Redstate

My suggestions:

1) McCain needs to run a economic populist campaign. I am very confident Huckabee could carry OH and possibly PA if he was the nominee. Learn from Huckabee.

2) Passionately reach out to hispanics/working class whites, write off black votes, stop worrying about offending AA and white guity MSM liberals. As a so-called first 'black president''s wife, Hillary was doing worse than any GOP candidate among that group. It is simply not realistic to 'reach out' until they change their own culture and innate racism'. It's really stupid and ridiculous for McCain to lash out at GOP's NC ads as some sort of 'racism'. Obama, Dean and MSM will obviously further whine about 'racism' in general election, but this has the potential to turn whites/hispanics/asians even more decisively against Obama.

3)on a tactical level, show respect and admiration of Hillary. That alone will earn him lots of 'bitter' diehard Hillary women who are're ready to revenge as their dream of seeing the first woman being elected as president to be dashed by a guy they don't trust and don't believe qualified. Definitely put a woman on his short list for V.P. Alaska? If black voters can give Obama 90% under no condition, I have a strong feeling if McCain handles this well, he will be able to lure lots of women from Hillary's core group. Identity politics is very powerful in both positive and negative way. Never underestimate your bitter wife.

You have to expose who he really is.

Listen, the American voters are gullible. If you heard Obama's speech last night, he's talking like The Last Patriot, extolling the virtues of small town America and his living out the American dream. He even was God Blessing America at the end(although he looked like he was sucking lemons to say it). When did Socialist, America hating, San Francisco Barack become Yankee Doodle Dandy? After he got his fanny handed to him in Pennsylvania, that's when. And now they are all(read MSM) acting like he isn't just making it up as he goes along. Olbermann kool-aid drinkers. I just worry that McCain doesn't have the stomach for it.

How about we pass a law that you have to be able to name your state senator before you can vote for Obama for president. That ought to do it.

So far, the biggest economic idea McCain has made is to cut corporate income taxes.

That's classic Larry Kudlow/Republicanism. It even makes economic sense. But it's hardly "populist." Even National Review admitted that's not likely to appeal to the type of "Reagan Democrat" voters that McCain is trying to win away from Obama.

A truly "populist" agenda would focus on rewarding small businesses of all types (even single proprietorships) instead.

McCain does recognize the need to propose health care reform. But I can already tell you that his proposal is going to invite criticism from folks like me who already have pre-existing conditions or other economic hardships. It's weak in those areas and needs to be strengthened.

I agree McCain really is not a very good candidate. I don't believe he's a natural fit to attract so-called Reagan democrats. That's exactly why I was cheering for Huckabee to get the nominee. Huckabee gets it.

It looks to me Republican party needs to rethink its coalition whether it can manage to hold on to the white house or not. Huckabee is the future.

He's a classic example of how to lose an election. Let's run a primary on I'm more Christian than you are, completely run away and do an about face from his 10 year record in the middle of the campaign to try and appeal to everyone, all without ever winning any group outside of his core base of Right Wing Fundamentalist Christians who care about nothing else than guns, God, and gays. His fiscal policy was based on him pulling something off of a pdf file and deciding to hitch himself to the FairTax wagon while raising taxes (I know, I know, Club for Growth was in the tank for Romney-riiiiight) and calling Bush's foreign policy which has protected us and has been gaining on our enemies every day an "arrognat bunker mentality. Then in the middle of the campaign he goes from it's the Christian thing to do to provide scholarships for children of illegal aliens to Send all the w**b*ks home, just like Tancredo says. Not to mention that he has absolutely no regard for Federalism and is going to "mold the Constitution to fit God's standards", whatever that means. And populism, is so far from conservatism I can't even begin-but feel free to consult anything Rush said about Huckabee during the beginning of the primary season. But judging from your idea that Huckabee "gets it", by which he gets raising taxes and class warfare is a good idea, I would just urge you not to spill your Kool Aid on the rest of us who would like the Republican Party to have our own fiscal and foreign policy, and not just echo the Democrats.

Someone's got to punch the hippies.

You are uniquely able to peg Huckabee for what he is.

Although, I will say that he does have a place in this party and I think that HuckPAC is it. Support candidates with money and his ability to give a good stump speech.

I have no problem at all with the Huckabee faction. I would have a major problem with a Huckabee party.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

Is I am afraid he would nominate SCOTUS judges who would not find a dormant homosexual marriage clause emanating from the penumbra. And goodness knows that delightful neighbor of mine who keeps a great yard deserves more than anything else to be able to marry his same-sex mate.

I would be afraid a President Huckabee would not understand how truly special our homosexual friends are, would focus too much on piddling issues like the 1st and 2nd Amendment (God and guns) and not on the true important issues like embracing the diversity of our LGBT community.

My problem with President Huckabee is that he is the one candidate that has absolutely no clue on the doctrine of Federalism, seeing as he has such a problem with the Constitution that he wants four different constitutional amendments to put America into God's standards, because those silly folks in the 18th century just didn't get it quite right. I also have a problem with his ethical issues of those "gifts" he took from the governor's mansion, and his Willie Horton problem, where he just doesn't know how to let a convict rot in jail or be executed, to the point where he decided to offer 1033 pardons to criminals. I also have a problem with him going from Ted Kennedy to Tom Tancredo in a week on illegal immigration, and from tax and spend to FairTax in a matter of weeks. And Hillary Clinton understands our enemies better than Slick Huckabee-although I'd say it's about a draw on ethics with her, since they both talk out of the wrong hole 90 percent of the time. But hey you enjoy you're Kool-Aid because hey your right in the middle of a war, economic downturn and a party that nominated the guy that almost no one likes, our biggest priority should definitely be-the gays are coming-aaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!!!
Here-you get one too.

Someone's got to punch the hippies.

Yes, those are potential reasons for Huckabee to have been/be a weak candidate. Throw-in (as you did) his "flip-flopping" on immigration and "weak on criminals" and he does not appear to be a strong candidate now or in the future.

But, on the "Gods and guns" issue? That is not a weakness of Huckabee, is not a weakness of Bush (see the economy and Iraq) and would not be a weakness of McCain if he enbraces those issues vs. Obama. If McCain walks away from those voters/issues, many of whom voted for Clinton in the D primary, and says he's going to join Obama in embracing social-left issues (Gods, guns and "gays"), but fight tooth and nail on Iraq and a continuation of current economic policies, McCain will lose big-time.

You can repeat the Howard Dean mantra (Gods, guns and "gays") all you want, but the fact is the American people do not embrace the Dean/Obama position on those issues; it will be a weakness for Obama if properly exploited; and it is not the reason Huckabee did not win the Republican primary. If anything, it was his only strongpoint.

it's that they are the only issues he's any good on.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

I do disagree with calling Republicans who care about gun rights, do not believe homosexuals should marry, adopt or be Scout leaders and do not agree that religion has no place in the public forum "right wing fundamentalists". I expect that term (regularly) on the far-left "people powered progressive" blogs (and the mainstream media), but not from fellow Republicans.

I do not fully embrace the neo-conservative position on Iraq, but that does not mean I believe them to be, or would call them, "war mongering, Muslim hating, innocent women and children murderers" or some other such ridiculous term of the far-left.

Does it soothe your feelings if I describe Huckabee's base as Evangelical Christians, since that's what every single exit poll showed, that he couldn't win any group outside of them. I'm sorry if you get offended on the use of Right Wing Fundamentalist Christian, but that's not a slur, that's who his base was and still is. It was used correctly, just like you can all me a neo-con on foreign policy and I know you aren't secretly accusing me of conspiring with the Banker's Illuminati.

Someone's got to punch the hippies.

Still bashing Huckabee, I see.
__________________________________________________

The blogger formerly known as "Alexham"

And I'll be bashing him as long as everyone else who gets mentioned as a possible VP can get smacked around at will. There have been at least two thread of people laying into Condi Rice-and you could say she's equally likely to not get VP. I'm sorry it hurts you're feelings that all of us aren't head over heels on the Hucksters bandwagon. Hope you like my Rudy tag-kisses.

Someone's got to punch the hippies.

__________________________________________________

The blogger formerly known as "Alexham"

But you wouldn't be calling him President Bush in 2004 with whatever you called them in Ohio (and many other states). But, that sounds like a brilliant strategy, disavow those ignorant folks against homosexual marriage (because obviously they don't have a wonderful homosexual friend or TV character to call their own), in favor of gun ownership, and in favor of religion in the public sphere. Embrace the Howard Dean mantra of belittling those in the "God, guns and "gays"" camp and just run on Iraq and the economy. Brilliant!

particularly the "Right Wing" part. Because if you oppose homosexual marriage and other assorted "rights", are in favor of private gun ownership; then obviously you are "right wing" a "fundamentalist" and an evil evangelical.

If you can find me where Huckbee's base wasn't socially conservative evangelicals, I'll concede. As for Bush, his presidency has been profoundly disappointing, other than the GWOT. He has bent over backwards for the socially conservative wing while the rest of the party sat around and got screwed and damaged the Party brand nearly beyond repair. You'll have to excuse me for not jumping for joy or recoiling in fear of what might have been if we didn't get Bush for another four years. Oh God, we might have had astronomical spending, no school choice, and billions of wasted dollars on entitlement funds and programs...oh wait. Since we're all worried about the economy as its the number one concern with voters in every state, what Bob does with Steve is kind of low on our priority list right now-and I'm in Michigan, a swing state with those blue collar Reagan Democrats you're talkig about. But like I said, you keep on protecting us from the gays-for The Children.

Someone's got to punch the hippies.

You say he's been profoundly disappointing "other than the GWOT", which would suggest the "GWOT'ers" should be happy with what he has delivered, yet the only part of the party he has "bent over backwards" for is the social conservatives?

If you want to argue one "wing" that has a legitimate reason to be completely disappointed, it would be the so-called "economic" conservatives, although on the tax side of things, he has certainly "delivered". We just have borrowed and spent, rather than tax and spent.

Bob plugging his husband Steve may be low on the priority issue, but that does not mean it is a winning strategy for the GOP and McCain to cheer on Bob and his male lover(s); rather I would recommend that we point out to voters Obama's embracing of such perversity.

OK, I got the point: On economic issues, Huckabee is populist but on social issues and Federalism, he's too much of a religious fundamentalist.

OK, are there any other Republicans who understand the need to appeal more to Main Street USA rather than to Wall Street, but without the religious fundamentalist baggage? Jindal perhaps? Any interesting ones in Congress?

but Jeff Flake of Arizona seems to have the libertarian conservative credentials. He is not too popular since our leardership at present seems to prefer authoritarians, and two from the same state would be unusual.

I don't know what is in the water in Arizona, but could we plumb it into the rest of the country?

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

Your assessment on Huckabee is fundamentally. If you look at his record as governor, not political rhetoric, Huckabee is a typical 'politican' in those dicey areas such as God, gays and immigrant. I believe he's very much a guy of tolerance.

BlackRepub, you forgot when Huckabee was asked about the "tax refund" checks in a Republican debate, he said that the government should keep the money and use it to build highways. He was justifying FDR's "New Deal" expansion of government and he didn't even know it!

Thank you Mike Huckabee, for arguing that the government keeping my hard earned money and spending it is better than me keeping and spending it. If that is "economic populism," I don't want anything to do with it. Priceless!

I'd refer you in particular to the 1992 New Hampshire Democratic Primary.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

No Lieberman please. He's too old.

Because the last thing we need is a government that has out of control spending due to refusal to deal with entitlements, huge farm bills, huge spending bills, huge prescription drug benefits, huge mandates for eduation, Supreme Court Nominees who, when given the choice between ruling in favor of the citizenry and ruling in favor of the Government choose ruling in favor of the Government most of the time?

Stuff like that?

At least marriage is safe, right?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

I don't believe in out of control spending, in government subsidies for drug companies, or in Bench legislation.

Let's not forget that Kelo, one of the biggest pro-government, anti-citizen cases of recent times, was the product of "moderate" and liberal judges -- not conservative judges. I'm for judges that read and interpret the constitution, basing their decisions on a constructionist approach -- whichever party happens to make out in the deal.

1. To be seen as a credible successor capable of wartime leadership

2. To be seen as independent of the GOP brand that tarnishes Bush and the GOP in Congress.

That's a very hard trick to pull off. Giuliani with a promise to adhere to McCain's pro-life policy is one possibility. John Bolton, the fearless UN Ambassador is another. Both are far from perfect. I know Jindal will be great someday, but not now. Guys like Romney and Frist and same old/same old. Our bench strength unfortunately is really weak.

Is it perfect? No. But it is actually not all that weak.

People keep saying we have a weak bench because we perceive there to be so few people to put on the ticket as VP. But that is not a function of lacking people to put there, it is a function of the limitations we are putting on the pick because McCain is the nominee.

We have determined that he can't pick someone too old, or too moderate, or someone lacking executive experience, or someone who doesn't bring new EVs to the table, etc. etc. We have plenty of people who would be strong VP candidates - the problem we seem to face is that we're not sure any of them are strong picks for McCain. That's a McCain issue, not a bench issue.

There are several state governors out there who would be good choices (Pawlenty, Sanford, Huntsman in Utah, Barbour, even Rounds and Hoeven in the Dakotas have pluses, maybe Crist, plus Jindal and Palin if things were a bit different), but they also seem to have drawbacks given McCain. We totally eliminate any current or former Senators (probably for good reason), but would DeMint be a strong choice? I think you could also look to Sen. Talent (who didn't lose that badly given the circumstances) or Sen. Sununu - all of whom are solid people. The bench problem comes out because we've basically made it so that the VP has to be perfect because we need him to be all things to all people (someone who is young and vibrant yet able to lead from day one, someone who will please the base but who isn't so conservative that he'll turn off independents, someone who can appeal to swing regions but who won't lose us any core states, and so on).

Do we need to keep working? Yes. We probably have a pretty decent B team that can keep us going in the short-term, but without sustained effort at the lower levels (state and local) we are losing our C team - the folks that we'll need to call on in the longer run. But in the end, we probably could line up 20 people who would be solid choices in and of themselves right now.

The status quo has moved so far left that it feels like the post-Watergate 1970s.

If Howard Dean can swing the superdelegates to force Senator Clinton from the race, then he and Senator Obama will be taking long knives to the entire DLC "third way" faction. Given the high risk of marginalization and no place else to go, the Clintons might have to jump parties to the GOP.

McCain/Clinton '08?

Palin!!!

I sort of agree with your assessment. I don't know what McCain has been doing recently. He has to have a very very rigorous campaign schedule in key swing states NOW! I don't understand why he has spent almost no time in Iowa since caucuses. I'm pretty sure Iowa will be a goner as Obama is the nominee.

Jewish voters always seem to be a mystery to me. Politically, they are very astute, after all the anti-semitic stuff associated with his church and mentor, you would expect his support among Jews could collapse to below 20%. But no, according to the exit polls in PA, many of those Jews are still 'clinging' to Obama

Maybe you didn't hear that she just gave birth to a baby with Down's Syndrome.

I don't know if she wants to go running off down the campaign trail right now.

Do we want to start playing the game of appealing to specific ethnic groups?

It what way would that make us better -- or even more effictive or likely to be elected, ultimately -- than the Democrats?

Wouldn't we ultimately be setting ourselves up for the type of internecine warfare that is hurting the Democrats?

At a time when Democrats are generically polling about 15% ahead of Republicans, their internecine ethnic/gender/group politics has them virtually tied with the GOP nominee. Do we want that type of thing to start happening to us?

Well, what's the plan to do it? So far, the whole story has been Obama and Clinton. Do we know that McCain can't appeal to Jewish voters? Do we know that he has no plan to do so? We are only just getting to a set matchup for the fall and it is still only May. With money something of an issue, I don't think it was totally foolish to wait a bit - against Clinton McCain would have had very little chance to pry away Jewsih votes (at least not enough to make the cost/benefit worth it). With Obama the chances are better. And I'm sure that the campaign people know that and will be working on it.

The idea that he "can't" appeal is just wrong - you're making it sound like he's spent months trying and has failed. He hasn't even started going after them.

The GOP will probably get a slightly larger share of the Jewish vote, given some of Obama's positions and associations, but I don't know that McCain could or should do much differently on that front. He's already pretty pro-Israel, and his image is certainly less explicitly Christian than, say, Bush's (let's be frank - a fair number of Jewish voters are just uncomfortable with the explicit Christianity of many leading Republicans. That's not a criticism, it's a recognition that sometimes you can't appeal to everyone at once).

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

32% of the Jewish vote for McCain is great. For reference sake, 39% is the best Republicans have done since Harding in 1920.

For Obama, the 61% he has would be the lowest for a democrat since Gov James Cox in 1920.

Kerry got 75%. Obama has bled 20% of that already. Gore 80% and Clinton got 85%+. Close to 1/3 of Jews who voted for Bill have defected from Obama. No democrat has won the WH without at least 70% of the Jewish vote. Conversely, no Republican has ever lost when getting 30% of it.

With some strong campaigning by Lieberman, and a decent outreach, and especially if things heat up with Iran between now and November, 35% is well within reach. If McCain gets 35% of the Jewish vote, he'll win. Heck, if he holds on the 32% he has now, he'll win rather comfortably.

I would feel a lot better if we had inroads into other key demographics though.

I understand McCain spoke to a Latino group the other day.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

First, I have to say that I have no problem with Senator McCain campaigning to Latino groups. It is a demographic that I think should rightly be conservative given the overwhelming Christian nature of most Latinos.

That being said, it is easy to say that a lot of people detest La Raza for it's racist implications(that's not the word I want, but eh?)

This is why it is so important that the GOP back up McCain and not do and say things that end up alienating entire ethnic blocs.

In particular, Republicans have to be very careful that their public opposition to illegal immigration is based only on legality, not on cultural put-downs of Hispanics as a people. I've heard the latter coming from some conservatives, especially during the heat of the immigration bill last year. Pat Buchanan said flatly "White America is taking flight." And some said that Townhall.com columnist Linda Chavez could never be loyal to America "with a last name like Chavez."

Do that sort of thing now, and you can watch Obama get inaugurated President in January.

If McCain can't attract any Hispanic votes, he could lose three Southwest states--and the election, right there.

Is an unrepentant racist in my book.

Of course, he's not even technically a Republican anymore, but unfortunately his sister is the head of Tancredo's pack.

"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain