Byron York talks to John Weaver, one of the consultants who had been advising John Huntsman, about the campaign-that-didn’t happen:
“He [Huntsman] had not made a decision to run for president, but he had made a decision to prepare to run,” says Weaver. “We were probably a month away from announcing the formation of a political action committee, so we were pretty far down the road.”
That’s all shelved at least for now. What’s the future that Weaver foresees instead?
“If it’s 2012 and our party is defined by Palin and Limbaugh and Cheney, then we’re headed for a blowout,” says strategist John Weaver …. “That’s just the truth.”
51 responses so far
1 ottovbvs // May 18, 2009 at 4:59 am
Of course it’s the truth but the base of the Republican party, the people who man phone banks and knock on doors, just don’t accept that premise. Whoever is the Republican nominee will have to pass litmus tests on a bunch of issues. The attempt to gin up a controversy around Obama’s NT commencement demonstrates that all too clearly. Amazingly I’m expecting Palin to still be around and movement conservatives love her. Whether that’s enough to make her the nominee is more problematic but it guarantees lots of fireworks. I expect Romney to make another effort but I doubt whether he’ll pull it off. As a hard right conservative pointed out here a day or two ago the fact is southern baptists have no time for him and his “cult.” I don’t see any of these mid western governors making a serious effort if they think Obama’s in the cat bird seat and so you can almost guarantee it could be the year in which the hard right gets it’s choice which will be Palin or Huckabee or similar. In which case…….
2 midcon // May 18, 2009 at 5:17 am
The GOP is most certainly on the path to a blowout in 2012, unless current administration becomes an abject failure. The only winning strategty for the GOP is for the Democrats to fail. So the GOP can save themselves lots of money just by waiting for the Dems to fail.
While the last election was a combination of backlash against the Bush GOP plus the excitement of the possibilities for an Obama administration, the next election will probably not have the backlash factor.
Thus far the GOP strategy is focused on creating a backlash. There are no new ideas, new faces, new ways of doing things. So far, we have the choice between the traditional and the possiblities that are present by the Democrats. It will be a no brainer when the election comes. It is essentially a choice betwee analog TV and High Definition Digital. For the majority of the electorate the choice will be clear and convincing.
In the absence of significant failure by the Obama administration, the GOP will lose regardless of the candidate. If I were running for the House or Senate (or even state office) I would run as an Independent.
3 mlindroo // May 18, 2009 at 5:25 am
> “If it’s 2012 and our party is defined by Palin and
> Limbaugh and Cheney, then we’re headed for a blowout,”
> says strategist John Weaver …. “That’s just the truth.”
To be fair, this depends largely on how successful President Obama turns out to be.
—
I still think McCain only could have defeated Obama in 2008 if he had embraced Weaver’s strategy from the 2000 election, i.e. by forcefully distancing himself from the corrupt and failed leadership of his old party (Sarkozy somehow managed to do this in the French elections against the Left’s inexperienced Segolene Royal).
—
David Axelrod has commented that the McCain of eight years ago would have been a formidable opponent, but instead he had to strike a Faustian bargain with the GOP base in order to win the Republican primaries…
MARCU$
4 ChristianMiller // May 18, 2009 at 5:33 am
“If it’s 2012 and our party is defined by Palin and Limbaugh and Cheney, then we’re headed for a blowout,” says strategist John Weaver, who advised Huntsman and was for years a close adviser to Sen. John McCain. “That’s just the truth.”
“…”
=
“who advised Huntsman and was for years a close adviser to Sen. John McCain”
________________________________
I mean, really! The quote from the article loses some impact when read in full, doesn’t it?
So now our supposedly best hope has been bribed away with a cushy job in Beijing by Obama. Yeah, that’s the kind of stand-up guy the GOP needs to ‘re-brand”.
Are these GOP advisers all marketing flunkies who couldn’t get a job in the private sector?
Another thing. The Democrats, no matter how much the Republicans “re-brand” themselves, have the real bully pulpit – the MSM, and will call any candidate representing the GOP, be he Mickey Mouse or Eric Cartman a Palin/Limbaugh clone. And those who follow the MSM slavishly will simply believe them. No amount of marketing/campaign cash thrown at these smears will have any effect.
I wonder what Mr. Weaver’s strategy and advice was to Huntsman about his Mormonism. That is another thing the Dems, and many Republicans like Huckabee, would have been attacking, big-time. Maybe that’s why he took the China job.
5 ChristianMiller // May 18, 2009 at 5:36 am
David Frum seems desperate to find confirmation, and he keeps getting it from those most willing to desert the cause, ironically because they have no real political compass, just political ambition.
6 ChristianMiller // May 18, 2009 at 5:38 am
The threat of the Presidential run could have well been a negotiating ploy by Huntsman. Who knows anymore? I look at what politicians DO. Huntsman just went off to China for pomp and circumstance. Bye, Bye!
7 barker13 // May 18, 2009 at 6:16 am
Hmm… glancing at my watch… it’s 2009.
See, this is the kind of ridiculous nonsense – obsessing about the 2012 presidential race – that causes one to echo the sentiments of the Bard of Avon…
First, we kill all the pundits…
(*SMILE*)
“John Weaver…?” Who the heck is John Weaver…?!?!
Heck… let’s be honest… outside of Utah the next question is mainly “Who the heck is John Huntsman…?!?!”
Re: Franco; wrote 7 minutes ago –
“Are these GOP advisers all marketing flunkies who couldn’t get a job in the private sector?”
(*CHUCKLE*)
Hey… Franco… you’re talking Frum’s WORLD. You have “members of the club,” and then you have… everyone else.
As the masthead of this site acknowledges, to Frum and folks like him it’s about “winning.” And by “winning” they mean money and power for themselves, their relatives, and their friends. Self-interest being the defining “principle” at the center of their world.
All these “professional” perpetual campaign flunkies…
(*SIGH*)
It’s an industry. It’s about money. The second, third, and fourth tiers of hanger-on’ers – the Weavers – have to say something to allow the Yorks and the Frums to cover it as… er… discussion worthy.
(*SHRUG*)
BILL
8 senor // May 18, 2009 at 6:24 am
Hey, I like this Palin poster. Where can I get one?
9 balconesfault // May 18, 2009 at 6:31 am
“the MSM, and will call any candidate representing the GOP, be he Mickey Mouse or Eric Cartman a Palin/Limbaugh clone. And those who follow the MSM slavishly will simply believe them. No amount of marketing/campaign cash thrown at these smears will have any effect.”
There is an easy way to deal with that “smear”, as you would call association with Palin or Limbaugh – one can clearly articulate how their positions differ.
That was one of McCain’s biggest failures last fall – he started picking up on Obama’s “change” language, but when pressed on how he would change things, aside from earmarks he just talked about “reform” in very general terms.
FWIW, imo the MSM went very easy on McCain and Bush both on that count. By claiming “reform” as the way to distinguish himself from Bush, the clear implication was that there was something about the Bush Administration that needed reforming. I never heard that pursued.
But when the Obama campaign decided to hang George Bush around McCain’s neck, McCain had two choices – to mount a vigorous defense of Bush Administration policies over the last 8 years, or to clearly articulate where he differed from the Bush Administration on the major issues of the day.
Best I can tell, climate change may have been the only major issue where he drew a significant distinction. Other distinctions – fighting earmarks, or opposing torture, or wanting to start the surge sooner – were quibbling around the edges of the Bush agenda, and not enough to convince voters that McCain term 1 would not be Bush term 3, like Obama was labeling it.
But we’ve seen recently what happens when any Republican has tried to draw any distinction between Limbaugh and themselves. And it hasn’t been particularly dignified.
As for drawing a distinction with Palin … as has been noted elsewhere, much of the GOP’s ground force is already committed to her. If anyone defeats her in the primaries, they’re going to have to work really, really hard to give those people a reason to turn around and work for them in the general.
10 Cforchange // May 18, 2009 at 6:38 am
The party will be very regional by 2012. The Republican example will be very absent in the more moderate parts of the country as it is in my city. This is the end result of 2008 where it became fact that an electable Republican of glowing distinguished public service could not received a unified backing from the party – certainly RL had his hand in that.
I have 2 children who are prime voting registrants – I will advise them to be Independent. If for a fact, a GOP member who adeptly managed Gotham but for the “base” could never be sincerely considered to lead the party because of his moderate social views. If that means the base is selecting the GOP candidate-what’s the point. My views are not being served.
I want my government managed effectively, you manage your own personal life privately. Wouldn’t anyone sanely agree that management for the business of government is the priority.
We’ve rehashed this before and it’s a big snore but most likely the warning resurfaces because the majority GOP or base can’t find their fault in the loss or diminshed party affiliation.
11 Bulldoglover100 // May 18, 2009 at 6:53 am
We will never win with a Palin or Limbaugh or Cheney. Palin LOST for a reason..why would we run a loser again? No one dismissed her because of McCain, they dismissed her because’s she’s simply stupid.
Limbaugh? We have lost more Independents from our tent since his pie hole began leaking feces to drum up his ratings and his income. Thats the problem with facts, they hurt and he has, and continues to, hurt our party.
Cheney? Will go down in history as one of the most vile people to ever sit in a seat of power.
All facts regardless of our ability to embrace them. Dosen’t change them and the biggest fact of all is that we cannot win a major election without Independents and moderate Republicans…which Palin/Limbaugh/Cheney are busy running off…….2010 & 2012 are going to be harsh because at this point? All I see are the rabid nutters making decisions and no end in sight.
12 ottovbvs // May 18, 2009 at 7:18 am
Bulldoglover100
wrote 7 minutes ago
…..There is no end in sight….all you have to do is read this blog to get a sense of the division and mindsets that exist in the GOP……When you a load of so called conservatives dismissing Judge Richard Posner and Colin Powell as liberals it says it all……Absent a total flameout by Obama of which there is no evidence whatever, quite the contrary in fact, he’s a shoo in for 2012……My guess is Republican centrists/realists like Crist and Pawlenty will just sit it out and leave the field clear for the right to do their Goldwater thing and ergo Obama wins by a landslide. I also think the GOP is going to lose some more seats in the senate and maybe even in the house in 2010. In the house the Democrats are fairly well maxed out given gerrymandering although there may be a few seats in CA and other states where demographic changes have nudged things in their direction but essentially stasis. In the senate it’s very different. They have 18 seats I think up for re-election and four incumbents retiring. Despite the talk about Dodd and Reid, I don’t see them at much risk but several Republican incumbents are, Vitter and Bunning spring to mind. It all depends on how Obama is doing of course, Democratic chances are very tied to him but if the economy is on the mend by the spring and he’s passed a couple of his signature issues like universal healthcare and energy, then the wind will be at their back. The impact of more losses on the GOP would be traumatic. The party is already in a state of disarray and if the Dems have a successful 2010 it will accelerate the fragmentation.
13 ottovbvs // May 18, 2009 at 7:26 am
Just a thought on presidential iconography…..the spoof on the Obama poster with Palin’s face is really a measure of the dominance of the guy….Once politician’s rivals are caricaturing his campaign poster, which just reminds everyone of him, he’s arrived.
14 balconesfault // May 18, 2009 at 7:31 am
“Absent a total flameout by Obama of which there is no evidence whatever, quite the contrary in fact, he’s a shoo in for 2012.”
Well, not just a flameout. There are plenty of things that can happen domestically and abroad to make a President look bad, no matter what he does. And there are an awful lot of pitfalls out there, starting with the massive Scylla and Charbdis our economy has to sail through the threats of depression and hyperinflation right now.
That said, I think there is a lot of avoidance going on regarding the effect that fear of “the other” had on dampening the vote for Obama in 2008. A lot of people have been seeing in the White House these past few months a dedicated family man with a loving wife and two children who are being assigned ‘chores’ while living in the White House to teach them responsibility. Every month that Obama fails to try to introduce the Koran to Americans as the true path futher erodes the credibility of many of his critics. With his ability to play basketball and talk sports the man is rapidly winning the “who would you rather have a beer with” contest, even.
My own suspicion is that fear of “the other” cost Obama 3-4 points in the last election, at least. Limbaugh and others have tried to keep this fear going by using criticisms of Obama the man that just don’t ring true to the non-partisan observer. But Obama is as talented as Clinton – but without the personal weaknesses. His critics had better quit trying to make this a personality contest, or they’ll just end up reinforcing Obama rather than eroding his popularity.
15 Mike K // May 18, 2009 at 7:34 am
“The GOP is most certainly on the path to a blowout in 2012, unless current administration becomes an abject failure. The only winning strategty for the GOP is for the Democrats to fail. So the GOP can save themselves lots of money just by waiting for the Dems to fail.”
A lot of people here are assuming this is just politics as usual. It isn’t. Let’s see what happens next year before getting too excited about former McCain advisors who supported Obama last year. Read this puff piece from a leftist source on Weaver and decide if he is the guy to be giving advice on how to win in 2012:
http://www.texasmonthly.com/2008-09-01/letterfromwashingtondc.php
16 balconesfault // May 18, 2009 at 7:38 am
“Absent a total flameout by Obama of which there is no evidence whatever, quite the contrary in fact, he’s a shoo in for 2012.”
Well, not just a flameout. There are plenty of things that can happen domestically and abroad to make a President look bad, no matter what he does. And there are an awful lot of pitfalls out there, starting with the massive Scylla and Charbdis our economy has to sail through the threats of depression and hyperinflation right now.
That said, I think there is a lot of avoidance going on regarding the effect that fear of “the other” had on dampening the vote for Obama in 2008. A lot of people have been seeing in the White House these past few months a dedicated family man with a loving wife and two children who are being assigned ‘chores’ while living in the White House to teach them responsibility. Every month that Obama fails to try to introduce the Koran to Americans as the true path futher erodes the credibility of many of his critics. With his ability to play basketball and talk sports the man is rapidly winning the “who would you rather have a beer with” contest, even.
My own suspicion is that fear of “the other” cost Obama 3-4 points in the last election, at least. Limbaugh and others have tried to keep this fear going by using criticisms of Obama the man that just don’t ring true to the non-partisan observer. But Obama is as talented as Clinton – but without the personal weaknesses. His critics had better quit trying to make this a personality contest, or they’ll just end up reinforcing Obama rather than eroding his popularity.
17 mpolito // May 18, 2009 at 7:45 am
It’s always interesting to see people make a choice and then complain about the consequences of the choice. If Huntsman is so worried about those crazy conservatives in the party (36% of America calls itself conservative but only 21% of Americans are Republicans…why?) perhaps he should not have agreed to be Obama’s envoy to China!
Cforchange- Cities are populated by people who depend on welfare. They will always vote for the people who will give them more welfare. It’s why blue states are currently in much more fiscal trouble than red ones.
Bulldoglover- McCain lost, sir. He was a moderate, and he lost. He was against the Federal Marriage Amendment, against the Bush tax cuts, in favor of stem-cell research, in favor of amnesty, etc. Again, he lost. Limbaugh has been on the radio since 1988. That’s over 20 years. In this time, the GOP has won plenty of elections (both presidential and congressional). So stop blaming Rush for everything. As for the moderate Republicans? You’d have to be pretty moderate to pick Obama over McCain. You’d have to be extremely moderate, in fact. The 2006 and 2008 losses were attributable to the war in Iraq and the economy, respectively. Not to Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin. We know that you hate these people; this website is to Rush what a flea is to a dog (a very succesful, award-winning dog).
18 ireign // May 18, 2009 at 7:52 am
In 2003, Weaver worked on Gephardt’s campaign. In 2007, Weaver is the same guy that almost bankrupted McCain’s campaign and was replaced. So I am not too worried about what he says now.
Moreover, 2012 is in 2012. In 2002, Bush looked unbeatable and then in 2004 most pundits were predicting he would lose. In 1991, less than a year before the election, many Democrats took a pass on the race because HW had 90% approval ratings so let’s not predict doomsday scenarios just yet. No one remembers this now but 2002, the Democrats were predicted to pick up seats prior to the homeland security department becoming an issue.
Let’s hold off on the obituaries just yet.
19 barker13 // May 18, 2009 at 7:55 am
Re: Mike K; wrote 13 minutes ago –
Doc… you’re always trying to confuse Frum and others with… er… facts and analysis.
(*TSK-TSK-TSK*)
Re: Bulldoglover100; wrote 55 minutes ago –
“Palin LOST for a reason…”
(*LAUGHING MY ASS OFF*)
BDL – Earth to BDL – John McCain lost.
One more time…
John McCain lost.
(*SIGH*)
Perhaps you’re looking for the blog “AlternateReality2008.com”?
(*SMIRK*)
BILL
20 ireign // May 18, 2009 at 7:59 am
“…..There is no end in sight….all you have to do is read this blog to get a sense of the division and mindsets that exist in the GOP……”
This blog is mainly populated by Democrats and Independents. There is no insight to be gained into internal Republican politics. Moreover, it’s a BLOG… Posters always have divisions.
“When you a load of so called conservatives dismissing Judge Richard Posner and Colin Powell as liberals it says it all……”
There wasn’t a load of posters calling Posner a liberal. But now that you mention everyone who has actually studied him knows that Posner is a social liberal. He has always been liberal on abortion and gay rights. He has never been a partisan Republican but mainly was more respected by conservative scholars because academia is so far to the left that by academic standards he was pretty conservative on economic issues. He is a brilliant guy but he is by no means a political strategist.
Powell, if you actually read his 1996 book says that he is not sure what party he belongs to. Since that time he has endorsed Republicans and Democrats. However, clearly on the issues, he favors liberal positions.
21 balconesfault // May 18, 2009 at 8:25 am
per ireign: “However, clearly on the issues, he favors liberal positions.”
“However, clearly on the issues, (Powell) favors liberal positions.”
In other words – someone who is socially libertarian is not conservative, and perhaps is best off in another party.
22 sinz54 // May 18, 2009 at 8:27 am
mpolito sez: “The 2006 and 2008 losses were attributable to the war in Iraq and the economy, respectively.”
I agree with you on that.
But the public blames *the GOP*, not just Bush, for those failures.
The voters won’t vote for the GOP again until they are reassured that the next GOP candidate won’t cause another Iraq debacle or another economic collapse.
The Iraq debacle happened because Bush launched a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq based on shabby evidence of an alleged massive WMD arsenal (Tenet admitted publicly in 2004 how shabby the evidence was).
Can the GOP reassure Americans that we will never again launch a pre-emptive invasion until we see the “whites of their eyes,” so to speak?
And if another economic meltdown appears to be on the horizon, can the GOP assure the public that a Republican President will address the nation in prime time and warn us *before* it happens?
23 ottovbvs // May 18, 2009 at 8:32 am
ireign
wrote 22 minutes ago
….Actually it’s mainly populated by moderate conservatives and far right conservatives ilike yourself and is a fairly accurate representation of the fault lines in the GOP.
…Posner is generally considered a conservative Justice although many rightists here called him a liberal….his name has frequently been floated as a candidate for the supreme court but the general view is he would never get confirmed which is a pity in my view. He’s just written a superb book analysing the background to the financial meltdown. In fact he has a a long record on commenting on political strategy and just about everything since he’s something of a polymath.
……Powell has said many times he’s a Republilcan, he’s attended Republican conventions (how many democratic conventions has he attended?) and he served in a Republican administration. He’s a moderate Republican….the sort the GOP is alienating.
24 ottovbvs // May 18, 2009 at 8:43 am
balconesfault
7:31 AM
“Well, not just a flameout. There are plenty of things that can happen domestically and abroad to make a President look bad, no matter what he does”
…….I’m very familiar with Harold Macmillan’s “events dear boy, events” but that presupposes that Obama makes a hash of handling them and the evidence so far doesn’t lead one in that direction. As well as being a negative outside events played properly can enormously strengthen a president’s hand. When he took office he inherited a series of crises notably the financial and economic one and that is working to his advantage as we speak.
25 ottovbvs // May 18, 2009 at 8:46 am
barker13
wrote 48 minutes ago
On Palin…. Barney Frank, I think, it sounds like him or maybe Schumer, put it best. She has the support of 80% of the Republican party…. and 100% of the Democratic party.
26 mpolito // May 18, 2009 at 9:05 am
There is no evidence that Palin did anything but help McCain. You might hate her, but to attribute McCain’s loss to her is truly ridiculous.
27 barker13 // May 18, 2009 at 9:08 am
Re: Ireign; wrote 60 minutes ago –
“This blog is mainly populated by Democrats and Independents. There is no insight to be gained into internal Republican politics. Moreover, it’s a BLOG… Posters always have divisions.”
(*CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)
Absolutely right, Ireign.
“There wasn’t a load of posters calling Posner a liberal. But now that you mention everyone who has actually studied him knows that Posner is a social liberal. He has always been liberal on abortion and gay rights. He has never been a partisan Republican but mainly was more respected by conservative scholars because academia is so far to the left that by academic standards he was pretty conservative on economic issues. He is a brilliant guy but he is by no means a political strategist.”
Exactly. (And common knowledge to those of us who actually have a pretty broad knowledge base upon which to rely as opposed to simple partisan knee-jerkism.)
(”Knee-jerkism!” I believe I’ve just created a word!) (*GRIN*)
“Powell, if you actually read his 1996 book says that he is not sure what party he belongs to. Since that time he has endorsed Republicans and Democrats. However, clearly on the issues, he favors liberal positions.”
As I told Doc K earlier… easy with the fact-based analysis… some find it… er… confusing.
(*CHUCKLE*)
BILL
28 mlindroo // May 18, 2009 at 9:09 am
mpolito wrote:
> McCain lost, sir. He was a moderate, and he lost. He
> was against the Federal Marriage Amendment,
> against the Bush tax cuts, in favor of stem-cell
> research, in favor of amnesty, etc. Again, he lost.
Um, with all due respect, you’re making a fairly absurd argument here. Amnesty and stem-cell research may have been a wash up, but on the other issues that you mention *Obama* definitely was more left wing than McCain. So how come he won by 200 electoral votes and 7%?? Because of the economy and the Iraq war? That’s more like it…McCain sounded pretty confused on the former and he does represent the perceived “party of the investor class”. As for Iraq, McCain being a strong supporter of the Surge and a frequent critic of Bush’s failed policies did not really help him that much.
> Limbaugh has been on the radio since 1988. That’s
> over 20 years. In this time, the GOP has won plenty of
> elections (both presidential and congressional).
I think this is way overrated. The best years were probably 1992-95 (the years of Gingrich, the contract with America and “the angry white male”), but seen in a wider perspective there has been waning support for the GOP ever since. 2002-04 seems like a mere aberration thanks to 9/11.
MARCU$
29 joeofpa // May 18, 2009 at 9:12 am
I’m not sure about Palin or Rush. But if Cheney keeps on speaking out honestly and forthrightly like he is right now, the GOP would do well to be defined by Cheney. He knows what he believes and isn’t afraid to say it. And that is what is needed to revive the GOP.
30 mlindroo // May 18, 2009 at 9:19 am
mpolito again:
> There is no evidence that Palin did anything but help
> McCain. You might hate her, but to attribute McCain’s
> loss to her is truly ridiculous.
_Au contraire_, there is in fact good evidence that *at best* she did not help him. Go back to e.g. the RealClearPolitics tracking polls and you will notice that the election was fairly close before McCain chose Palin. And he of course briefly pulled ahead after the conventions, but quickly started to lose ground afterwards. Much of the collapse was due to the economy, true, but Palin’s numerous gaffes after her “home run speech” in Minneapolis certainly played a part. Being an incoherent neophyte, she also undermined McCain’s strongest argument against Obama namely that the latter was not experienced enough for the job.
—
In the end, Palin did not help McCain with any demographic (not even women!) apart from conservative voters in deep Red states.
MARCU$
31 mlindroo // May 18, 2009 at 9:24 am
> McCain lost, sir. He was a moderate, and he lost. He
> was against the Federal Marriage Amendment,
> against the Bush tax cuts, in favor of stem-cell
> research, in favor of amnesty, etc. Again, he lost.
Rush’s favorite candidate seems to have been Fred Thompson, who in his opinion was the only full spectrum conservative.
—
Are you saying Fred would have beaten Obama if he had vocally opposed amnesty for illegal immigrants, stem cell research, abortion while demanding further tax cuts for everybody?
MARCU$
32 sinz54 // May 18, 2009 at 9:28 am
Sometimes a “blowout” is a healthy dash of cold water in the face, to wake you up.
In 1984, after Reagan wiped out the doctrinaire liberal Mondale, the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was formed to present a new face of the Dem Party. And their candidate, Clinton, won two terms.
I believe the same thing could happen in 2012. Perhaps we should just let Sarah Palin have the GOP nomination. The GOP base will be ecstatic. Limbaugh will love it. And then Palin will lose at least 40 states against Obama.
Maybe then, and only then, will the GOP base realize that it is they and their candidates whom the electorate has rejected. They won’t be able to blame the 2012 loss on RINOs. But only on themselves.
33 ireign // May 18, 2009 at 9:35 am
Ottobs-I am generally trying to avoid engaging in any discourse with you but once again you demonstrate little knowledge of the political spectrum or American politics and misrepresent my views.
“….Actually it’s mainly populated by moderate conservatives and far right conservatives ilike yourself and is a fairly accurate representation of the fault lines in the GOP.”
Hmmm…. Far right? Let’s see I am pro-choice, against gay marriage (although it seems inevitable) but am in favor of civil unions, in favor of a comprehensive immigration bill for political reasons, but that makes me far right… Unfortunately, you confuse the American political spectrum with the British one.
You didn’t manage to contradict my statement that Powell favors liberal positions. That is true regardless of how he chooses to self-identify (I suspect you see yourself as a moderate despite the evidence to the contrary). As for many political conventions, that is fairly irrelevant. But since you brought it up, he has attended only two GOP conventions that I am aware of (he skipped 2004, a very unusual move for a member of the government) during which time he defended mainly liberal social stances i.e. quotas in university admissions. Despite the many divisions amongst Republicans, the vast majority of Republicans were against a university policy that gave more points to one’s race than SAT score.
34 sinz54 // May 18, 2009 at 9:36 am
mlindroo: Palin did help McCain, in that she motivated the GOP base to campaign actively for the ticket.
Perhaps you are unaware that after Romney dropped out of the primary race and McCain clinched the nomination, the GOP base was furious. And many of them were threatening to just sit out the election rather than help McCain.
Palin gave the GOP base a reason to support the ticket.
That said, it’s not a factor for 2012. Can we all agree that the GOP base is now fully energized–they hate Obama’s policies and want him defeated. To that end, they would support even a “big-tent” Republican like Huntsman this time around.
35 midcon // May 18, 2009 at 10:19 am
But no big tent Republican (that is the only Republicans who have snowballs chance of winning) is going to throwaway their only chance at winning the Presdiency in 2012 unless Obama were to become such a dismal failure that even a corpse could run and win (i.e. anyone who chose to run against Carter).
Huntsman being a critical thinking individual may have decided that burnishing his resume in such an important post and becoming more appealing to indpendents (the 35% of the electorate without which no candidate can win an election) is a far better strategy than committing hari kari in 2012. Why not wait until 2016 when there is no incumbent.
With the support of the 35% of the Independents and the some of the Democrats who don’t just vote part, he doesn’t even need the base. In fact, disapproval by the Republican base should be a sought after endorsement by any one who truly wants to win.
The Republican party (not Republican individuals) is so marginalized there is a significant need for affirmative action to protect the 2 party system.
36 barker13 // May 18, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Re: Mlindroo; 9:09 AM –
*Obama definitely was more left wing than McCain. So how come he won by 200 electoral votes and 7%?”
Because Democrat lite ain’t gonna beat the real thing, especially if the “real thing” is a Obama and the… er… fake thing is McCain.
McCain was McCain and Obama was Obama – that’s why Obama won and McCain lost.
Could McCain have beaten Clinton? Quite possibly. Heck… *I* would have voted for McCain against Clinton!
Sure, Bush and the RINO Congresses of 2001-2006 were a drag on McCain as was the RINO congressional minority of 2007-2008. The economy hurt McCain. The GOP’s involvement with Abramoff and the “ick” factor of Foley tarred the entire Republican “brand.”
Now against CLINTON the corruption factor and the “ick” factor would have worked in McCain’s factor – McCain being looked upon as personally honest. But against Obama…? Nope. For a guy from Illinois… a Chicago pol… Obama pretty much skated the “dirty pol” stigma.
So… it was “honest” Obama against “honest” McCain. It was “cool” vs. “codger.” It was “hope” and “change” vs. “same old, same old.”
McCain might have pulled victory our of the jaws of defeat if he had just become Senator “Anti-TARP,” Senator “Anti-Stimulus,” but he didn’t – he became Bush lite and even though Obama was supporting the same damned stupid policies… no one was going to equate Obama with “Bush lite” no matter what.
Re: Mlindroo; 9:19 AM –
“Go back to e.g. the RealClearPolitics tracking polls and you will notice that the election was fairly close before McCain chose Palin. And he of course briefly pulled ahead after the conventions, but quickly started to lose ground afterwards. Much of the collapse was due to the economy, true, but Palin’s numerous gaffes after her “home run speech” in Minneapolis certainly played a part. Being an incoherent neophyte, she also undermined McCain’s strongest argument against Obama namely that the latter was not experienced enough for the job.”
The only poll info you cited that really reflects directly upon the Palin pick in terms of “conservatism” vs. “McCainism” and Palin’s unfiltered popularity is – as you noted – the McCain campaign’s jump in the polls right after McCain picked Palin and right after Palin directly addressed the American People.
After that… McCain was running Palin’s show. His people misused her and as we know now backstabbed her – their own VP candidate – both during the campaign and after.
(*SHRUG*)
BILL
37 jjv // May 18, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Palin, Limbaugh and Cheney are all different kinds of political figures. Cheney is liberal on same sex marriage but is still seen as an arch conservative. Limbaugh is a radio host and runs for nothing. Palin is the populist governor of a strategically important state. She was a Veep choice wildly popular with Republicans, and a sensation on the campaign trail.
Weaver is a man who could not stick with John McCain. His guy left for China following the old motto “I’d rather switch than fight.”
If the GOP is identified with unpopular politicians and views it will likely lose. The question is in 2012 what will be more unpopular, opposition to same-sex marriage or backing massive deficits?
38 Mike K // May 18, 2009 at 3:06 pm
“The Iraq debacle happened because Bush launched a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq based on shabby evidence of an alleged massive WMD arsenal (Tenet admitted publicly in 2004 how shabby the evidence was).”
Actually, the Iraq War was about other matters but because Tony Blair wanted the UN involved, Bush emphasized the WMD issue. If you read the Senate resolution, there is a good list of the reasons why we finally invaded after ten years of failing sanctions.
If 9/11 had never happened, Saddam would still be in power.
Some stories are “too good to check.”
39 Robert Graves // May 18, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Why would Palin, Limbaugh, and Cheyney want to waste their time with the Republican Party, if it’s defined by Weaver, Steele, and Frum? I can’t think of a reason. Can you?
40 sinz54 // May 18, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Mike K: None of those reasons in the war resolution was so important to Bush that he ever mentioned any of them in his 2000 presidential campaign as constituting a casus belli. In fact, he rarely mentioned them at all.
You may be right that if 9-11 hadn’t happened, Saddam would still be in power. But Cheney, Wolfowitz, Kristol, Kagan, etc., had already concluded in the 1990s (when Clinton was President) that the U.S. should depose Saddam by force.
They just kept that to themselves and didn’t tell that to Bush until the day after 9-11. I guess they were waiting for an opportune time to sell Bush on their bill of goods.
41 johnb // May 18, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Interesting thing about Limbaugh’s effect at the presidential level. He came into his own around 1990. Before that, the Republican party had won five out of six presidential elections, with margins that were frequently in the double digits and electoral counts above 400.
Since 1990, the democrats have gotten a majority of the popular vote four out of five times, and the margin for Republicans in 2004 was less than 2%. Plus, while three times the democrats have been above the 350 electoral vote mark, the Republicans haven’t been able to break above 290.
At the congressional level, one could say that Rush was helpful for the Republicans in the 90’s. However my own reading of the Republican success in the 90’s was more of a party affiliation change than an idelogical one. That is, conservative Southern Democrats became conservative Southern Republicans, thus completing a cycle that began with LBJ’s signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (where he famously said “We’ve lost the south for a generation).
But the other end of that cycle is the shift from moderate Republicans to moderate Democrats in the Northeast, the West, and now the Midwest. Since 2006, Rush certainly hasn’t been a help.
42 mlindroo // May 19, 2009 at 12:57 am
>> *Obama definitely was more left wing than McCain. So how come he won by 200 electoral votes and 7%?”
> Because Democrat lite ain’t gonna beat the real thing, especially if the “real thing” is a Obama and the… er… fake thing is McCain.
Well, McCain does have a reputation for integrity and heroism. We probably agree that insincere poll-driven flip-flopping impostors such as Mitt Romney won’t do, no matter how many times they promise to “double the Gitmo!” as Mitt enthusiastically told a GOP audience.
> Sure, Bush and the RINO Congresses of 2001-2006 were a drag on McCain as was the RINO congressional minority of 2007-2008.
Could you please name the RINOs that in your opinion were so influential, then… Starting with the Bush Administration, both Secretaries of State (Powell and Rice) might qualify as RINOs but especially the former did not have much influence. Maybe Alberto Gonzalez too. But let’s look at the rest! Cheney? Conservative. Rumsfeld? Conservative. Michael Mukasey? Conservative. Elliot Abrams and Paul Wolfowitz? All Neocons. Ashcroft? Religious conservative. And nobody ever accused chief architect Karl Rove of being a Republican-in-name-only.
The only RINOs (Powell, Whitman, Ridge) were marginal figures at best.
Same story if you look the Republican House/Senate leaders and their lifetime American Conservative Union ratings prior to the 2006 blowout (yes, the ACU ratings are imperfect but it a useful metric nonetheless).
Tom DeLay? Arch-conservative (ACU=92.88%)…
Denny Hastert? Lifetime ACU rating of 92.9% in 2005.
Bill Frist? 87.8% lifetime ACU rating.
Trent Lott? 92.4% ACU rating.
Virtually *all* the architects of the GOP mess in 2001-06 were in fact ideological, staunch conservatives of some kind or another! Blaming *McCAIN* (or Lincoln Chafee, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, Susan Collins) for the GOP mismanagement seems more than a little bit unfair, no? At least Maverick was pushing for campaign finance reform, which may or may not be a good idea but at least he was willing to see there was a problem.
>> The economy hurt McCain. The GOP’s involvement with Abramoff and the “ick” factor of Foley tarred the entire Republican “brand.”
> Now against CLINTON [...]
Well, Clinton is beside the point: you don’t get to pick your favorite opponent.
Final question: do you think someone like Fred Thompson or Newt Gingrich (if he’d run) would have beaten Obama last year?
You constantly claim that a genuine full spectrum conservative a la Rush Limbaugh wins every time.
MARCU$
43 Cforchange // May 19, 2009 at 9:09 am
mpolito – “Cities are populated by people who depend on welfare”
Part of your comment I agree with that is “Cities are populated”. The remainder well that is just so old school Republican. My city metro is the 7th largest comglomeration of people in the US – I disagree that the majority are looking for welfare and this comment would make them all laugh. That would be a Democrat gut buster you see.
Plus in general cities have a higher percentage of convicted felons who are not eligible for any W checks. Not only is your remark typical GOP- it’s probably not correct on a percapita basis.
The suburb where I reside was Republican majority – but no more…. From observation, I knew this well before the numbers were analyzed.
For those of you busy selling your perfect concepts to each other and won’t hear that change is needed, check the gallup poll here:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118528/GOP-Losses-Span-Nearly-Demographic-Groups.aspx
And thanks johnb, of course Rush isn’t helpful. Women are repulsed by RL. Women or as in Rush speak, fem nazi’s have exited the GOP. Why and what percentage of the general population is female so has RL formidable presence been smart???? I can answer that too without formal analysis.
44 balconesfault // May 19, 2009 at 9:54 am
I was amused by the rest of mpolito’s quote:
“They will always vote for the people who will give them more welfare. It’s why blue states are currently in much more fiscal trouble than red ones.”
The most recent balance of payment data I can find is from 1999 (anyone have more recent?) but it showed the top states in money received from the Federal Govt vs money sent to Washington in taxes:
NM 1
MT 2
VA 3
ND 4
WV 5
AK 6
MS 7
SD 8
AL 9
HI 10
OK 11
and at the bottom (states which gave more to Washington then they get back in taxes):
CT 50
NJ 49
NH 48
IL 47
NV 46
MN 45
MI 44
DE 43
MA 42
NY 41
WI 40
CA 39
45 ireign // May 19, 2009 at 11:15 am
I think you are conflating cities with states and voting districts. But the general premises that there are a lot of blue districts that would do well to have less gov. spending is correct.
It is a point I try to make to my Democratic friends. If you don’t like Miss. and SD, stop voting for politicians who support the federal expansion of domestic programs. And stop supporting politicians who mainly stay in power by supporting pork. Senator Daschle was completely out of touch with his district but his main argument was that he brought in over $2 to SD for every dollar that SD sent to the federal government. Blue-State Democrats allowed this to happen.
46 Chrisc23 // May 19, 2009 at 11:28 am
I would pick some of the following: Jim Douglas, Jodi Rell, Leonard Lance, Judd Gregg, Kate Whitman, maybe George Pataki or Susan Collins. The North East is the best place to pick a candidate from in 2012
47 balconesfault // May 19, 2009 at 12:06 pm
ireign: “It is a point I try to make to my Democratic friends. If you don’t like Miss. and SD, stop voting for politicians who support the federal expansion of domestic programs.”
Ahh – but you’re talking a different language than your Democratic friends, I assume.
Because most Democrats I’ve met don’t really care if a kid needing healthcare is in a Red State or Blue State. Dems believe that we’re all going to be better off if our weakest links are stronger. They don’t care if air or water pollution is being generated in a Red or Blue community, since somewhere downstream or downwind it will be ingested or breathed by someone else.
In other words, you argument sounds compelling to you, but it probably doesn’t resonate with their concerns.
48 ireign // May 19, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Balconesfault-Fair point. But I think we can differentiate health care from pork. Most pork is going to purple or red states/districts. Bob Byrd gets re-elected because he brings in earmarks. John Murtha gets re-elected because of earmarks. Daschle almost got re-elected because of earmarks. That money could be spent on New York City kid’s healthcare. Instead, Chuck Schumer and others have spent much time and money trying to get others elected who are going to take away money from New York (unless you are arguing that we have an infinite amount of money).
If you want to have a debate that the size of earmarks that currently exists is healthy than I would welcome that debate.
49 balconesfault // May 19, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Personally, I’d love to engage in a debate over how much of earmarks are offensive because they’re wasteful … and how much they’re offensive because they circumvent the normal appropriations process.
I’ve seen plenty of earmarks where the money was wholly justifiable. Sometimes a very good argument can be made that the request should have gone into the regular budget process and be channeled through the proper agency. Sometimes a very good argument can be made that there are some external factors which made it a very good idea for America to invest in something (Besides some congressperson’s reputation, even) for which there was a window of opportunity that the normal processes could not respond to.
Moreover, a congressperson has some portion of their duty being to represent their constituency against the larger forces of the federal bureaucracy. The bureaucracy may not have an interest in opening up road access to some large unserved area in Senator X’s state, or in buildling a dam that creates a lot of new developable land – but Senator X’s constituency might have a significant interest in this economic investment.
There is a legitimate “build it your own damn selves, then” argument in those cases – but when I travel around the country I see way to much Federally funded infrastructure that has produced manyfold returns on the original dollar, that would have been delayed or perhaps never even built had it been left to local jurisdictions (or to the private sector). And an awful lot of those projects were built because some Congressman “brought home the bacon”.
That’s not to say that there aren’t projects that should never be funded. I’m just not as ready to throw out the baby with the bathwater on this topic as some are.
50 sinz54 // May 20, 2009 at 7:18 am
balconesfault: Each infrastructure project should be required to complete a non-political, non-partisan, economic study showing what national benefits, if any, would accrue from the project. And that should be put out for public review on the Internet *before* the project is ever funded. IOW, we ordinary folks surfing the Internet will have the right to review it–and say it has no benefit for us.
It would be easy to make a case that an extension to the Interstate Highway System, anywhere in the country, is nationally important. Or upgrading an international airport. It’s much harder to make the case that tossing funds at some repertory company in some town is nationally important.
Any kid who plays SimCity on his computer, understands this distinction.
51 balconesfault // May 20, 2009 at 9:33 am
“balconesfault: Each infrastructure project should be required to complete a non-political, non-partisan, economic study showing what national benefits, if any, would accrue from the project. And that should be put out for public review on the Internet *before* the project is ever funded. IOW, we ordinary folks surfing the Internet will have the right to review it–and say it has no benefit for us.”
I like that system. There are costs, mind you – I can already imagine the speculative booms that some postings would generate, which could actually drive up the cost of the projects, but I’m sure some creative minds can work around that.
This could be a natural extension of USASpending.gov , the website that came out of legislation from Tom Coburn and Obama a couple years ago.
You must log in to post a comment.