game he's never really picked a legislative fight with conservatives where it mattered I'm more comfortable with him than any of the others.

With respect to your comments on McCain, Rudy and judges, I agree 110%.

-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Just to elaborate a little...

3. He's a reformer.
And he had to fight NYC's liberal establishment tooth and nail on each reform, with a combination of straight-talk, ruthlessness, charm, and strategy. He's not as nice as W in a fight, which is just what the liberals deserve in 2008.

4. He's trustworthy.
Giuliani has received tons of criticism. Can't recall any of it being related to flip-flops, demagoguery, or deceitfulness.

5. He's socially conservative on some issues.
Crime, of course. Welfare reform counts, too, because of the socially destructive nature of the welfare lifestyle. He also went after the public museums who were inclined to show porn-themed "religious art" that was insulting to Christians. He said, correctly, that a private museum can show what it wants, but a municipal one can't insult the population while on the public dime.

but much more in line with mainline conservative thought??

Newt Gingrich.

The federalism argument is a great one for places like this, and for general political philosophy discussions about the way things should work. But as a practical matter federalism is dead in America today.

The Supreme Court has a considerable amount of precedent going back fifty years and more which indicate that it can and should get involved in the gay marriage question. In its Romer decision the court struck down a constitutional amendment in Colorado which prevented homosexuality from being a protected class under the affirmative action laws. If I was on the court and the matter came up, I might wind up striking down all the state laws banning gay marriage, simply based on existing precedent.

The idea that the magic wand of federalism can make this matter go away is deeply misguided, imo.

The same applies to all sorts of other Federal issues. If the Democrats retake Congress I can easily see Giuliani signing off on restrictive gun laws. The President has considerable power in areas which extend far beyond being CinC. Handing those powers over to somebody to the left of Joe Lieberman is not something to be done lightly.

If Rudy were a senator, what would his ADA/ACU rating be? I'd guess that the ACU would be awarding him about a 20. Which is likely the main reason he passed on running for a senate seat.

Really .. trust us. Ain't gonna happen

I could say I was running and have the same statistical probability of getting elected. ZERO. Put Condi in the poll.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

He runs with the wrong crowd (Buchananites, "race realists," and affiliated scum.)

He's pro-tax.

He's called out Mike Pence, one of the more favorite Republicans around here.

Either of the first two is enough for me to loathe him.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

He is by far one of the more fiscally conservative members in the House.

Mike Pence made a complete fool of himself, at best. He outright lied at worst. I would not describe him as anyones favorite Republican.

You have some odd ideas about Buchanan.

1. Tancredo is a proponent of higher taxes, specifically on imported goods. He couches his support with flowery patriotic rhetoric, whips up fear about "protecting our jobs," and votes against the implementation of trade agreements. Not just the multilateral ones, either, but also simple bilateral ones like the Singapore and Chile trade agreements.

2. Tancredo's lies and distortions about Pence's compromise are just a temper tantrum by a guy who wanted to run for President as The Immigration Candidate and get all the corresponding press attention. Because Pence allowed Republicans a way out of the split, Tancredo's big fundraising issue for Team America (First) was in jeopardy, so he had to lash out like Stalin against Trotsky.

3. Which ideas are odd? Buchanan certainly does write like a "race realist." Promoting his new book on television, he moans that talking about race is the "Great Taboo," and in his book quotes favorably writers who talk about the superiority of "Americans of European descent."

--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Because while immigration is a big issue for me, I'm not electing a guy who its his only issue.

I'm also not electing a guy who has only been in the house.

My acceptables have all been governor or mayor of NYC (i.e. execs of large places):

Romney
Huckabee
Allen
Guiliani

Tancredo used to have TWO issues he cared about. The other one was term limits. He made a solemn pledge to serve only six years in Congress. He was something of a leader in the movement and founded a House caucus on the issue with Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint and Mark Sanford. What have those other three got in common? Oh yes, they left the House.

If you do a search on Tancredo's House website now you get just two matches for "term limits" - and both refer to judicial term limits. Apparently, these are still a good idea.

I can only trace one source for when Tancredo changed his mind on Congressional term limits and that is John Stossel. Stossel claims that within sixteen months of joining the House Tancredo decided term limits were a bad thing after all. Apparently he also claimed that God excused him from keeping his pledge.

I see two problems with this: his pledge was made to his constituents, not to God; and God does not habitually communicate his thoughts in writing these days, so we only have Tancredo's word for this anyway, and his word is in doubt.

I would be interested in whether other RedStaters can shed any light on Stossel's claims. While I am able to confirm from other sources Tancredo's involvement in the term limits movement and his pledge of six years in Congress, I am not able to find any other sources for the 'God let me off' excuse.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

Giuliani and Condi Rice are both very acceptable to me, but Newt Gingrich is by far #1. He is a true conservative, a born leader, a brilliant visionary, and someone who can really pull the Republican party out of our ridiculous slump.

As a New Yorker I like Giuliani and all he has to offer but he just doesn't measure up to Newt. I don't understand the lack of attention to someone easily in the top 3 of all candidates preferred by the base.

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

In an ideal world, Newt would be my first choice too. But in an ideal world government would be unnecessary.

I have serious doubts about Newt's electability. Please note, I did not say I *think* he is unelectable, that is merely what I *fear*.

Newt was comprehensively outmanoeuvred by Clinton and left office low in public esteem. The polls he does well in are polls of Republican activists. Sure, 30% of Republican activists think he is great. That's not enough.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

Since you wouldn't need to elect anyone in your perfect world, as government would be unnecessary, I'm wondering what about our world is imperfect that is preventing you from supporting Newt.

I also fear the baggage Newt carries- but it's no worse than the baggage Giuliani carries, and he gets all kinds of consideration despite his policy stances (or lack thereof). So why aren't we considering a true conservative with similar baggage? [Yes, I relize I'm defeating my own point by posting on his candidacy. So I guess what I meant to say was... thanks?]

The polls he does well in are polls of Republican activists.

Those are the only polls we're considering at the moment, because there just aren't that many matchup polls that even consider Newt. That's part of the problem I'm whining about. But consider. If Newt can poll at 40% of the electorate, surely he's getting more than 30% of Republican activist support in a general election poll.

Sure, 30% of Republican activists think he is great. That's not enough.

Well, then basically no Republicans stand a chance, right? In the principal poll, at the moment, Newt is polling 2% behind Giuliani as the favorite candidate, and with a 65.5% approval.

Guliani has skeletons in his closet, but the left will have to work hard to taint his image. Newt, on the other hand, is already there... people will vaugely remember something about "bad stuff" he was involved in (according to the MSM) back in the house. They won't remember the details, but it is enough to give him a bad aura and turn off the voters that don't pay attention. Those same voters have a very positive image of Guliani.

I don't support either ATM... Newt because of electability and Guliani because of gun control and other unknown issues I'm sure he is wrong on.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

>>I'm wondering what about our world is imperfect that is preventing you from supporting Newt.

I fear Newt would not win an election.

>>Well, then basically no Republicans stand a chance, right?

Not what I am saying. I am saying current polling evidence is inadequate for many reasons, including the fact that it focusses on activists, but mostly because the election is a long way off.

It is my *judgement* that Rudi, if he became the candidate, would trounce any potential nominee from the Democrats. I fear that Newt would not.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

I fear Newt would not win an election.

Yes, I gathered that. But you seemed to suggest that in an ideal world, he would be your first choice. I sort of wondered why he would win in an ideal world, but not this one.

Not what I am saying. I am saying current polling evidence is inadequate for many reasons, including the fact that it focusses on activists, but mostly because the election is a long way off.

Funny, "Sure, 30% of Republican activists think he is great. That's not enough." seemed like a single train of thought to me. If polling isn't enough for Newt because the election is a long way off, why is it enough for these other, less conservative, less talented candidates?

Let me try to decipher your problem with Newt's electability. Zuiko said, "Guliani has skeletons in his closet, but the left will have to work hard to taint his image. Newt, on the other hand, is already there... people will vaugely remember something about "bad stuff" he was involved in (according to the MSM) back in the house. They won't remember the details, but it is enough to give him a bad aura and turn off the voters that don't pay attention. Those same voters have a very positive image of Guliani."

Zuiko's point is a valid and coherent one. Remember, for the moment I'm merely arguing that Gingrich is getting an unfair cold shoulder.

That being said, I respectfully disagree with Zuiko. I think what most Republican voters will see is what Ender and Just Me see in Newt. Ten years is a long time. But anyway, this is the debate we should be having; not dismissals because of 'baggage' and inconclusive polling.

Like I said, if winning polls amongst Republican activists disqualifies a candidate, then we'd better start talking more about John Cox. (Sorry, I couldn't help myself.)

I very clearly said I was not saying he was unelectable. As far as I am concerned the jury is still out on that. Which is not really a problem, as the primaries are a long way off.

In mentioning the polls at all I was making a pre-emptive strike against those who would say 'but look how well he is polling'. I don't think that is adequate evidence.

I am doing what we are all doing: reading the polls, but then making a judgement, based on how we think things will hold up over the next couple of years.

There are plenty of politicians who have sufficiently large and enthusiastic bands of followers to be major players in primary elections but could never carry a general election.

As regards what might be different in a better world that would enable him to be a more electable candidate: in a better world there would be more people who were passionate supporters of limited government.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

Gingrich has been brushed off as an anomoly in every poll, and still tends to finish strong. This includes the earlier Minnesota GOP Straw Poll, and a recent Zogby Poll based on experience and stances on issues, and not name recognition.

Not to mention Redstate polls.

Newt is the only candidate with the apparatus, and the connections to win the primary and election in 2008. He is overwhelmingly conservative, and doesn't shy away from any issues. The name recognition can't hurt, and neither can his grasp on issues and understanding of history.

I'm putting my collective $5 behind Newt, but in the meantime, why is there so little consideration of a Newt candidacy?

candidate.

I think he is right on a lot of policy, I think he understands the threat in the GWOT (in some ways better than the current president), and unlike others on the list is a pretty solid pro lifer and social conservative.

I think his experience is where I balk. He also comes loaded with tons of baggage, but almost every candidate running comes loaded with baggage this go around for both sides. Personal baggage may in the end take a backseat to some degree for 08-that or it will be used to the point that voters will just decice everyone is scum and cancels each other out.

He defintely has ideas.
He definitely has vision.
I am not sure he can make that all come about in the executive position.

But he is one of the candidates I am most interested in for the '08 election.

I also think Newt has another advantage-he hasn't been in government for a while-to some this would be a huge negative, but in the current climate, he can almost run as an outsider.

Romney - Sterling executive record. Great communicator. Brilliant man. Harvard Law, Harvard Business School. Self-made multi-millionaire solved problems for a living for 25+ years. My #1

Giuliani - Strong executive record. Successful prosecutor. Cleaned up NYC. Stellar performance on 9/11 under incredible stress. Knocks on RG in my book are no real business experience and will have been 'out of the arena' for 7 years by Election Day. My #2.

that nod.

Newt knows how to communicate, and Newt knows how he thinks and how to clearly defend that.

His biggest weaknesses are his personal baggage and the fact that he hasn't had any executive experience.

But I confess whenever Newt appears on tv, radio or writes something, I love to listen to what he says. He has an understanding of history (something I think so many business/lawyer oriented politicians don't have) that is amazing.

I don't know that I want to vote for him, but I don't think it is fair to exclude him from the list of politicians, he is probably the best, most coherant public speaker in the bunch. Waffles and flip flops probably won't be his problems.

Romney's got a voice, but what's he really saying? Newt's message is exactly what America needs right now!

I think he's brilliant and knows how to legislate. He also knows how to frame issues in front of the Congress.

I also think he's not electable because he's such a lightening rod, and I question his leadership ability as chief executive. That's why Rudy's my #1 guy and I would like to Newt replace Karl Rove.

That sound you hear in the background is heads exploding in the Democratic leadership.

-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

You are right that he is a polarising figure, and might find it hard to win, but I don't agree that his talents are unsuited to an executive role.

I think he is *more* suited to such a role than to legislative leadership. The Speaker's job is to provide vision, yes, and Newt was excellent at that, but it is also about cobbling together alliances and making such compromises as are necessary to get legislation through. He was much less good at that. I think his visionary talents suit him well to an executive role. If he had shown the courage and imagination to challenge Roy Barnes for Governor of Georgia four years ago then, assuming that he was doing a pretty good job (which I think likely) he would be the runaway leader in all the polls now.

I think he blew that chance.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

What does support for citizen legislators have to do with choosing a chief executive?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Electability is just one of them. But any party that ignores it completely is making a huge mistake.

Incidentally, I don't remember it being any part of Dole's pitch that he was electable. He thought he should be the candidate because it was his turn.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

Alone it is no way to chose a candidate. In 2004, Democratic primary voters essentially said, "We don't find John Kerry particulary appealing, but we think the general electorate will because pundits think they will." Dean was their favorite, but he wasn't going to beat Bush, so they picked the empty suit they figured had the best shot, and obviously (and thankfully) they chose wrong.

That being said, there's something to this electability thing. I think there's an almost universal belief among people posting here that Newt is one of, if not, the brightest conservative mind in or out of public office. And his political skills are certainly suitable to carry him wherever. However, fairly or unfairly, a large portion of the population already is predisposed to judge him in a negative manner. While not necessarily an insurmountable hurdle, it is certainly worth considering when discussing whom the ideal nominee is.

After posting that rant, it is worth admitting that I am fully in the Rudy camp. And for the record, Romney and Gingrich were the others whom I considered "acceptable." Allen would have been on that list before the past few weeks, which I think raised more questions about Allen as a candidate than as a person, but are still worrisome.

Frist is out of his depth where he is, but he is sticking to his term limits pledge, so he is WAY ahead of Tancredo.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net