Friday, January 26th 2007
Caucus talk
Yesterday at our BCR meeting, the board hosted an early Primary to help members sort out the potential Republican candidates. The format was statement, crossfire, and a final vote, and the results were interesting. Candidates to support included Brownback, McCain, Giuliani, Romney, and “Dark Horse”. Supporters for Brownback were non-existant (Because Fullmer wasn’t there), but the other camps were fairly evenly divided.
After initial statements and some crossfire, the trend of the evening seemed to be differentiating between representing traditional conservatism and defeating Hillary. Those in the Romney camp as well as half the dark horse-ers favored defending conservative principles, while some of the McCains and Giulianis compromised on social conservatism as a way to defeat Hillary (who actually got one vote during the evening).
Our primary had Romney win in the initial voting rounds and again in a run-off, but not by a huge margin. It was a thought-provoking discussion, and I was happy to see others are thinking similarly, as I found this morning. Right Wing News had a “Most & Least desired Republican candidates of 2008″ post where they surveyed a sampling of conservative bloggers. The voters ranked the candidates in a points system, and were given the following to select from, including any non-mentioned candidate:
Sam Brownback
John Cox
Jim Gilmore
Newt Gingrich
Rudy Giuliani
Chuck Hagel
Mike Huckabee
Duncan Hunter
John McCain
George Pataki
Ron Paul
Mitt Romney
Tom Tancredo
Tommy Thompson
The lowest scores were dropped, and the votes for “Most desired” ended up something like this:Â
14) John Cox (4)
13) Jeb Bush (5)
12) Jim Gilmore (5.5)
11) Ron Paul (8.5)
10) Condi Rice (11.5)
9) Mike Huckabee (14)
Tommy Thompson (15.5)
7) John McCain (19)
6) Sam Brownback (20)
5) Tom Tancredo (31.5)
4) Duncan Hunter (35.5)
3) Mitt Romney (43)
2) Rudy Giuliani (45)
1) Newt Gingrich (52)
Now I’m not just posting this to get back at the Romney folks from last night (I was in the Giuliani camp), but because the results are really interesting. Gingrich was one of our dark horses, as well as Tancredo. This may just be a result of internet-savvy people hearing more about the little guys than others, but maybe not. Now here’s what I’d like to do, if you don’t mind.
Please comment, of course, but list your pick. If you’re a Dem or an “other”, give us whatever analysis you’ve got on it. Sciency-types say that the outcome gets more “correct” the larger the population, and I’m curious.
I’m another Hillary, not because I particularly like her, but just because I think that, with a Democrat president, Congress and the media might have the balls to actually try to win the war once failures can’t be blamed on Bush.
I actually know very little about the candidates, except that McCain hates freedom.
Comment by Beetle — 1/26/2007 @ 3:34 pm
Ron Paul and Mitt Romney
or
Al Gore and Wes Clark
I’d be quite satisfied with either team; each would bring many positives to the White House.
Comment by Ghost of Clark Kerr — 1/26/2007 @ 4:05 pm
Hehe yes, I’m indeed the token Brownbacker. After him, I’d go for McCain, Huckabee, and probably Romney, in that order. Under no circumstances am I gonna go for Giuliani, Gingrich, or Tancredo.
I’ll explain all this in a post sometime.
Comment by jfullmer — 1/26/2007 @ 7:07 pm
My picks:
Most desirable:
1)Tom Tancredo
2)Ron Paul
3)Duncan Hunter
4)Jim Gilmore
5)Sam Brownback
Least Desirable:
1)Rudy Giuliani
2)John McCain
3)Condi Rice
4)Tommy Thompson
5)Chuck Hagel
As you can probably tell, my preferences are based on my views on each candiate’s moral character and political positions, without regard to how much chance they have of winning. Out of the ones that are likely to be the top performers in the GOP primary, Mitt Romney would be my pick.
Comment by Rohit J — 1/26/2007 @ 10:34 pm
One additional point I would like to make about Tancredo that I wasn’t able to in yesterday’s crossfire is that he offers something for everyone in the Republican coalition. He is economically conservative, having received “A” grades from the National Taxpayer Union every year he has been in Congress (which is more than most of these candidates can say), voted against NCLB and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, and has supported tax cuts and switching to a flat or national sales tax. He is also socially conservative, having consistently opposed abortion and homosexual “rights” and culturally conservative, opposing amnesty for illegal aliens and supporting full assimilation of legal immigrants. Finally, he is conservative on foreign policy, skeptical of international organizations such as the UN and the WTO and supportive of the War against Islamofascism.
Most of the other candidates, on the other hand, are not as conservative in at least one of these areas. As a result may have trouble garnering support from a significant portion of the Republican base.
One last note: What is disappointing to me about this election is none of the top contenders is truly a traditional conservative Republican, whereas in the past we’ve had the likes of Pat Buchanan, Phil Gramm, and Alan Keyes finish in the top two or three (and in Buchanan’s case, beating Bush and Dole in New Hampshire).
Comment by Rohit J — 1/26/2007 @ 10:49 pm
See, I think that to call Tancredo “culturally conservative” because he opposes “amnesty for illegal aliens” is a bit of a logical leap - not that you are by any means alone in making that leap. I personally support what might be called “amnesty” for reasons that I think are very culturally conservative. Again, this is something I’ll be expanding on in another post.
Also, Tancredo’s pro-life credentials are something I’d question a bit.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10880
Not a huge deal. But still something to give pause.
Comment by jfullmer — 1/26/2007 @ 11:55 pm
“War against Islamofascism”
So he’s a fearmonger? Haven’t you heard, no one wants to hear about that shit.
Comment by Ghost of Clark Kerr — 1/27/2007 @ 2:32 am
Islomofascists are our enemey. Its an excellent term because it differentiates the war between God fearing Muslims and totalitarian theocrats. Beyond the civil war in Iraq there is a broader front of terrorist organizations who have a goal no less than destroying free civilizations.
On their policy list is the establishment of religious dictatorship throughout the Middle East, the abolition of personal liberty under mideval laws and a cultural turn back thousands of years. Its not fearmongering to exort Americans to fight this war.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 1/27/2007 @ 12:22 pm
For one it’s an empty term. It tries to create an emotional knee-jerk reaction stemming from the bad things done by Hitler.
And whose fault is it that those people hate the US?
Would a war in Iraq under false pretenses help or hurt the anti-American cause? After tens of thousands of Iraqis are killed or injured and millions in dire straits and the removal of one of the few secular leaders in the region you want to tell me that we are somehow helping God-fearing Muslims and fighting theocracy?
After the shameful execution of the war on the Lebanese people by Israel? That country had just started to get back on its feet and had some pretenses for democracy and it was all ruined. Instead of fighting Hizbolla, Israel gave them a sea of recruits from the grieving, unemployed and idle. Was it necessary to bomb Beirut airport? Was it necessary to create an environmental disaster by bombing oil storage facilities that spilled into the sea?
You have nothing but hate and fear for the Arab world and it’s clouding your judgment.
(Enough to cheer sending missiles at Tehran. People live there!!)
Comment by Ghost of Clark Kerr — 1/27/2007 @ 2:14 pm
1. Ron Paul
2. Chuck Hagel
Paul stands for about 90-95% of what I believe in, so it’ll be wonderful to campaign and vote for someone that will actually represent me. He will be a breath of fresh air during the debates.
Hagel is the only other Republican running that I respect. Before Paul jumped in, I was dead set on supporting Hagel in the primaries. Though I would prefer he be way more libertarian, I think Hagel represents what an honest Republican Party would look like. Fiscally conservative, socially conservative but not extremely so, and realistic on foreign policy. It’s unfortunate that the base dislikes him so much because of their litmus tests on either Iraq or immigration.
My prediction: 2008 will be about Iraq, Iran, and the larger War on Terror. If we’re still bleeding troops, which is likely to be the case unfortunately, then the Democrats will win, no matter who they run. The Democrats will win, unless the Republicans run a legitimately anti-war candidate that can appeal to moderates. That’s either Hagel or Paul, who will split the anti-war vote in the early primaries, then consolidate support for the one who chooses to stay in all the way. If Democrats nominate pro-war Hillary Clinton, then the GOP’s chances to win are even greater with an anti-war candidate.
This is shaping up to be an exciting two years of politics. The Democrats are largely concerned with celebrity *cough* Obama *cough*, but the Republican primaries will be the stage for a huge ideological battle that hasn’t been seen for decades. The GOP has a chance to repair the damage that Bush and the neocons have inflicted on the party and, more importantly, the country. Let’s see if they take it.
Comment by patr — 1/27/2007 @ 2:21 pm