Redstate

Cosmoj

I don't see where Rudy satisfies the electability requirement.
He is pro gun control, pro gay rights, pro choice and went through an ugly divorce which I am sure will be brought up during any campaign (how do you think that will play with female voters). Romney has one term as a gov and his handpicked successor was just creamed in the election. In addition he was once pro choice until he became 'enlightened". McCain does have some baggage but if the choice is a McCain presidency or a Hillary Clinton one. I think the choice is fairly obvious.

But you're right I think we can do better. However I must say, McCain has been strong on the war in Iraq which, personally, is the most important issue facing us. I also think you're wrong is labeling the Dubai Ports Deal a sell out. It was the right thing to do and should have been better fought for, but alas those who shout loudest are the ones most often heard. Good post and thanks for not disqualifying Rudy.

International Affairs is just Political Science with an accent.

To 1. Identify corruption within the party. Ney,Cunningham,
and Delay were not operating in a vacuum. Are there
others of their ilk that need to be thanked for their
years of service and shown the door.

2. Likewise for the next Jack Abramoff, who should have
been identified and informed that he was persona non
grata to republicans.

3. Who will rein in the free spenders regardless of their
seniority?

Accomplish these things and you will disarm the left and bring the moderates and independents back to the Republicans.

Regardless of what one thinks of McCain as the potential GOP nominee in 2008, before he begins the process of seriously running, there are two key NON-POLITICAL issues he must address. If he fails to do so, the entire GOP should insist that he speak to them immediately.

1. Health: In 2000, McCain had surgery for two malignant melanomas. If he were to become the nominee, does anyone doubt that the entire MSM would resemble a vast medical textbook, rampant with speculation about the mortality, the likelihood of the cancer reoccuring, etc. in an attempt to scare people from voting for someone who might well get sick, or die while in office. It puts a major focus on his choice for running mate, not to mention the XXVth amendment. We've seen the power of the MSM and their leftist friends this campaign ("macaca", anyone?) so to pretend this wouldn't become a major issue is to deny reality.

2. His wife: One of the reasons that Powell decided not to seek national office was his wife. He was fearful how she would handle the stress of the campaign. Well, compared to Cindy McCain, Alma Powell is the Rock of Gibraltar. We don't have to discuss the litany of Cindy's issues here and now..but ask yourself, have you seen or read ANYTHING about her in the last four years? She's disappeareed from the public radar. That withdrawal from public appearances may work for the wife of a popular US Senator, but it will NOT work for the wife of a nominee for POTUS. If she can't handle the campaign trail, or the publicity, then it will hurt McCain seriously.

. . .and I'm not ashamed to admit it. However, I understand your point entirely. If there is ONE outsider for the GOP who could pull this off, it HAS to be Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

Pawlenty has all the attributes-young, attractive, and proven. A red governor in a blue state, he managed to sustain the large blue tide that took down the very impressive Mark Kennedy to the unimpressive Amy Kloboucher. Pawlenty is young, an outsider, a governor, and he is NOT from the South--meaning he might be able to win those crucial states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan that are tettering away from the Dems, though they hold them now. The convention is in St. Paul, which will help.

Remember, we have the geographical edge in these elections. Bush proved that in 2004. If we can hold ALL the Bush states (including West Virginia, Iowa, and New Mexico) and add some from the Midwest by nominating a strong midwest governor, we could be in business.

-------------------------------------
"As nations can not be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this."
- George Mason

McCain has NO vision for America. (Remember 41's problem with "the vision thing"?)

Combine that with the fact that he believes that government can actually solve problems and you have a disaster. And the end of the Republican party for the forseeable future.

Given a choice between HRC and McCain, I'll take HRC. The country will survive her. I'm not so confident about McCain.

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

But if it is, indeed, the year of the outsider, one can't help but wonder if that would, indeed, make Michael Steele the PERFECT choice of RNC Chairman? His campaign can be used as a blue-print for Republicans to get back into power. A combination of levity, tenacity, and outsider straight talk made Steele one of the lone GOP stars despite his loss. His campaign could be taken national should Mr. Steele assume the RNC chairmanship, and his course could be a wise one.

-------------------------------------
"As nations can not be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this."
- George Mason

Despite how much there is to admire in some of the Republican governors the Prez election is a rockstar election and if anyone wants to beat Hillary it has to be someone well known now. I think it almost has to be McCain. I want to beat Hillary so I am reving up my support for McCain. If there are better alternatives they'd better show up quickly.

Newt is the best choice as President in 2008 for the Republicans.

Why not go with a proven winner with vision.

Great post. I also think it deserves mention that McAmnesty's electability, and support are a house built on sand. One of his main claims to electability is his military service. Now I don't want to get into a debate on Iraq policy, but suffice it to say that the public wants out. Poll after poll and the '06 election results tell us that. McCain's position is "we need more troops." That's not going to play over well with a public who just defeated a Republican Congress for their support of the war. Here McCain's service will be no net plus for him, since the public wants out, and he wants to expand the operation. Also, the way it looks now, Iraq isn't going to be that big of an issue in '08. The writing is on the wall, and a drawdown is in the works. So national security is not going to be as important as it was in '04...it sure didn't count for much in '06. McCain's only supporters are the media, and when it's McCain vs. Hillary, they will turn on him with a vengeance. And he will have no base to support him when that happens. This is how Republicans win presidential elections. They solidify the base, and appeal to moderates on the 60%-40% wedge issues where the public agrees with us. The problem is that McCain does not have the support of the base, and is on the wrong end of most of these wedge issues. Hillary can and will run to his right on immigration, as his name is synonymous with open borders. He won't be any better than Hillary on the strict constructionist judges the public loves, because they would be against McCain-Feingold. Of course the conventional wisdom will tell us that the public craves "moderation" i.e. absolutely no stance on any issue, just going with the political wind. And since McCain is a master at this, he will be guaranteed election. Tell that to Mike DeWine and "Weak Linc" Chafee. Also think of Iowa, Ohio, and blue collar areas like that. Many of the voters are angry about the GOP's support for free trade, but they end up voting for us because we represent their cultural values. McAmnesty supports globalization and amnesty, but his anti-gun, anti-religious views do not mesh with the cultural values of Reagan Democrats. So when they go into the polls and hold their nose to vote for the lesser of two evils, they'll end up pulling the lever for Hillary, since McAmnesty offers them absolutely nothing.
Just Say No To Amnesty: http://www.fairus.org

while there are others I'd prefer- McCain is good on the war and I am convinced he would be good on judges- I cant bear the thought of Hillary or any other Dem replacing Stevens or Ginsburg- dont want Roberts, Alito,Scalia and Thomas writing dissents for the next 15yrs

You are correct that a clean break with the past must be made. The first step should be, as the editors of this forum have already laudably endorsed, a change in Republican congressional leadership. And once that is accomplished, there should be no hesitation about standing up to Dubya's inevitable compromises with the Democrats.

I find the prospect of this fundamental reexamination of the party's principles to be quite encouraging. Howard Dean is on the wrong side of too many issues to list here, but he spoke the truth when he exhorted the opposition to stand for things even if the polls initially indicated that the clearly stated positions might be unpopular. If memory serves, I think he even cited Ronald Reagan as inspiration. Not only is such a prescription the right thing to do, but it also results in meaningful political success over the long run.

I understand that over the next year and a half, I am going to see a lot of bashing of McCain on this blog and others like it. I don't care, but I'm not going to back down and say that he's not my guy. I wanted McCain badly in 2000 - I think had he been at the helm for 9/11 things would have gone better, but we can never know. All water under the bridge.
I think McCain will be better on spending than Romney or Rudy for one thing - I think he'll have a more realistic approach to dealing with the military and given his and his family's history, he's got the best chance of reforming some things.

It's not just that I think he'll win - and win big. I do think that he'll have some coattales as well. I think he's the guy, but I know I'm going to be in the minority here.

Look, I dislike McCain as much or more than anyone on this site. Okay, mabye not Krepmasky. But everyone else. But let's get this straight - the only candidate on the current list that I will categorically not vote for - not even to save this country from Hillary! - is Giuliani. In addition to his manifold failures as a social conservative and second amendment defender, there is no evidence whatsoever that he will govern as a fiscal conservative, veto excess spending, be "tough on immigration" or anything else. The extent of Rudy's resume is removing the porn from Times' Square and admirably handling the post-9/11 cleanup. Those are important things, but the President is called upon above all else to be a policy maker, and Rudy's policies are abhorrent to me.

I would also point out that Rudy can dishonestly ham for the camera just as well as McCain when the time calls for it, and I offer the Congressional hearings on the insanity defense (in the wake of the attempted assassination of Reagan) as evidence (more on that in a post to come).

If the point is that McCain is a failure as a conservative, that's fine - but to suggest that Giuliani is the answer is nonsensical.

"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments

If 2008 is truly to be the year of the outsider, then I guess the folks here should welcome some input from an outsider in late 2006.

What makes me an outsider? Well, for present company I should say that I was an active Democrat until January 2005, when I became a proud independent. That background gives me a vantage point from which to share some observations.

First, having lived in DC and participated in Democratic discussions at the national level for more than a decade, I can tell you that every two-year cycle split into six months of recriminations about how Americans were so stupid that they voted against us yet again and eighteen months of marketing campaigns designed to trick those gullible Americans into voting their genuine interests.

If the GOP wants to recreate the Democrats' phenomenal successes between 1994 and 2004, all that it needs to do is to mimic the contempt for the American voter, ignore substance, and focus on marketing.

Second, focus on core principles. Though many claim that today's Democratic Party stands for nothing, the claim is overblown. For years, I tried to encourage the Democrats to emphasize parts of their own traditions and to promote social liberalism, pragmatic fiscal responsibility, and muscular liberalism abroad. It would be an understatement to say that I lost. The leadership of today's Democratic Party believes in pacifism, protectionism, and economic redistribution. These may not be my values, but they are certainly core principles. Though I tend to agree with the analysts who assert that last Tuesday's results represented more of a rejection of Republicans than an embrace of Democrats, I do believe that the Democratic Party gained more votes than it lost by lurching to the left. (i.e., They lost my vote yet won more seats than in the recent past).

Third, think about what America needs. I have long believed that McCain's popularity has stemmed from the perception that he puts country above party. For my money, I find his record to be a mixed bag. He is far too socially conservative for my taste, I never agreed with his campaign finance reforms (my own positions were closer to McConnell's), though I generally support his positions on foreign policy. Many Americans (myself included) are sick above all of the partisan rancor that permeated both the Clinton and Bush years. We long for someone capable of uniting the country. A candidate like McCain might be just the ticket; Giuliani and Romney might also foot the bill. So, for that matter, might a Democrat like Bill Richardson. Folks arriving with both solid credentials and personal baggage never will--whether their names are Hillary, Al, or Newt. In 2008, if one Party nominates a perceived unifier and the other a perceived partisan, the unifier will win--hands down. A fight between two partisans will be bloody, close, and its outcome unclear.

So there are some tips from an outsider. Why am I posting them here? Some might decry it as sabotage, but the real answer is more self-serving. I want to be an active supporter of a party that shares my core values of social libertarianism, muscular liberalism, and fiscal responsibility. Two major parties claim to want my vote. I would like to see at least one of them moving in a direction that truly warrants my support. Right now, the GOP appears to be my best bet.

The Informationist
www.theinformationist.com

John McCain is a liberal in the mold of the Chaffees and Ted Kennedy, whose liberal bills he often co-sponsors. The threads below show that on every issue McCain is to the left of his party:

The first one includes McCain accepting the "Chaffee" award
http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/2008_year_of_the_outsider...

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/wu_wei/2006/nov/08/the_attack_on_the_probl...

McCain will give us everything that Hillary would, except there would be a Republican face on it.

Nothing in McCain's resume indicates he is willing to buck the press and the Democrats--nothing.

The man that calls Ted a friend, says his version of clean government is more important than free speech, valued compromise on judges more than the party, made the party detour down his torture road in the middle of an election, called the base racist for not supporting his amnesty bill, stood up for John Kerry against the Swift Boat veterans and on and on is not a friend of the party.

He is, first, last and always, for John McCain.

Too many times John McCain has had the chance to stand against the press and the Democrats and too many times he has stood with them or said nothing.

And if you think, "well, he wants to do what is best for the country, not just party" you have to then say you don't believe any part of the Republican party's vision for American is the better vision. Because his defeat and obstruction of key GOP positions has, and continues, to kill the entire Republican platform. Not just the parts.

told the Iowa lady he thought would be important accomplishments in his Presidency??? I know it was a RedHot article but I can't find it.

Any help out there?
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

The only way McCain could ever get nominated is if Hilary was a sure thing for the Democrats. Republicans will be running into his arms for assured victory.

It looks like the Democrat primary will be a coronation for Hilary, unless Obama steps in.

I can't stand McCain, that's one reason why I'm a big supporter of Giuliani. Rudy can beat McCain, he has built a good relationship with Republicans by espousing and defending Conservative views, and has the star power needed to beat the Clintons. He's also not McCain! Giuliani can put together a winning coalition of conservatives and independents, and raise a lot of money.

I like Romney, but he's definitely not the Reagan Republican he's trying to sell himself as.
I also think his religion will be a HUGE negative for him in the general election. That's unfair, as Mormons are some of the best people you will ever meet, but politics isn't fair.

The media will make sure the American public knows every obscure detail about the Mormon faith, with the disingenuous headline of "Will Romney's Religion Hurt Him?" I really don't want to spend the entire Presidential election defending Mormonism.

"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "

William F. Buckley, Jr.

With all due respect to opinion here, Republican voters, a much larger subset of the party than RS, will make the decision.

I could easily vote for McCain or Giuliani (maybe both!). They are acceptably conservative. Giuliani has driven or still drives the libs nuts on crime, national defense, welfarism, economic freedom and certain cultural issues (like opposing the display of art in city museums that insults Christians). Also, he will have been out of office for 7 years 2008, so that makes him an outsider.

And there may be emerging stars that we haven't focused on yet.

The Republican party has a deep bench. Enjoy it! And remember the 11th Commandment.

Hillary is an excellent politician and debater who will flay McCain in debates. The GOP needs to put someone against her who we are sure will hold his or her own: among the current likely choices, only Mitt and Rudy need apply. (Jeb Bush and Fred Thompson would also do well, but neither appears to be running.)

Also, I don't know why anybody would think that McCain would be good on judges. McCain loves his country and the military, but secondarily he is motivated by a need for popularity and retribution. Anyone who craves the affection of the MSM will not nominate originalist judges. And besides, I don't know if McCain would even recognize a good judge if he saw one. Mitt and Rudy certainly would.

I love how certain conservatives think they know everything about politics and everything about being a Republican. "The Gang of 14 cost Dewine his seat"?!! Oh really?

The same Dewine that just lost to one of the MOST LIBERAL challengers in the country? Mind explaining that one? And then to say that a guy that cross dressed as Marilyn Monroe is MORE electable than a war hero and four time US Senator who is well known as a centrist? Just because you are outrageously biased does not mean you are correct. Something to keep in mind. And I am no huge fan of McCain, just looking at this impartially.

United States Air Force
Cross Into the Blue