Sunday, June 25, 2006

High Noon in Michigan (2008)

There's an interesting article in the
Weekly Standard

It's not a secret that much of the establishment is backing McCain or Romney. However, the Weekly Standard forgot one thing. This might not be a two way race. George Allen, Tom Tancredo, Rudy Giuliani, and Newt Gingrich may all run. Then there are darkhorses. Governors like Tim Pawlenty and Bill Owens. Maybe Mark Sanford will change his mind. Maybe the draft Mike Pence movement succeeds. Who knows. Governors become presidents - Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush. Bush didn't become a frontrunner until after a big showing in the 1998 gubenatorial race.

Whatever the case is, I don't like coronations in general, and McCain/Romney are certainly no exception. The media and Weekly Standard love McCain, and some party insiders like him since they think he's their best shot to win. I can't back him for dogcatcher. He's a gun grabber, yaps about "chicken little" global warming, opposes tax cuts, opposes the first amendment with his McCain/Feingold law, led the gang of 14 on judges, has an ego the size of Alaska, and always pushes for government to get involved in things it doesn't belong in - such as the UFC and baseball. McCain wouldn't get my vote for dogcatcher.

As for Romney, where does he stand? Being against gay marriage isn't all it takes to be conservative. Massachusetts has government run health care now? On life issues, is his flip from pro-choice to pro-life real or political? Then there's his signing of an ugly gun ban. Romney has a lot to prove to me before I could back him. Being a Michigan native isn't enough.

Between this choice of A or B, I pick C.

6 comments:

Mike MacTavish said...

People like Mr. McCain are a reason why I do not consider myself a republican but a conservative.

I don't know enough about Romney to have a well informed opinion (yet), but McCain is worse than a liberal or democrats, let alone republicans. McCain's for McCain and nothing else.

If McCain's the nominee in 2008, I'll vote for the democrat. At least then Republicans will unite against her and McCain couldn't get his agenda passed.

Mike MacTavish said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
anonymous said...

McCain can't cover up decades of liberalism with a few months of conservative sounding speeches. He has betrayed the Republican party on too many key votes to expect our support in a presidential bid now.

McCain is MAYBE just a little more conservative than Edward Kennedy. It's no wonder that the liberal media loves him.

As for the "assault gun" ban. I agree. I refer to it as a ban on scary looking guns. People see the fierce looks which remind them of military weapons and they get scared. People have forgotten that any weapon is dangerous in the hands of a nutcase, no matter what it looks like, and this includes automobiles and kitchen knives. (Should we ban vehicles with an SUV shape because they look more menacing than economy cars?)

Pogo said...

The fact that many of these articles ignore is that McCain has a high unfavorable rating with Republicans combined with an unimpressive favorable rating. The high unfavorability rating is a real killer because this represents primary voters he is unlikely to win over under any circumstances. The mediocre favorability ratings are also noteworthy considering that he is by far the best known candidate in the race thus far. The vast majority of primary voters know who McCain is, yet a relatively small number show any interest in him.

These numbers tell me that many Republicans are sitting on the sidelines waiting for someone better to come along. Once a good conservative emerges McCain will become a historical footnote.

Keith Richards said...

I call myself a Reagan conservative in order to be a bit more discriptive about my political beliefs. Limited and non-intrusive government, low taxes, severely restrained spending, strong defense, pro-life, and pro-2nd amendment.

McCain and I AGREE on FEW things except other than strong defense. He claims to believe in spending restraint but I don't see any evidence of this claim in his voting record. On just about everything else we disagree.

I know less about Romney even though he is from Michigan originally. What I've heard so far does NOT impress me. He claims to be a conservative, but where is his proof? Everything I've paid attention too looks to be way left of center. Furthermore, there is NO WAY a true conservative can get elected Governor over there on the left side of the least coast. There is a lot of talk about Romney here in Michigan but I really wonder if anyone else around the U.S. is paying any attention to him?

I've always admired Gingrich but I can't support him for President due to past immoral conduct and the fact that he seems to be going real wacko these days. He has some good ideas but he seems to be a bit unstable, not the kind of person you want to have his hand on the button.

Unfortunately, I don't see any announced or likely candidates that I consider to be 100% perfect. I've heard Pence on the Hannity show and was not impressed with him, but it was possible he was having a bad day so I've not ruled him out yet. I did see George Allen speak and I was very impressed with him. He looks like he has what it takes to be a good President but I need to find out more about his positions on certain issues. If Allen checks out OK I will probably throw my support behind him.

Mark Twain said...

One interesting thing about this race is that so many of the big names being thrown around are Senators. Yet, if we look at Presidential history since 1932 we find that candidates seeking elevation to the Presidency directly from the Senate don't do too well. Since 1932 only Eisenhower and Kennedy lacked prior experience as either a V.P. or governor and Eisenhower had experience as a top general in a major war. Only Kennedy was elected directly from the Senate. Americans seem to have more trust for candidates with some sort of executive level experience.

Let's look at the list:

President Bush - Governor
Clinton - Governor
Bush the elder - V.P.
Reagan - Governor
Carter - Governor
Ford - Not elected
Nixon - V.P.
Johnson - V.P.
Kennedy - Senator
Eisenhower - General
Truman - V.P.
Roosevelt - Governor

This list just goes back to 1932, which represents a pivotal transition year in American politics when just about everything in our country began changing, but this trend goes back much further.

The REALLY interesting thing is that many of the opposing party candidates that lost against the men on this list WERE running from positions as Senator.

Even more bleak, try to find a president that was elevated directly from the House of Representatives! (Sorry Mike Pence)

I've never seen anyone give a good explanation of this trend. Maybe people don't trust Senators as much because of the way they often seem eager to bargain away their values in order to get legislation passed. Or it might just be that people are often digusted with Washington politics and like to find outsiders in the eternal hope for reform.

Looking at this trend, if I were a party bigshot I would seriously start looking for solid candidates with prior experience in a Governor's mansion. These seems to be where the betting money should go in a presidential election.