Redstate

Even though you clearly didn't want to give McCain his due (Allen w/ more party leadership support?  Giuliani better on the issues?) he still comes out ahead.  The 2008 primary has the potential to be the Pauline Kael moment for the right half of the blogosphere.  

(Admittedly, every election day is a Pauline Kael moment for the other half, so we're still doing pretty well.)

...to being a bit conservative with these rankings. Being on RS so frequently, I'm probably most well versed in the "Netroots" rating, and that's the one that struck me as being most wildly off. If I had better knowledge of the others, I might be equally as quick to dismiss McCain's chances. :-)

And you're right, if McCain wins, it WILL be a Pauline Kael moment for the right half of the blogosphere, because I know of few who are truly OF that world who are voting for him. The moderates who voted for him in 2000 will split McCain/Giuliani. The conservatives who did probably left the reservation a long time ago.

The question becomes whether the electability question or the conservative base category exerts more pull, especially if Giuliani doesn't run.

I'd say the netroots correction is a good read.  McCain is near the bottom online and the #6 ranking is just poor reporting.  I'd also posit that you overrank Guiliani quite a bit.  I don't see how he wins on issues, wartime leadership or perceived electability.

Overall, a mix of the two rankings seems to be a good feel for where things stand right now.  

Also recall that Chuck Todd predicted that "Kerry landslide" in 2004.  Heh.

He did give McCain a #2 on wartime leadership... that is a heck of a higher than I would've placed him.

::winces:: What's a "Pauline Kael" moment ... ?

But, a word of caution here ... at this point in time, the Republican party has alot more to worry about than who to nominate in two years. I'm quite concerned about the upcoming elections in November.

Read just about any of the conservative blogs; the "down home ones"... the ones that might not be famous, but who's authors are passionate. At this point in time, alot of the conservatives are unbelieveably fed up with the Republican party.

Between the DPW controversy (fair or not), Congressional overspending,  and the border issue, many conservatives out there are spitting mad at, and feeling betrayed by, the Republican party.

Granted, I don't think anyone's going to vote for a Democrat at this point -- they're too loopy and hypocritical -- but alot of people just might decide to stay home.

I personally like Guilliani -- but frankly, I haven't seen a Republican emerge that can unite the increasingly fractured base.

My perception is that most Republicans give him high marks or at least have an open mind to him, but those who dislike him seem to be very very negative.

  In that respect he seems more polarizing than any of the other candidates except McCain.

At this point I am certain Republicans will lose the

House due to their pandering, and deserting the base.

  Then the Democrats will feel that this was their mandate and will again show the American people why they should not be in office.

Very interesting post.  Thanks for taking the time to break it all down for the layman.

I have one question. Is your ranking just your opinion, or did you conduct some type of poll? I assume the ABC rankings are the result of the three writers' opinions.

She was a NYT writer, who was shocked by Nixon's landslide reelection in 1972.  She was quoted as saying (I paraphrase from memory here): "I don't know how Nixon won.  I don't know a single person who voted for him."

Bernard Goldberg, in Bias , quotes Kael as one of the most glaring examples of media living in its own bubble world.  Remember, Nixon's '72 election was a landslide.  Yet, as Goldberg pointed out, Kael was most likely telling the truth.  In her circle of friends and coworkers, liberal viewpoints were probably pervasive.  In fact, she probably heard few if any conservative voices among her friends and coworkers.  This probably colored her thinking, into assuming that most everyone else in America had the same negative view of Richard Nixon.  Hence, she was unprepared for the severity of the '72 election results.

I'm betting that the war remains a big issue in 2008 -- and btw, that's smart politically. If the war is not as big an issue, the more likely 2008 is a "normal" election and it's 8 years and out for the GOP -- regardless of the nominee.

Rationale/Issues: I'm more focused on rationale here -- how does a candidate's fundamental narrative jive with what voters will want and need. Giuliani has some advantage vis a vis the war, and to the extent general election voters are anti-Bush, it will be on "competence" -- see Giuliani's spike in the rankings post-Katrina.

Wartime Leadership: I don't think this one is all that close. Giuliani's entire public persona is centered around his performance in the early stages of the war on terror. McCain is also good on the war, which gives him a shot at the nomination, but perceptions of him are tied to a number of other issues -- most of which he'd like conservatives to forget.

Perceived Electability: This is another close call, and both McCain and Giuliani perform roughly as well against Hillary. But McCain relies more on his favorable ratings from liberals and moderates, and the liberal backlash over his embrace of Bush I think may be the leading edge of a steady erosion in that support. So, McCain will have less liberal support than he does now, and will command a conservative base that is less than enthused.

I agree that there is an obvious pro-McCain bias in ABC's rankings.  To be fair though, he should come out on top.  He may (in my opinion) be unlikely to win the Republican nomination, but he will definately be one of the top vote getters, and will likely be "Choice A" for Republicans.  With Romney and Allen jostling to be "Choice B"

What I think is more interesting is who ABC dings unfairly.  I noticed that (in my opinion) Newt Gingrich, and particularly Mitt Romney were ranked lower than I'd expect.  I could understand why ABC might have it in for Newt, but why are they so down on Romney?

Although I haven't personally ranked all the different areas myself, Machiavel's weighted average seems to be about what I'd expect.  McCain and Guiliani tied for front-runner marque status, (in Guiliani runs).    With Romney and Allen close behind, struggling to become the consevative "dark horse".

is really nothing more than anti-Bush support.

McCain will have less liberal support than he does now, and will command a conservative base that is less than enthused.

Most of MCain's MSM and liberal support has come because he's a "maverick" against Bush. When he tries to go right and gain the base, he's toast in the MSM!

I was focusing more on "issues."  And whether one agrees or not with McCain's record, he has a long list of successfully getting his ideas into law.  In fact, I think that leadership is what helps innoculate him from a Kerry/Dole/McGovern-style Senatorial persona (as opposed to Allen, for example).  There is a multitude of legislation titled McCain-Someone and most of it is rather popular in the country although some is less so in conservative circles.

Wartime Leadership.  I'm not really sure how Guiliani's record of being Mayor during 9/11 trumps McCain's 4 years of solid leadership in the War on Terror.  His unflagging support for the President and the underlying foreign policy that could be called the Bush Doctrine should be one of his strongest selling points with the rank and file of Republicans.  One of the biggest positives of a McCain Presidency is that the Bush Doctrine would be solidified into an almost unchangable blueprint for the rest of the generational War on Terror.

Perceived electability: I may actually agree with you that Guiliani has a better chance at winning over any D.  However, I think the perception (and this may be media driven) is that McCain is the unstoppable nominee.  He cannot be beaten by any D.  As for your analysis of an upset base, I'd be very surprised if a Constitution Party pro-lifer did not get Nader-like support if Guiliani is nominated.  There are many pro-lifers who cannot vote for someone who supports abortion and has the power to appoint Supreme Court Justices.  I'm not sure the conservative base will be more motivated for a Guiliani than a McCain after spending 9 months listening to reporters and the media point out "how far the country has come" with two pro-choicers running for President.

FWIW, I don't think much of this matters.  1) We need to focus on 2006.  2) All indications are that Guiliani is not running.  3) All these factors will change before late 2007.

Leadership of the G14? I don't think any long time Senator has a solid record on leadership, and McCain is no exception. This is the primary reason that Senators make horrible POTUS candidates. He spends most of his time and energy crafting monkey wrenches to throw in the works. I don't call that leadership.

Even if he completely supported the president on the GWOT (which he has not done as well as your average GOP Senator), that is not leadership.

ABC totally fails to evaluate the importance of issues; but it's not clear to me that your own re-weighting has adequately dealt with them, either.

Of course, this is a huge subject.

First, because it's not as though we're talking about how a mass of people, acting as one, will rate various issues; but how this or that issue will motivate this or that decision, and result of all those many individual effects.

So often, people say very silly things about elections, one of which is to talk as though "the people" or "the electorate" were this borg-like entity that somehow acted as one!

Second, how issues matter will depend on what the candidates offer, and how compellingly they offer their message. Think back to the primaries of 1976 and 1980: many of the issues that mattered were there, whether or not Reagan had run; but because Reagan did run, and it was Reagan who ran (and because of some other factors), the effect was dynamite. He nearly unhorsed an incumbent president; and he did get the nomination 4 years later.

So it's not as though the issues float out there like some sort of Platonic ideal; rather, they are instantiated, a la Aristotle, in a concrete situation.

Third, did ABC ever really talk about what those issues are? I missed that.

But routinely, political analysis misses so many significant issues, because of mistake number 1 (see my first point): they try to suggest only a top two or three issues matter.

Well, insofar as an election turns on a handful of votes -- and they all do, it's just how many handsful -- then an issue that turns out a handful is significant; in an otherwise competitive race, what matters is being able credibly to mobilize lots of those handsful.

So for example, its not just the war, or immigration, or taxes, although these matter; and it's seldom "education" (despite what the stupid pollsters say); its issues like: guns, abortion, gay marriage, Right to Work (an important issue too many so-called conservatives neglect, partly because they don't understand it, partly because they aren't as smart as they think they are), and many more that almost never register on the big "radar screen" -- but they generate their handful of votes.

My point is, while there's no question the so-called frontrunners have many advantages, there remains a huge opportunity for someone to come out of the pack based on issues -- if he can credibly mobilize support on them. I.e., hard to believe Romney or Allen will be all that credible on abortion, especially if folks have a compelling alternative in, say, Brownback. (People forget George W. Bush didn't have a lot of credibility, in the primaries, on the prolife issue; but his more prolife opponents couldn't do him a lot of damage on that, and his other advantages came into play.)

In summary, my point is what I see is the overall weakness of this field; it shows how weak everyone is that the "leaders" are so obviously weak and yet, are "frontrunners." Not only is there no Reagan here, there's no George W. here; at least, not yet.

The four identified as "leaders" are all so obviously weak on the issues that have always been crucial in the GOP presidential primaries.

One more factor: it wasn't clear to me the ratings dealt with, was "level of excitement." That was part of what I was getting at in my prior post.

Lots of these folks say the right things on the right issues. Ho-hum. Where there's energy is when people believe they're really leaders and fighters on the issue.

Will Allen really fight for Right to Work (will any of them)? Will any of them really fight for prolife? Tax cuts?

You have to go all the way down to Brownback for someone who is a leader on the prolife issue.

On taxes and guns, perhaps Allen creates that kind of energy, but I'm not aware. Beyond that, only Tancredo creates any real energy on an issue, and that's immigration. Looks like Frist is trying to tap that; but at this point, if that's your hot issue, who has more credibility as a real fighter?

I'd rather have Congress.

As far as size of government, and the GOP advancing conservative policy, the best we had was 1994-2000: a GOP Congress and a Democrat in the White House!

Yes, I'd rather have a conservative in the White House, but if I can't have that, a Democrat will do.

McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, anti-torture legislation, Gang of 14, etc.  As I said, they may not always be things that make conservatives jump for joy, but he has been quite successful at getting his ideas into law.  Contrast to Allen or Kerry to see the difference.

I don't see writing and sponsoring legislation an example of the leadership people are looking for in POTUS. The fact that he manages to get a lot of what he wants means he is a good salesman, a wheeler and dealer, not a leader. They are two entirely different skill sets. Just because you have one doesn't mean you have the other.

IMO every Senator falls below every Governor (and the mayor) in the category of leadership. They don't really call the shots. They are 1 of 100. Nothing hinges on the decisions they make. They aren't really held accountable for the decisions they do make as individuals. It is an entirely different game.

All the contenders would advocate "pro-life" and "culture of life" views, even Giuliani for the most part who probably won't advocate a position and just say "let the people decide" (I don't know where Hagel stand but he's not a contender anyways).  Remeber, Congress has the power to dictate "life" legislation, the President has no power there except some advocacy.  Romney, McCain & Allen would all almost universally advocate pro-life ideals.

The fact that he manages to get a lot of what he wants means he is a good salesman, a wheeler and dealer, not a leader.

What do you think leadership in the POTUS is?  Just dictating orders like a tank commander?  It means getting other people that you have no control over (Congress) to agree with you.  It means making deals.  It means being able to make your case to the American public.  It means being a salesman.

Romney, McCain & Allen would all almost universally advocate pro-life ideals.

I tend not to think the President's position on abortion is all that relevant as long as he (or she) opposes Roe V Wade and supports allowing states to make their own decisions on the issue and is willing to appoint reasonably conservative judges, it doesn't really matter.  Many pro-choicers are not fanatically so and may oppose RoeVWade for other reasons.

He is the Commander in Chief... he makes a lot of decisions without consulting Congress. That is where leadership comes in.

fact that he manages to get a lot of what he wants means he is a good salesman, a wheeler and dealer, not a leader.

That describes a snake-oil salesman, or Bill Clinton! President Bush is a leader!

To my knowledge, none of the frontrunners so called -- Romney, McCain, Allen, Guiliani -- is prolife, as the term has been understood among political activists on the right: being for laws outlawing all abortion, even in the case of rape and incest. (And neither is the President.)

If being vaguely for a "culture of life" is all it takes to be "prolife," then most Democratic pols are "prolife." What counts is what you do to keep abortion legal, or to make it illegal.

(I suppose it's possible Romney has decided to be 100% prolife; but that seems to vary from week to week. His previous position was that he's personally prolife but -- the Geraldine Ferraro gambit.)

If I may expand on the electability question, I think a parallel can be drawn between McCain's electability and the dilemmas faced by Sen. Vinick on The West Wing.

Sure, Vinick starts out as the prohibitive favorite, and everyone is talking 49-state landslide. But that support is quickly frittered away as liberals go home to Matt Santos and by the time Vinick realizes he needs to fire up the conservative base, it's too late. Does Vinick stay true to his maverick roots or appear inauthentic and pander to the conservatives? It's a no-win situation. The bottom line is that every time we think we think we've broken free and are safely in landslide territory, reality sets in and it becomes a Mobilization Election. And John McCain is simply not a base mobilization candidate.

And it's not just McCain either. To some extent, this is the same challenge facing Rudy, particularly if he foolishly runs as a Rockefeller wing interest group candidate.

"I tend not to think the President's position on abortion is all that relevant as long as he (or she) opposes Roe V Wade and supports allowing states to make their own decisions on the issue and is willing to appoint reasonably conservative judges, it doesn't really matter.  Many pro-choicers are not fanatically so and may oppose RoeVWade for other reasons."

That's just the point! Will these fellows actually have the guts to nominate only justices who really will overturn Roe? Why would you expect someone who's not prolife to do that? I'm not saying it's impossible, but why assume it will happen? People don't lurch accidentally into a policy position that requires guts and determination.

By the way, if you are under the impression that abortion can only be ended by overturning Roe, you are mistaken. Legislation can do it; by declaring unborn children persons under the 14th Amendment. Such legislation -- the Life at Conception Act, introduced by Rep. Duncan Hunter -- is before Congress. Thus, a President can make a huge difference by either helping get this passed -- or he can be a hindrance, by discouraging it.

So it isn't just about the Court. And I haven't even mentioned other prolife policies that a president can help or discourage.

Finally, it certainly matters if the President is 100% prolife. When George W. got away with not being 100% prolife (his father was, as president, as was Reagan), it gave a green light for other GOPers to do the same, or worse. Witness the commenter above who claims Guiliani is prolife! Unless prolifers hold their feet to the fire, the standard slips. Quickly.

Especially since Rudy and Vinick are both pro-choicers who would push many strong pro-lifers toward a 3rd party.  The main point where I think McCain has an advantage here is the large and growing "independent" voters.  You are right that liberals will go D no matter what.  But they are only 15% of the vote.  The 30% who are conservative will vote for a pro-life, strong GWOT candidate in the end (esp. against Sen. Clinton).  It's the 55% who consider themselves "moderate" who decide most elections.  Even if we push leaners to each side, we have a 40% D, 45% R and 15% "up for grabs."  I don't think McCain wins any of those D voters.  But I know many independent or moderate votes who choose Kerry as "the worst of two evils" who would vote for and campaign for McCain against anyone.  And many of those same people have a strong dislike of Sen. Clinton.  They aren't liberal voters, they're generally swing voters.  And they are McCain's base.

I'm not convinced he is the best nominee for Republicans, but I still see him winning in a Reagan-esque way with 55% of the vote and 35-40 states.

Specifically, which "red" states do you think will vote for Hillary over McCain?

I think McCain may be compromising his credibility among independents by playing such an aggressively insider game and going after conservative gatekeeper support (Falwell, etc.)

This may actually work in getting him gatekeeper support, but this isn't 1988. In 2006, we live in a world where conservative activists are increasingly disconnected from the gatekeepers and make their own decisions. I see no indication of his working to undo the scars of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, or the G14 which are still fresh in the minds of the grassroots.

McCain is an impossible situation. The only way a McCain candidacy really WORKS is if he's a maverick -- that's his brand. If he sacrifices that, he sacrifices his entire rationale for winning the presidency. And mojo like that is hard to come by. But if he doesn't, he can't win the nomination.

Without the maverick brand, I see him undergoing general slippage that might lose him, say, Ohio. Bob Dole was also a war hero, a grand old man of the party, a guy who was hard to typecast ideologically. I'm not necessarily saying McCain will devolve into Dole territory, but if he undermines his core brand, I could see his image becoming that of a nice old guy without a compelling reason to be President other than "it's his turn."

that would be really bad news. If McCain is the "peoples choice" in times when a victory for the party becomes an issue, then lend support. If he can be defeated in the primaries with a candidate that can win, then we'd expect his support. Either way, make sure all facets of the party stay together, it will help, I believe this.

The moonbat population is closer to 30%. That is about the number that support impeachment. That is about the number that opposed Alito. That's about the number that opposed Roberts. And there are more conservatives than moonbats out there... I would put the number of those at about 40%.

I think you also need to subtract for conservatives that stay home/go 3rd party/refuse to vote for McCain. There are a not insignificant number of these, even if the opposing candidate is HRC and especially if it isn't.

McCain has an advantage with independents now but they don't really know anything about him except what tidbits they've picked up in the fawning media coverage. I don't think he would do particularly well on the campaign trail and I know the MSM would turn on him with all it's got... and it does not take much to lose the support of independents. They'll go with the other guy at the drop of a hat. If McCain blows up on the campaign trail you could be looking at 55% for the other guy.

The fault with your logic on this is that Vinick was on course to win a huge landslide until he had a nuclear meltdown...weeks before the election...in his state...regarding a plant he was responsible for getting up and running.  

Otherwise Vinick wins big time and thus so doesn't McCain???

About 45% of the country identifies as "pro-life" but only about 20% agree with outlawing all abortions except in cases where the life of the mother is at risk.

I think common usage has anyone who favors outlawing the 95% of abortions that fall into "abortions of convenience" as pro-life.  That includes Reagan, Bush, and McCain.  Romney and Allen have sent mixed signals and Guiliani opposes any illegalization.

"I see no indication of his working to undo the scars of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, or the G14 which are still fresh in the minds of the grassroots."

I wish he would realize that M-F has done more harm than good, but it is not a deal-breaker.  I agree with McCain-Kennedy and hope a reform similar to it and the President's approach makes it into law.  I also was an early and vocal supporter of the G14.  Specifically, it allowed for easy passage of Alito and Roberts onto the Supreme Court while reserving the filibuster for extraordinary circumstance, which is exactly its purpose.

From my anecdotal experiences, I think McCain has a big resevoir of support among indies.  They are not the type to follow the insider baseball of McCain's moves to win over Bush insiders.  And they have liked him for long enough (5 years) that it would take a major misstep to lose their support.  If he hadn't run in 2000, I think some of the concerns you outline would be more likely to happen.  But I don't see it in McCain's personality to be seen as "it's your turn."  He's not that boring.

My numbers come from the Pew Research.  The three Republican-leaning conservative groups make up about 35% of voters.  The liberals are about 17%.  The other Democratic groups and the independent groups make up the rest.  I don't include "conservative Democrats" in the conservative number because really the description is "New Dealers" which is pretty far from conservative on economics.

As for McCain, I think your worries would have more validity if he hadn't already run for President.  His support among independents and those who generally dislike politicians is deeper than people on the right like to admit.  It would take a lot to make them switch to Hillary.  Sure she'll solidify her Democratic wing.  But she will lose the Indies to McCain.

As for the "staying home" faction.  Which states that Bush won in both 2000 and 2004 do you think Hillary will beat McCain in?

Objectively he's better than Bush on a number of key issues (e.g. spending, entitlement reform, opposition to pork, and the GWOT) and his biggest follies McCain-Feingold and immigration are identical to the positions of the Bush administration and those of a majority of Republican Congressmen.

Don't be surprised if a number of conservatives see McCain as a chance to redeem the GOP on its key failure (spending) without the baggage of the Bush administration plus a chance to woo enough independent voters to keep the White House (and that means judicial nominees and the GWOT) in GOP hands for another eight years.

Huh?

Nominating strict textualist judges by definition would not support the reasoning in Roe, and by all accounts Romney, Allen, McCain will do this, and maybe Giuliani.  Should the court be balanced by a judge who thinks that abortion is unconstitutional (b/c no due process for the unborn child)?  Maybe, but Congress is unlikely to approve such a nominee unless that view is hidden.  

If "protection of marriage act" to amend the Constitution cannot even pass the Senate (let alone ratified by 75% of the states), then certainly a declaration and amendment stating life begins at conception has ZERO chance even if James Dobson was elected President.

Whether you agree or not, the Republican party is a "large" tent and most are conservative to varying degrees based on the issue.  To demand everyone support protected life at conception is suicide for the party, and will result in more babies being killed because Democrats will be making the rules.  So operating within the political reality matters if you want any pro-life progress.

I think what you want is the most pro-life candidate who can win, right?  That will likely mean McCain, Allen or Romney, with Romney being the most articulate and pursuasive pro-life speaker.  Do you think they would usher in pro-abortion legislation?  Of course not.

This type of activism can only make progress at the state level, which means the goals should be to nominate and have Congress approve judges that its not a federal government issue.  There are not any near enough Congressional votes to pass a sweeping complete federal outlaw on abortion, and looking at the demographics there won't be in our lifetime.  

Therefore, judges should be your #1 federal concern, and then state legislators who will have the power to decide after eliminating judicial regulations.  

Romney & Huckabee are the most solid pro-life contenders in the race at the moment, and equally important, they are charismatic and pursuasive when discussing the topic.

iamright:

It doesn't appear you read my post very carefully; I wasn't talking about an AMENDMENT to declare unborn children persons under the 14th Amendment, but LEGISLATION. You do understand the difference?

I won't pretend such legislation is easy; but as compared to what? Getting a majority on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe? How easy do you think that is? Hasn't happened yet, and we don't yet know that it will ever happen. We don't even know if the two newest justices will vote to overturn Roe -- you may feel sure about that, and that's nice, but I am 100% sure you don't really know, you merely hope.

So I think its rather foolish to pin all ones hopes on getting those five justices. So, tell me again what the problem is with pursuing both that and the legislation?

By the way, if you think Romney is among the best prolifers, no offense, but what are smoking? He was elected governor promising NOT to pursue prolife legislation. That's the Geraldine Ferraro position!

Clearly, Brownback has the best track record on abortion, of all these candidates.

At the Federal level is never going to happen. And it wouldn't survive 5 minutes in court with Roe in place. So you'd have to overturn Roe first.

You could certainly amend the constitution to forbid abortion, but good luck with that. SCOTUS is a walk in the park compared to passing and ratifying an amendment.

So it does really have nothing to do with POTUS's position on abortion so much as judges. McCain is pro-life, but I seriously doubt he would nominate judges that would overturn Roe. The kind of judges that would let his insane CFR plans stand are the same that would let Roe stand. I have more confidence in the judges Romney would nominate, especially with him being a victim of an imperialist judiciary at least once already.

And Bush opposed CFR until it showed up on his desk. Then he got some bad Cardian advice to give in and sign it. That doesn't absolve him of responsibility, but it's not the same as inventing and pushing the stuff. I'm sure McCain isn't done on that front either. One thing we know about CFR is we are never done with it.

The talk against spending is talk, that's all it is at this point. It is really easy to be against spending when you have very little to say about it. When you need to fill a campaign (or SOTU) with promises, it makes this a whole lot harder.

You forgot his opposition to any tax cuts. That's an even bigger problem with the base than CFR.

Zuiko:

Have you read Roe and this legislation?

Are you unaware that Roe told us how it could be overturned?

Blackmun said that if the personhood of the fetus were established under the 14th Amendment, Roe's case for legal abortion would, and I quote, "collapse."

So, exactly how is the personhood of the unborn established? Well, the Supreme Court said it couldn't do it; and note, it did not say that a new amendment was needed; were that the case, Blackmun would have said, flatly, that there is no room for the unborn to be persons within the 14th Amendment. Period. Yet that is not what he said.

So that makes it clear that the CONGRESS has to do it -- which is what the 14th Amendment says: CONGRESS shall have power to enforce this amendment...

I really don't understand why you and others pin ALL your hopes on five justices; considering how very difficult that has been! After all, it's NEVER HAPPENED! So why is that more probable than this approach? And exactly why do you insist its either/or? Wouldn't doing both at the same time improve Congress, and make your approach more likely? I'd love to see the crystal ball you have, that infallibly tells you what will, and will not, happen.

I read what you wrote very carefully and I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt that you meant Amendment, not legislation...because I didn't think you'd advocate something that isn't even within the realm of possibility.  And, yes, getting more textualist judges is the easier and only solution.  

It doesn't matter if the law is passed by a state or Congress, it will fall under the same judicial scrutiny!

OK Fr Martin Fox, who are the 51 Senators who would vote to approve this legislation, assuming for a moment it would survive judicial review?  No Democrats would support it, and you'd be lucky to get half the Republicans to support it.

Romney is a 100% pro-life, culture of life advocate except in one instance - he would permit embryonic stem cell usage from discarded invitro eggs only if the parents donates those discarded eggs.  If Romney didn't make a deal with MA voters, MANY tens of thousands more babies would have died.  So why wouldn't you want him to call a moratorium on that issue?

Look, in politics you never get EVERYTHING you want, you have to look at the net positive gain.  The goal is not to get the most emphatic Republican pro-lifer nominated.  The goal is to get the most emphatic pro-lifer nominated who can win the general election and pursuasivley articulate the conservative vision.  Politics is ALL about pursuading the public, which in turn forces a stubborn Congress to follow your vision.

Even if Brownback could be elected President, he'd be a much less effective pro-lifer than Romney or Huckabee because Brownback (and Allen, Bush) are sub-par communicators...but with Romney or Huckabee at least people will listen to charimatic leaders and understand clearly their logical arguments for pro-life legislation.

"OK Fr Martin Fox, who are the 51 Senators who would vote to approve this legislation, assuming for a moment it would survive judicial review?  No Democrats would support it, and you'd be lucky to get half the Republicans to support it."

I agree; it won't pass today. Probably not tomorrow, either. But I hope you can appreciate the value in forcing politicians to cast votes on things, whether they pass or not. My point was, it's worth pursuing.

Because, of course, I can ask you the same question about your strategy: where are the five justices who will overturn Roe -- at present, we know with perhaps 90% certainty who two of them are: Thomas and Scalia. (Why 90%? Well, they may not even be there when the time comes, since it's improbable we have five votes now; and even if they are, you can't be certain how they would, actually vote. You may think you are; but you can't be, sorry.)

Do you have two more votes on the Court? We hope so. How certain can you be? How would you know? You can't.

I'd rate Roberts 75% and Alito at 85%. Let's assume Bush gets another slot (big assumption), and puts someone forward between them (remember, he put forward Harriet Meirs!): that puts Justice X at 80%; that also assumes that the Senate doesn't significantly change, or if it does, Bush's calculations don't significantly change (two more big assumptions).

So what are the prospects, with all these assumptions favorable to you, of Roe being overturned? Did you do the math?

.9 x .9 x .75 x .85 x .80 = .41 -- 41%!

That's assuming Justice-nominee X isn't another Harriet Meirs, who'd I'd have rated at 50% -- and that brings the odds down to 25%; and that it would be Bush naming the next justice; if it's another Republican nominee, we have no basis for assuming what sort of nominee he'd pick (with Bush we do have a track record); if it's a Democrat, I think we can safely predict the odds of that nominee voting to overturn Roe at maybe 10% (can't say zero, only God could say that) -- yielding overall probability of 5%.

Do you realize that if you assumed Roberts and Alito were equally as likely to overturn Roe as Scalia and Thomas (which you can't assume, but let's be hopeful), you still get only a 66% probability of all four voting to overturn Roe? A more hopeful forecast, derived by assumptions without any real grounding.

So, I really don't understand why you are so certain about your strategy that you oppose pursuing more than one?

I'm wondering if maybe you're under the mistaken impression that pursuing legislation isn't worth doing unless you can pass it immediately. Lot's of people make that mistake. But the fact is, forcing politicians to cast votes is useful. I'll prove it for you.

Suppose Ted Kennedy (or any Democrat) brought a bill to the floor calling for gun confiscation. We know it would never pass. Would you find it useful, all the same, to have them vote on it? Do you think such a roll-call vote would be useful? You do? Very good! You're right.

And it's the same for the prolife issue. Identifies good guys and bad guys, creating targets, and helping elect more good guys.

So, hmmm . . . a legislative strategy might, um, er, help have more Senators to confirm a fifth justice! How about that?

Oh, and if lightning strikes, and the bill passes? Gee, I'll learn to live with that!

This is what you call a "win-win"; you get the issue at election time, or you get the bill.

There's only one scenario you don't win: not pushing the legislation -- that is, the course you favor.

Iamright:

I fail to see how you can say the Life at Conception Act would not be upheld. How can you know this?

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Duncan Hunter, and before Congress for a number of years now, is based on what Roe itself said -- that the reason the Roe majority found abortion protected by the "privacy right," was precisely because it, the Court, couldn't say whether the unborn child was a person.

Note well: the Court did not deny the unborn child was a person; it didn't close the door, as it were; it said, we can't answer the question. Further, Blackmun said: if the personhood of the fetus were established under the 14th Amendment, the application of the privacy right to abortion would, I quote, "collapse."

It's very simple: the Court did not declare the 14th Amendment excludes unborn children from being persons under the 14th Amendment; it did not say the matter was settled, constitutionally; if that were the case, then only a constitutional amendment would settle the matter, or perhaps a future court decision -- more on that presently. But note -- the Blackmun majority said the Court couldn't settle the matter; so based on Roe, it wasn't a question for the Supreme Court, but for someone else! Who?

There are only two other branches of the federal government; it's hardly likely the Supreme Court would allow a president to declare the unborn persons -- on what basis? But could Congress? Well, the 14th Amendment says CONGRESS shall have power to enforce this amendment... And, we do know that the Court has given strong deference to Congress's legislative authority.

You also forget about another provision of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to limit the Court's appellate jurisdiction (not original); so Congress has yet another tool -- constrict the Court's jurisdiction in this matter.

But now, let's consider further whether a future Court would close the door which Blackmun, in Roe, left open -- that "someone" would answer the question the Court couldn't answer: are fetuses "persons" under the 14th Amendment?

Based on what Roe says -- Roe leaves the question open -- then that would mean a majority on the Court goes where Roe didn't, and positively exclude the 14th Amendment from applying to unborn children. (Something clearly not in the text of the Constitution.)

And if that's the quality of the Court, why do you pin such high hopes on that same Court overturning Roe?

I'll put it this way: pursuing an anti-Roe court makes it more likely this legislation would be upheld; pursuing this legislation makes it more likely you'll get a Court that overturns Roe.

So why be so antagonistic to pursuing this legislation, along with five anti-Roe votes on the Court?

Senator McCain has another thing going for him: very quietly as the every other GOP frontrunner has been pandering to the Perot-Buchanan-ultra-antillegalimmigration segment of the party who claim they are the base, (I'll admit, they make up a large % of the party, but are not the base), McCain has been setting himself up to be the pro-markets, pro-business heir to Bush. He has supported Bush on two matters (Dubai and Immigration) that the large donators view positively. While Frist, Allen, and to a lesser extent Romney pander to the protectionists and the screaming heads, McCain is quietly and effectively wooing the Larry Kudlows and Steve Forbes of the party he had previously made enemies of because of his (old) position on President Bush's tax cuts....

Than most of the other Republican candidates...From '01-'04 you are correct that he often was not w/ him but he's been more loyal than Allen or Frist over the past 12 months...

Big time. If he was out there passionately advocating SS reform in 2005 on all those talk shows he does we might have had private accounts written into law by today.

Is because after the unmitigated disaster known as Medicare Part D that President Bush and Majority Leaders Frist and Delay forced through Congress in 2003 (and Senator McCain voted against), the GOP had lost significant credibility on entitlement reform.  

Having the cost go from $395 Billion to $749 Billion and accusations that the administration pressured one of the actuaries to omit certain expenses to get it under the $400 Billion mark did enormous damage to the administration's credibility on this.  It also didn't help that when it was revealed that the true cost was nearly double what it was originally projected that Bush threatened to veto any attempt to bring the cost back in line with the $395 projection.

McCain BTW did in fact campaign in support of Social Security reform in general and PRA's in particular.  But after the wretched job that the GOP did on Medicare Part D and the problems with the message of selling Social Security reform, it's not surprising we lost (for now).

You are correct about this.  PRAs will live to fight another day.  Do you think a President McCain would have success implimenting them?

Something to keep in mind, the next President we elect in 2008 is going to be the last president to serve before the baby boomers start to retire.  The longer this gets put off, the closer the baby boom generation gets to being vested in Social Security which makes it harder and more expensive to enact any reform.  

IMO President Bush screwed up royally by not putting Social Security reform ahead of tax cuts and Medicare Part D.  McCain, as you might recall, wasn't as big on cutting taxes as Bush in 2000 but wanted to use the surplus to fund the transition costs for Social Security.

Regardless of what one feels about McCain, he does have a strong credibility with the public and IMO it's deserved at least on budgetary issues where's he's been consistent on speaking out that we need to deal with Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security as well as get control of discretionary spending.

In the past 3 months.  Besides out of controll spending, the US Congress is also to blame for a "New Protectionism" lead by the Tancredo wing of the party.  Our economy has created 42,000,000 jobs over the past 20 years thanks to free investment and labor flow.  A new protectionism jeapordizes this.  Both McCain and Bush are on the right side of this fight against this worrysome trend.  

the first sentence should read:

"I've become much more pro-McCain in the past three months"