Choosing Between the Evils of Four Lessers
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (25) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
A friend called me the other day. He asked, "Can you explain why I hate John McCain so much. Because I really hate that [redacted]. I hate this whole election cycle. I feel like I've got to choose between the evils of four lessers."
That does not apply for everyone, but for a lot of Republicans this year, they feel the same way. If you are one of them, it's important to keep a few things in mind.
First, this is an election cycle that plays to the Democrats' strengths. As a result, a lot of the dream candidates were smart to sit out. The odds are against a third consecutive Republican victory. The one guy who could have united the party would not run and was smart to sit on the sidelines. After all, the country probably wants a break from electing guys with the last name Bush, even if he was a very popular governor in Florida.
Second, we play with the players we have, not the players we want. This year, we are left with Mitt Romney, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, and … cough … Ron Paul. Take your pick. Not happy? Blame Bush. He could have set us up with a preferred candidate through the Vice Presidential process. He did not. Now, actually, because of my first point, that's actually not a bad thing. The GOP would probably flock to such a candidate and the voters as a whole will assuredly want to distance themselves from the Bush legacy. They are tired.
Keep reading . . .
Third and most importantly, this election cycle is unlike any other in recent memory for Republicans. Think about this. In 1952, we had Ike. That was a no brainer. Same for his re-election in 1956. In 1960, we had Nixon -- again a no brainer because he was the Vice President. In 1968, it went to Nixon again and then his re-election in 1972. In 1976, we had an incumbent Republican candidate. In 1980, though the establishment went elsewhere, Ronald Reagan was the presumed heir. In 1984, it was Reagan's re-election. In 1988, it was the continuation of Reagan-Bush by putting Bush on top. In 1992, it was Bush's re-election with a few wayward souls going for Buchanan. In 1996, though there was a plethora of candidates, most of the establishment and base were rallying around Bob Dole. In 2000, by and large the party was a Bush party again, with only McCain as the credible alternative. In 2004, it was Bush again.
To be sure, in 1980, 1988, 1996, and 2000 there were other candidates garnering support, but there was also, the entire time a candidate best described as the party's heir — that candidate objectively presumed to be the nominee based on healthy support from both the establishment and grassroots.
This year is completely different. McCain should be the heir, but his habit of stiffing the GOP has hindered his coronation. Romney has a lot of the establishment conservative movement, but not a majority of the base. Huckabee has a large, but still minority, portion of the social conservatives, but not much else. Giuliani and Thompson arguably had the best shot at uniting the establishment and base, but they failed to do so.
Thus we enter 2008 without an heir to the party. It's like 1964 all over again. In that cycle, there was a battle for the party between Goldwater and Rockefeller with Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. playing the role of Rudy Giuliani, with a better shot of winning. 1964 saw no heir apparent to the party and there was a fight between the moderate wing and the conservative wing. The conservatives won. This year, with no heir apparent, that fight has come back, but it is arguably between versions of conservatives than between the left and right within the party.
Of course, all of this is to say take heart. This is a mostly unique year that we hopefully won't repeat again. It'll probably be resolved on Tuesday. Those of you too disgusted to stick with the guy who wins can sit this one out. It'll be over in ten months. Just remember, if you don't show up to vote, you're also going to be hurting the GOP in congressional, state, and local races.
In the meantime, you should be putting pressure on the candidates to make sure they find a real conservative to be their running mate: a Sanford, a Nickels, a Bush, or someone close.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | We Have Ourselves A Race — Comments (2) »
Choosing Between the Evils of Four Lessers 25 Comments (0 topical, 25 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Maybe I'm still hung-over with Super Bowl goodness, but who is "[t]he one guy who could have united the party?"
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
I wasn't trying to be smarmy. I thought there was someone specific in mind.
It was the one who wouldn't play any handgames.
Neil, I just re-read Erick's reference to "the one," and I think we're mistaken, aren't we. I just saw your comment and figured it was Fred.
He was referring to Jeb Bush, but I guess I just skimmed to fast, heh.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
First, trying to use VP selection as a method for renewing an incumbent party is mixed at best. An open field encourages candidates to come forward and we get a fresh start. It happens that one of the best prospects was the brother of the president and other possibilities (Allen, Santorum, etc. got knocked off in 2006). Finally, the conservatives with the right kind of records either ran really poor campaigns (Fred, Brownback) or deferred to their fellow Senator (Kyl). But blaming Bush for not choosing the right Veep is unconvincing. After eight years, any party needs a fresh start.
Second, you make all these races sound inevitable. But at early stages of 1980, 88, 96, and 2000 frontrunners stumbled and underdog candidates had a chance to win the GOP nomination. A few small and I mean very small breaks and Bush could have won in 1980. Dole could have won in 1988, Alexander could have won in 1996, and McCain could have won in 2000.
McCain turned out to be more resilient than most had expected in 2008. But if anyone had told me a year ago that Fred, Giuliani, and Romney-every single one of them- would all show deep weaknesses and leave an opening for McCain, I would have been skeptical. But no one could close the sale.
So for the first time since ???, we will have two senators as the nominees of the major parties.
as nominees be a first in American history?
Sen. Kennedy, 1960, beat Nixon, who I think had served in the Senate but was at the time the sitting VP.
Sen. Harding, 1920, beat Gov. James Cox.
You might make that argument, but the record doesn't support it. McCain's lifetime 83 ACU puts him in the middle of the party. His recent years put him in the far left of it. Nothing puts him in the conservative wing.
As for Romney, at least he's claiming to be a conservative now, but I don't put much trust in that. So yes, this is a year where the conservatives are fighting with the establishment Republicans, but unfortunately have no good candidate to rally themselves around.
based on whatever the ACU's issues were at various given times, is conservative. As a number, I'd argue that it is meaningless, especially in differentiating between the various ways in which a candidate can be conservative. It's a matter of ACU whimsy, so John McCain ia a good, ACU conservative, which is a fine thing.
That being said, McCain is not perceived by conservatives as a conservative. He promised on the Sunday Shows yesterday to work hard to win us over, and I plan to demand that he do it. He's not my first choice (read: Fred Thompson), but I'd gladly support him over Hillary or Barry or Gravel; that being said, I want him to keep his word and convince me that he is a conservative.
in order for McCain to do that he's basically got to repudiate every McCain-(insert liberal here) bill he's sponsored over the last decade or so. And that's just not going to happen, he's just too much invested in them.
If he were to do that, and then spend a few years in the Senate proving it, I could support him, but in no other circumstances.
I received my sample ballot in the mail this past weekend and lo' and behold if Fred isn't on the ballot! Say what you want, but when I pull that lever, I will do so with a clear conscience knowing that I voted for whom I wanted, and not anybody else.
I have read to many diaries of how everyone will vote for this person if that person does this and that. Whatever happened to voting your conscience and what you believe to be true? I will not be voting for the lesser of any evil because I think Fred would make a great president. So you all have a choice yet: do you follow the herd off the cliff or spend some time to reflect and vote according to your conscience? I will sleep peacefully knowing that my vote was cast in good faith and I was not coerced to do anything other than execise my free will.
The candidates now left in the race are not Republicans. Why should I vote for them? Huckabee? RiNo. McCain? - turncoat. Romney? - Panderer.
Perhaps that is the problem with the Republican Party this year, the columns of our tent are splintered and everyone wants their single issue candidate as the platform leader rather than rallying behind a common principle and platform: E Pluribus Unim or "Out of many, One"
So if there is any evil after Tuesday's vote, please remember that I did my part and voted my conscience for a true Republican. I can live with that and will accept the consequences.
Democrats: Aborting infant democracies since 1961!
pretty much throwing your vote away. Most of Fred supports will have moved on and you will be in the other number that always comes up after an election. I agree it would be nice to be able to vote for Thompson but I much rater use my vote to try and stop McCain.
I would not be surprised at all if Thomas Golisano runs for President under the Reform Party.
Do you think you are going to FORCE us to send him money?
People MAY begrudgingly vote for McCain but when people donate money it is becuase THEY BELIEVE.
McCain and the RNC will never get my money until they stop acting like Democrats.
does it take to change a light bulb? The answer is FIVE. One to change the light bulb, and four to stand around talking about how good the old one was.
For some reason, that just sort of came to mind.
You can't afford the price of free corn.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
I mean, I think its actually more appropriate that we wait til 2012 to see a Gingrich presidential run, but that would be my pick.
Your exactly right about 1964.
In 1964 GOP was dominated by Moderates back then
and 5 Moderates were on the 1964 GOP ballot
the two you already mentioned
Lodge and Rockefeller
but also
Gov . William W. Scranton of Pennsylvania
Sen. Margaret Chase Smith of Maine
Even Richard NIXON was on some of the ballots in 1964 but apparently withdrew from the race.
Goldwater was the only Conservative on the ballot and even though conservatives were not the dominant wing of GOP as they are today
the moderate GOP vote in 1964 was split 4-5 ways paving the way for Goldwater to come out with a victory.
Now in 2008 with conservatives divided among several candidates McCain was able to win
If the other moderate Giuliani had participated in the early states he could have won instead of McCain.
I think the fragmentation of the branches of conservatism sort of reveals its lack of coherence. I don't think for a second that all evangelicals are automatically fiscal or foreign policy conservatives. All of this talk about unifying the party just highlights the very real fractures that exist. In any group of non brainwashed people, there will be some variance in thought and opinion. I think Rush forgets that.
Is Evil.
A conservative running mate will not bring the base out to vote for McCain (and might not succeed for Romney either.) A McCain candidacy will guarantee a low conservative turnout which will have a huge impact on Congressional races. Romney has a shot at repairing the bond between the Republican Party and its grassroots which was shattered over McCain and Bush's support for amnesty for illegals. The bond had been loosening over several issues during the Bush years but immigration shattered the ties that made the Republican Party a majority party.
We must not forget that a suspect conservative like George Bush failed to attract a significant portion of the conservative base and lost the popular vote in 2000. Bush was seen as far more conservative than McCain is today.
A small sign of a conservative revolt in California?
Look at these straw poll results:
http://www.redcounty.com/riverside/2008/02/riverside-county-gop-straw-po...