"The question of which faction I want to win is a complicated one, because I long for the days of Reaganism when both factions could co-exist. But those days are gone due to the fact that the GOP now controls all the levers of the state and no matter which policies we choose, they will offend half the party. Generally I think that McCain-ism is probably the future of the country, though I don't think that should be mistaken as the old New England Republicanism of Snowe and Chafee. I think that McCain represents a combination of tax cutter and deficit hawk, federalist and traditionalist, a foreign policy hawk who is not guided solely by ideology. Unfortunately, McCain will be too old to lead any revolution, and the intraparty fight will be quite ugly.
I'm not sure whether Bush wins or loses will affect this war; in fact, a Bush loss may just prolong it. If Bush wins, it will be like LBJ's win in 1964 --- the Democrats had everything and the only ones they had to fight with were each other. By 1968, the 35 yr old Democratic coalition was over. 2008 could be our 1968.
One of the biggest problems is that the GOP base refuses to give ground on the social issues. Moving to the middle on abortion is the ultimate heresy and even less tolerable than raising tax. If Bush wins, of course, he will have a huge role in determining the shape of this fight, though far less influence than most presidents due to the lack of an heir apparent in his administration. One fear that folks like Andrew Sullivan seem to hint at is that Bush is trying to turn the GOP into the Democratic Party of Zell Miller: the fiscally populist, socially conservative, pro-war party. I don't think that's the case because, like I said, his last name is Bush. But if that were the case, we would see realignment sooner rather than later, as both fiscal conservatives and social moderates would revolt at the GOP becoming solely a party for Southern populists.
I predict that 2008 will be a showdown between someone like Bill Owens, representing the Bush wing, and Rudy Giuliani, representing the McCain wing. The GOP establishment may try to stave off this fight with a compromise candidate like Romney[Governor of Massachusetts], a moderate who's thrown a bone to the right a la gay marriage, or Pawlenty[Governor of Minnesota], a conservative who talks like a moderate, but both sides are seething for this fight and my guess is it will happen in 2008."
-from Dave.
Posted by Dennis at October 17, 2004 09:55 PMIs anyone else bothered by Chinese troops in Haiti?
Posted by: mike at October 25, 2004 06:18 PMHere's a New England Republican in action Dave, former New Hampshire Senator, Bob Smith, - American through and through to the innermost marrow in his bones.
I personally witnessed Mel Thomson, a Republican, ill and in severe pain, force himself up from his seat to shake hands with then recently elected Democrat Gov. Jeanne Shaheen. He did it because he was a gentleman, but he also did it to show respect for the governor and for the people who elected her in a fair election a few months before.That was yesterday.
Today we hear news that Charles McGee, the former executive director of the New Hampshire Republican State Committee, and Allen Raymond, a GOP consultant, pleaded guilty to federal charges stemming from their involvement in the jamming of telephones on Election Day, Nov. 5, 2002. Democrats' computer-generated calls to get out the vote were blocked and thus voters did not receive the intended message due to illegal action by some in the Republican Party.
Where is the outrage of elected officials and party leaders?Wrong!
This is a far cry from the party of Lincoln that proudly and correctly stood on principle to outlaw slavery. It is a far cry from the party of great and principled statesmen like Mel Thomson, Norris Cotton, Ronald Reagan, Dwight Eisenhower and Teddy Roosevelt. What a contrast between those great Republicans and current party leaders, who refuse to speak out against this despicable action by pathetic political hacks.
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041019/REPOSITORY/410190316/1037/NEWS04
In a Democracy we get the leadership we deserve. What do we need to do to deserve Bob Smith?
Posted by: dorsano at October 19, 2004 08:17 PMPawlenty
He's an extremely skilled politian - one of the best I've ever seen and a smart, likeable man.
I've come to the conclusion that he personally can't be pegged anywhere on the spectrum - I suspect that only his family and close friends know - if even them - maybe I'm wrong.
The "Theocons", if that's we're to call them, and the "supply-siders" have stacked the MN GOP caucuses (just as they have most everywhere else) and he HAS to satisfy them.
which he did with his first education commissioner and his support for a state constitional amendment that declares gays are scum and should be treated as second class citizens forever - neither of which passed the Democratic controlled Senate.
And his image suffered for that (but I don't think he had a choice really unless he wanted to be a complete Maverick).
His "no new taxes" pledge, while it raised a red flag that he might be an ideolog, is widely accepted as the right thing for the state at this time even by people who are frightened that he might want to follow the supply side route and skew the tax code to disadvantage earned income in favor of capital and corporations.
But he has a green streak. He's also taken some heat from some of the caucus because of his pro mass-transit stance and his perscription drug importation plan. He's working to reduce homelessness and to provide permanent, low cost housing. He commissioned a health care task force to refactor health care in MN and he put Durenburger (another "liberal" Republican) in charge. And we now have an education commissioner who, in spite of the privatization sanctions in NCLB, looks like she's committed to keeping public schools in MN, public.
Somehow his moderate policies (actually I'd call them pragmatic) were the ones put in play and the extreme policies weren't -- pretty shrewed -eah?
He's popular all around by and large, Republicans of course and Independants and even among some Democratic rank and file -- and he's certainly pretty effective in the chief executive role.
Like Arnie Carlson, who wasn't endorsed by a "Theocon" stacked delegation, he could run in the primary without party endorsement and would likely win - because just as they did with Arnie, Independents and Democrats would cross over to get him on the ballot.
I honestly don't think we could have better Governor right now - he's the right man for the times.
Posted by: dorsano at October 19, 2004 07:05 PMDorsano,
I found it interesting that you mentioned Pawlenty in that group of "liberal Republicans," or whatever one wishes to call them. Some Minnesotan once opined to me that Pawlenty was really a conservative in moderate's clothing. As you guys are from Minnesota, what's the scoop on Pawlenty?
Posted by: Dave at October 19, 2004 05:28 PMI see what you are saying Mike. While I really admire the man's history, accomplishments and general policy stances I do get a sense that he is also a master of deception and is constantly playing everyone off each other for his own benefit. But such is politics...
Posted by: hoya at October 19, 2004 09:35 AMAlthough, with what I know now, I cant think of a reason not to vote for McCain, something about him bothers me. Does anyone else get the feeling that hes playing a game?
Really hate to say that about a man with his history.
Posted by: mike at October 19, 2004 06:31 AMI think that McCain-ism is probably the future of the country
I'm not sure what the future of the country is. I hope it contains at least one party with a tent big enough to include both "liberals" and "conservatives".
A nation based solely on liberal values or solely on conservative values will not produce the prosperity and opportunities we've been blessed with for most of our history. We've been well served by a healthy balance between both personal responsibility and responsible community (people who both take care of themselves and their families - and who somehow, in some way, manage to look out for their neighbors and community at the same time).
And the balance needs to be reflected in things like tax policy, health care, education, energy policy and environment - not just civil liberties. God paints our choices with all the colors of creation and She's blessed each value-set with some measure of color blindness.
The job of political parties is to get elected and political parties are unlikely to engage in anything other than an adversarial relationship. When liberal interests and conservative interests are segregated by party, it's a perscription for something less than satisfactory.
I'm not convinced that the old New England Republicanism of Snowe and Chafee is dying (and there are many others to include: Spector, Whitman, Thompson, Pawlenty, etc.) - To do so, would be to contemplate burying the last of the line of Lincoln, Roosevelt, Warren, and Eisenhower.
The line will survive -- which party it claims for it's own is one to speculate on. But it represents the best of an America that is both liberal and conservative and as long as the Chicago Cubs still fill Wrigley Field even when they're twenty games out of first place, the line will survive - it was born in IL - and home is home plate.
Posted by: dorsano at October 18, 2004 11:05 PM