And So the Rebuilding Begins...

I was going to blog about this sooner, but it looks like there is already an effort among Republicans to retool and renovate the GOP. Called "Rebuild the Party," it's a group of young conservatives under the age of 40. In many ways, they have learned from the Obama campaign and are using technology to help in finding ways to modernize the party.

Here are a few words from the homepage:

As Republicans, we face a choice.

Either we can spend the next several months -- or years -- trying to figure out what just happened, excusing our defeat away as a temporary blip or the result of a poor environment, and waiting for Barack Obama to trip up. Or we can refuse to take this defeat lying down, and start building the future of our party now.

2008 made one thing clear: if allowed to go unchecked, the Democrats' structural advantages, including their use of the Internet, their more than 2-to-1 advantage with young voters, their discovery of a better grassroots model -- will be as big a threat to the future of the GOP as the toxic political environment we have faced the last few years.

The time is now to set in motion the changes needed to rebuild our party from the grassroots up, modernize the way we run campaigns, and attract different, energetic, and younger candidates at all levels.

We must be conservative in philosophy -- but bold in our approach. We don't need a slight tweak here or there. We need transformation. We can't keep fighting a 21st century war with 20th century weapons.

This is a document about bringing the Republican Party into the future -- and it isn't just about strategies and tactics.

They also seem to be saying it's fruitless to look for another Reagan:

Revitalizing the party will have much to do with how we talk about issues and standing on principle. And, above all, it will require leadership.

At the same time, waiting for a political savior to materialize out of thin air is not an option. Eventually, strong new leaders will emerge. And when they do, they must inherit a party stronger than the one in its current state. Our grassroots must be stronger and more open. We must inspire young leaders to want to run for office as Republicans.

There are several ideas afoot, but there is one that makes the most sense and it basically copies what the Democrats did in 2006 and 2008:

By 2012, the Republican Party will field candidates in all 435 Congressional districts in America, from inner city Philadelphia to suburban Dallas, and our leaders must be held accountable for progress towards this goal. With an 80 plus vote margin separating Democrats from Republicans in the House, it's time to widen the playing field, not narrow it. While our targeting has gotten narrower, honing in on a class of seats we feel entitled to because they lean Republican, Democrats have been stealing traditionally 60-40 Republican seats right and left. It's time to return the favor.

What's more, it won't be good enough to run perfunctory races in safe seats. 2008 showed us that every seat -- Republican or Democrat -- is potentially a target. If you aren't seriously challenged this time, chances are you'll be challenged the next time, or the time after that. Incumbents who don't prepare for this reality will find themselves scrambling to catch up when the inevitable happens. That means that our party needs to set a new standard that campaigns will be professional and fully staffed in each and every seat.

That's a good strategy, but that will also mean that they have to make some accomdations on social issues due to location. The Dems ran candidates that were more conservative in areas that leaned more Republican. If this group wants to run candidates everywhere, especially in districts that lean Democrat, then they need to run candidates that are pro-choice and pro-gay rights to have a shot. Here in Minneapolis, the GOP seems to always run people who are socially conservative in a district that is not even close to that.

All in all, Rebuild the Party has a good idea and is not just a flash in the pan. It's headed up by Patrick Ruffini, a GOP operative and seems to be pretty diverse, with people accross the GOP political spectrum. They have also added a tool where people can suggest ways the GOP can change and also vote on those issues.

I don't know if this has a chance, but who knows? If you know of someone who is a conservative and under 40, you might want to pass this along to them.

Message to the GOP: You're Close to Losing Me.

As I write this a day after Election Day, I feel a bit angry, not at the election results, but at the party that I have tried to make a home in: the Republican Party.

For years, I have been involved in trying to help steer the party away from the hard right and more to the center right. It has not been easy and at times, it has felt rather fruitless.

Tonight, it not only seems fruitless, but pointless.

Republican leaders seem to have a tin ear when it comes to dealing with the future of the party. The message to them after two losses was that they are not conservative enough, as if people are crying for earmark reform and not health care reform.

This is what Brent Bozell has had to say about last night's losses:

The liberal wing of the GOP has caused the collapse of the Republican Party. It is no longer a viable player in the political conversation, and deservedly so: For a decade it has spat on the values of Ronald Reagan. Conservatives let it be known on Tuesday in races all over the country that it has had enough with the betrayal.

There's a liberal wing of the GOP? Please. There hasn't been an active liberal wing of the Republican Party for about 30 years. When you lose the last Republican in New England, you don't have a liberal wing. If there was a wing, I'd be joining that party.

The frustrating thing is that the party has closed their eyes to people like: someone that is economically conservative, but socially liberal. If you saw my ballot yesterday, it was split ticket, Obama at the top, but the GOP downballot. I'm someone that is open to taxes, but also wants the budget balanced, and I don't want to us to go back to the bad old days of 70 percent tax rates. I think health care reform is important, but I don't want the government running the show, just making sure that everyone has access and help those who can't pay. I think welfare reform was a good idea and think that charter schools are a good thing that could help our educational system. I am strong on defense. I believe in immigration, but I also think that those who come into the country illegally have to pay something for breaking the law before we talk about a path to legal citizenship. I am for regulation, but not at the expense of the entrepenurship that has fueled America.

What is hopeful is that there are people like David Frum, David Brooks, Ross Douthat and others who are calling for a more responsive conservatism. But the thing is, the people in charge aren't listening. On Thursday, members of the far right are going to meet as if the answer is to be more conservative instead of responding to the needs America as it is today. Isn't that conservative, to view the world as it is, not as what we would like it to be?

In the end, I don't know how long I will stay. I'm not going to the Democrats because I just don't agree with all of their ideology. Philosophicaly, I am a conservative. But the GOP is losing someone like me. I know of many who have left or are just hanging on.

The Brent Bozells of the world can meet and talk about how they need to "more conservative." That's a ticket to a looong time in the wilderness.

John McCain's Classy Act

One of the reasons that I have liked John McCain is because he adheres to some old values like honor and respect. As the Arizona Senator delivered his concession speech, he did it with the grace and humility that is classic John McCain.

How we lose is just as important as how we win. If Obama showed solemity in winning, McCain showed honor in losing. Kudos to Senator McCain.

A More Perfect Union

It's hard for me to hold back tears right now. Philosophically, I am a conservative and a Republican, so some level it is sad to see the GOP lose so dramatically.

But I am also an African American. My father grew up in the Jim Crow South, and I've faced my share of racism and discrimination. Tonight, as my partner Daniel and I heard now President-elect Obama speak, I started to shed tears and that says a lot, since I don't cry that often.

I'm crying because something unimagninable happened tonight. Something I had never dream would happen anytime in the near future. A man that has skin like mine, was elected the President of a country that only a generation ago gave its former slaves full civil rights.

Maybe the most telling thing tonight as I watched the returns come in was to see when Iowa was called for Obama. The news person circled the statistic that revealed the percentage of African Americans living in the state that started Obama down this road: 2 percent. A state with 2 percent of African Americans was able to vote decisively for an African American. We may still have a long way to go, but we have really come a mighty long way.

In the coming weeks and months, the task of governing will begin. President-elect Obama will face a nation with a lot of troubles and the GOP has to begin the hard task of rebuilding again.

But for tonight, I will celebrate and wish Obama the best. I will also thank God to live in a country where a skinny kid with a funny name can become President.

And I will probably shed a few more tears.

My Choice: 2008

My partner Daniel and I went to vote at our polling station around noon today in North Minneapolis. It was nice and sunny here in Minnesota for early November, with temps in the upper 60s. Strangely, there were no lines at the station, so we went in to vote immediately...almost.

Daniel and I had moved five blocks away and we didn't think to update our the state with our new address. Thank goodness that Minnesota is one of the few states that has same-day registration, so we were able to re-register and then vote.

As I've said before, I voted for Obama for President. But I voted a split ticket, voting for Republican Norm Coleman for Senate. He is the incumbent and while most of my liberal friends can't stand him, I have appreciated his pragmatism, his ability to get things done when he was mayor of St. Paul and in his time in the Senate where he has reached accross the isle to pass legislation. It's interesting that the normally liberal Minneapolis Star Tribune endorsed Coleman. Kinda similar to Obama, I am voting because of temperment than because of specific policy.

As for Coleman's challenger, Al Franken? Well, Minnesota has already had one entertainer in Jesse Ventura that turned out to be a disaster in some cases.

More thoughts later today...

Dennis' Election Prediction

Let's see if this turns out the way I am predicting:

Madelyn Dunham

This is pretty heartbreaking, regardless of your political persuasion.

Understanding An Obamacon

Since I am now one of those "Obamacons," I wanted to ask a question to those who are questioning those who would jump ship and vote for someone that is so opposite of our views.

Daniel Larison can understand why people are upset:

the most credible pro-Obama argument that can be made is that the GOP must be held accountable and Obama is not McCain, but I still don’t think that is a persuasive case for casting a vote for Obama, much less urging others to do likewise. You have to believe strongly that a McCain Presidency would be an intolerable disaster for our country, but for the most part the people who are most inclined to believe this about him are not the ones going over to Obama. Many have hedged their Obama endorsement with paeans to the “old” McCain whom they once liked and their alleged Obama endorsements are filled with disappointment that McCain has let them down, as if to say, “I can’t believe you’re making me do this.” Pretty clearly, the Obamacon phenomenon is on the whole not really an endorsement of Obama or anything he proposes to do, which is why most of the endorsements coming from the right cannot withstand much scrutiny. That’s the whole point: the Republican ticket is so unappealing to these people that they will vote for its defeat in full knowledge that there is little or nothing to say on behalf of the man they’re electing. That is how complete Republican failure now is. Imagine how much worse it might have been had the Democrats nominated another “centrist” Southerner.

But he also thinks we are kidding ourselves:

Endorsing Obama is a vote of no confidence in the Republican Party, but in a weird way it is also an expression of what is probably utterly misguided hope that the Republicans will learn from the defeat and adjust to new political realities. It is also a failure of imagination to the extent that Obamacons sometimes rhetorically ask, “How much worse could it get?” It could get much, much worse, and Obama endorsers have put themselves in the odd position of taking on some responsibility for what is to come while having absolutely zero influence, but if it doesn’t bother them I can’t get very worked up about it.

In fact, we might be. We could be electing a very liberal president with a liberal Congress that will basically leave Obamacons high and dry. But I think instead of saying that we are setting ourselves up for a heartbreak, one should be asking why are people defecting. To put it another way, instead of mocking the people who jump off the ship, the GOP and the conservative movement should be asking why the ship is sinking. Larison aludes to this in his last paragraph:

Far more important in the aftermath than coming up with new and amusing ways to mock the Obama endorsers is an effort to understand and remedy the profound failures that made this phenomenon possible before a major realignment does occur.

Right now, that question is not being asked. That's understandable, since the leadership of the GOP is probably in denial right now. However, after Tuesday, bloggers, writers and GOP leaders need to ask what has happened to Good Ship GOP and how to best right the ship. (Pun intended.)

The truth is, people having been jumping ship long before McCain ran for President. There have been many Republicans that have been disgusted with how the GOP has run the country over the last few years. But the leadership has ignored those voices. So, the people decided to answer in a way that people would understand: by not voting for the Republican candidate and voting for the other party's candidate.

Is it silly? Maybe. I can say personally that my vote is less for Obama, than against the GOP. I don't know, how else can people send a message that things are not going right among conservatives?

Will it work? I don't know. Having the GOP lose Congress in 2006 didn't do much to help the GOP understand that it has a problem and that it needs to change.

I don't really want a liberal mandate. But the conservative movement is in such a shambles, maybe it needs to have a "time out" before it can assume leadership again.

WWRRD?*

Republicans Against 8 has released one final ad before Tuesday's vote that if approved, could ban same-sex marriage in California which has been legal since the summer. The ad goes back in time to 1978, when the Briggs Initiative threaten to ban gay teachers from teaching in schools. Ronald Reagan came out against Briggs. It then flash forwards to the present when the current governor and fellow Republican, Arnold Schwarzenegger came out against banning gay marriage:


If you know of people in California, please share this message with them.

*WWRRD stands for What Would Ronald Reagan Do?

Why Same Sex Marriage Matters (To Me)

A few weeks ago, my partner Daniel woke me out of a deep sleep. He was complaining of chest pains, so we got dressed and went to a nearby hospital. I went into emergency with him as they tried to find out if this was his heart or something else. It turned out he was having a gallbladder attack and he was scheduled to have surgery the next day.

The day of surgery, I met up with his sister and her husband and also placed a copy of Daniel's health care directive in my backpack just in case.

In the end, everything turned out okay, but all through the experience I was wondering how the medical staff would look at me, who in their eyes had no legal standing. Lucky for us, when we explained that we were partners, the staff treated us with kindness.

When some fellow Republicans and other conservatives talk about how same sex marriage will destroy society as they know it, I wonder if they think about something as mundane as hospital visits. You see, I was lucky in that Daniel and I live in an area where there is some tolerance for gays (I guess liberals do have their uses at times). And we were lucky that we were able to afford the $900 we had to pay a lawyer to make sure we had the right to make medical decisions on each other's behalf.

But that's all that we have: luck and the ability to pay for some legal protection. If we lived in area that was not as tolerant or didn't have good-paying jobs, we would have been in big trouble.

Heterosexual couples get these protections simply by signing a marriage license. But same sex couples don't enjoy those privileges automatically.

Many of my fellow conservatives see Daniel and I as a threat to society. But that fact is, same sex couples are doing something that is fundamentally conservative: wanting to enter in to the institution of marriage. We want to form stable families like our parents did.

There was a time when many gay people didn't even think of marriage or when they did, they might have seen it as a repressive tool. But these days, as we have become more open and more mainstream, we want to form life-long partnerships with each other.

I want to know how in the world Daniel and I can be a threat by simply wanting to make sure we see each other in the hospital or make sure we can get each others benefits upon death or other boring things like that.

If a church doesn't want to marry same sex couples, they are free to do so and I would defend that right. It's the conservative thing to do. But I want to have the right to legally marry my husband and be left alone. That's the conservative thing to do as well. Why do people who claim to want small government, want to have the same government decide who can get married and who can't? Isn't that government activism, something that is not very conservative?

My Dad grew up in Jim Crow Louisiana. He has told me that when he first moved to my native Michigan, he would sometimes drive down South to visit his mom. In Michigan, my Aunt Nora would fix a basket of food for him to eat on the way down, and his mother would do the same thing in Louisiana for his return trip. Why? Because in the 1950s, he couldn't pull over and stop at a restaurant for food, since they didn't serve blacks. He also couldn't stop at hotel for the same reason, which meant taking a snooze on the side of the road.

I know that those who are opposed to same sex marriage and for things like the amendment in California don't like being called bigots. They say this about larger issues. But the fact is, the only reason one would support such an amendment is because they have a problem with being gay. There is just no way around that.

Same sex marriage matters because we are talking about my life and the life of my partner and many of my gay friends who are also partnered. It's simply about our lives and the freedom to live our lives without interference from the State.

That sounds conservative to me.

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy

We haven't even voted yet and there are people thinking about 2010.

One of the things that I have noticed over time is that the hard left in the Democratic Party is acting very eerily to the far right in the GOP: looking for those who don't fit their agenda and taking them out via elections.

The Hill Newspaper is reporting that a new progressive group backed by two unions, MoveOn.org and two liberal bloggers are planning to target centrist Democrats in 2010 by running progressive candidates against them:

The Accountability Now coalition, whose members include the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), MoveOn.org and the United Steelworkers of America, plans to target members of Congress who waver on their agenda. The group is raising money to fund progressive primary challengers in 2010.

Created by liberal bloggers Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com and Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake, the Accountability Now political action committee has already raised $500,000 since starting up in March. The group hopes to press Democrats to use their majorities to pass liberal legislation and work with a White House occupied by Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

“A lot of people see this as the way to make sure Obama is able to do what he wants to do,” Hamsher said.

Progressives in the party are trying to make sure that wayward Dems tow the party line or else face a challenge.

Republicans have long had "witch hunts" to get rid of people who were not conservative enough. I think that has diminished the party in the long run, because it is the appeal to the center that wins elections, not trying to be pure enough.

What these progressive activists fail to see is that appealing to the center is what has made Senator Obama so popular and has brought the party back into power. You think they would have learned that by now.

H/t: Poligazette

Notes from a Disgruntled Hollywood Conservative

My partner told me about this post by Los Angeles Times blogger Patrick Goldstein, where he interviews Michael DeLuca, a Hollywood conservative (a rarity) who is leaning towards Obama in this year's race, but grudgingly. His words read like something I would say, heck it IS something I said. He liked McCain, but wonders what happened to the McCain of 2000:

As much as I’ve been impressed by Barack Obama’s ascension, I was sure that this year would be an easy call for me. McCain would have been my choice in 2000 had he survived the South Carolina bloodbath and won the nomination, and I was looking forward to having a chance to vote for him this time around. Then a funny thing happened on the way to the election. The McCain of 2000 vanished, and the man on the left who was supposed to stand for a new kind of politics proved he could pander with the best of them, in a decidedly old style of politics. Where to go now? What to do? Anguish has set in.

After the incompetence and cronyism of the last four years, fours years that I admittedly voted for, I swore to myself that this time I would be extremely well versed in all the issues and every candidate’s positions. I watched every single primary debate on both sides, I’ve read every op-ed piece, seen every pundit, heard every radio talk show host and devoured issue after issue of the Economist and Foreign Affairs. Through it all I’ve watched McCain 2008 with increasing alarm. The move to the hard right, that convention, the stutter-step on the economic crisis, the robo-calls, Palin’s positions and lack of gravitas, they’ve all stopped me in my tracks. There’s something more emotional than policy at work on me here. It may be shallow, but it’s affecting my gut and it has to do with the “type” of leader these men are revealing themselves to be. Disappointingly partisan and not transformative or maverick enough by half.

But don't count him as someone who is look at Obama with rose-colored glasse, either. He thinks both candidates are not ideal by a long shot:

Obama’s initial painting of McCain as out of touch and caught in a perpetual “senior moment” insulted my intelligence and offended my sense of fairness, as has McCain’s shocking effort to paint Obama as anti-American. When I want to believe the myth of “Obama the messiah,” he opens his mouth and sounds an awful lot like the hell-spawn of Jimmy Carter and George McGovern. When I want to believe in the McCain of 2000, the man who decried the “agents of intolerance,” he then goes out and seeks their endorsements. Like many Americans, I operate out of a base of centrist common sense. It makes sense to me to not raise corporate taxes in the middle of a recession if you want to protect job creation and lower the risk of inflation. It makes sense to me not to give tax refunds to people who pay no income tax. It makes sense to me to not afford regimes like Iran the same treatment you’d give countries like the former Soviet Union.

On the other hand, common sense also tells me it is blasphemous to threaten something as sacred as the U.S. Constitution by suggesting we use it to deny people equal rights on the basis of sexual orientation. Common sense tells me it’s about time the right stops calling evolution a “theory.” It’s not. Common sense tells me not to trust the government to get between a woman and her doctor on reproductive rights, nor to trust it with the power of life and death in the form of the death penalty. I want the government to keep its boot off my neck, hands out of my pocket, eyes out of my bedroom, I want it to keep the playing field fair so people can achieve and not just collect handouts, and I want it to keep us safe. That’s it. That’s a common sense role for government. Where’s that candidate?

Where, indeed. But maybe the part of the interview that was telling was this:

Maybe it is unrealistic of me to be a pro-choice, pro-school voucher, anti-affirmative action, pro-business, pro-environment, pro-gay marriage, anti-death penalty, pro-globalization, pro-universal health care, pro-tax cuts, anti-pork barrel spending, pro-war on terror Republican, but that’s where I am.

I think this sentence is telling because it sums up what is wrong with the GOP and the conservative movement as a whole: it has become rigid, only wanting people who line up with some imaginary checklist on who is a conservative and who is not, instead of trying to build a coalition of people who may not agree on everything, but agree on many issues.

The people who are falling over themselves at the sight of Sarah Palin seem more than willing to let people like this go by the wayside and vote for Obama. The enemy of good is the perfect, and that is what is going to determine how long the GOP stays in its well-deserved wilderness.

The Idea of Sarah

Danielle Crittenden, the wife of conservative writer, David Frum, is putting a lie to the belief among some conservatives that the only people against VP candidate Sarah Palin are elitist snobs who go to Ivy League Schools. But Ms. Crittenden is no such person. She never went to college, having gone straight into the family business of running a newspaper and becoming an "ink-stained wretch." She says that she like the idea of the Alaskan governor:

I love the idea of Sarah Palin. She conforms to an early American (and pre-feminist) ideal of womanhood: rifle on one hip, baby on the other. I love her modern incarnation of this ideal, complete with Sex-in-the-Tundra wardrobe and kick-ass Jimmy Choos (even if they are paid for by the RNC). I love the idea she represents "common sense" over fancy-pants theorizing. I love -- and certainly identify with -- her real world, "out there" experience over her opponents' closed-off years in Washington. Truly, there are few women I'd rather share a beer with.

On that note, I would agree. I like the idea of this folksy, gutsy woman who is tough as nails. The whole "hockey mom-field dress a moose-pistol packin' mama" thing is certainly appealing. That said, I agree with Crittenden when she says:

The problem is that the reality of Sarah Palin does not match the idea of Sarah Palin. It's as plain as day -- glaringly obvious! -- that she's unfit for the job she's running for. We wouldn't expect the best darn regional car saleswoman to be appointed the next vice president of General Motors. We wouldn't fly in a commercial plane piloted by someone with a Cessna license because we trusted her gut. We wouldn't follow a woman into battle because she's a crack shot at moose hunting. Why is it unreasonable -- or snobbish! -- to have expected a better choice from our party for the next potential leader of the free world?

And please don't reply with, "The other side doesn't have experience either!" That's an argument you can make without having graduated from elementary school.

I think part of the problem that I see is that many on the Right, especially the hard right are in love with idea of Palin and think that anyone be just one heartbeat away from the presidency. But conservatives are supposed to be realists, and the reality to me is that she is way out of her league and saying so, should not make you an elitist.

It's fine and dandy to pick someone from outside the Beltway, but they should at least have some idea who what they are doing, and so far, Ms. Palin hasn't gone beyond the act we first saw at the GOP convention.

Ideas are great and necessary. But our ideas also have to stand up to reality and the idea of Sarah just doesn't cut it.

(By the way, I went to Michigan State University, hardly an Ivy League school.)

Two More Ads from Republicans Against 8

Republicans Against 8, an initiative by Log Cabin Republicans to defeat the California proposition that would ban same-sex marriage has released two more ads: "Join Us," and "Defending Freedom."

Here is how both ads are described:

“We are Friends, We are neighbors…We are Republicans, We Are
Democrats,” states, “Join Us,” one of the newest ads produced by Republicans
Against 8. “Join Us” features a cast including Log Cabin members Steven Sion,
Carol Newman, and Len Greco, West Hollywood Chamber of Commerce Chairman Joe Clapsaddle and Here! TV Network stars Brian Nolan and David Moretti...

Speaking directly to straight Californians, “Defending Freedom” highlights the accomplishments of gay and lesbian Californians in protecting the rights of their fellow Americans. Former U.S. Prosecutor Carol Newman, Boeing Rocket Scientist Sherry Green and Vietnam Veteran Paul Fredrix talk about their role in protecting the freedoms of their fellow Americans, then ask their fellow Californians to defend their freedoms by voting “NO” on Proposition 8.

And here are the two ads:





Even if you don't live in California (and I don't), this is an important issue, especially for me and many my friends. Please consider donating to either Republicans Against 8 or the the No on 8 Campaign.

Why I'm (Grudgingly) Supporting Obama

One more rat is leaving the ship...

This is not the easiest post for me to write. I am at heart, a moderate Republican, a conservative. I have been involved with the party and have supported GOP candidates. I'm not looking forward to the coming Democratic tsunami that's coming. I have many liberal friends and I'm married to one, but that doesn't mean I always agree with them- which is why I am a Republican.

I also like John McCain. McCain has been a committed conservative and a reformer. He has been a leader when it comes things like climate change and immigration at a time when many in the party seem to put their heads in the sand at such issues. He also has a long history of reaching accross the isle and working with his ideological opposite in order to get things done. When he uses the slogan, "Country First" in his campaign, I know it speaks to his willingness to put his love of country over simple partisanship.

I want to vote for John McCain, I really do. I've given money to his campaign, I supported him in the Caucuses. But in recent days, I have found that I just can't pull the level for Mr. McCain. Not this time.

Running for President is basically a two-year job interview. We get to see how these people react during the interview and we make up our mind as to who can best do the job. For a long time, I thought the best person would be McCain, with his experience and knowledge especially on issues like foreign policy. But over time, McCain has made some mistakes and Mr. Obama has played a better hand that has made me think this guy could at least do a good job as President, even if he is a Democrat.

So, what has made me look at the young Senator and bypass someone that I consider an American hero? There are a few, that I have mentioned before, but I will repeat them again:

Sarah Palin. I've said it before, but I will repeat it again: she is just not ready. McCain made a lot of mistakes in this campaign, but picking the Alaskan governor was among the worst. She might fire the imagination of the true believers, but she has lost the moderates in the GOP and independents. McCain might have thought picking this "maverick" would have picked up some votes among independents and women, but as well have seen, her red meat rhetoric has turned many people off. She is now making forays into support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and has even had trouble saying that abortion clinic bombers are terrrorists, bring the stinging rebuke of conservative blogger Rick Moran of being a "moral coward." McCain just didn't do proper vetting of Palin and will end up costing him the White House and it also might permanently damage his reputation.

The Financial Bailout. When McCain said that he was suspending his campaign in late September to take part in negotiations in the financial "bailout" package, I thought this was a noble idea: signature McCain putting country first. It turned out to be a disaster. As the New York times has shown, he hardly said anything as the House GOP was balking. There is also no record of him working with Democrats on the package. McCain has a storied history of working accross the isle to get things done. He could have done that here; working to bring both sides together. And yet, what he did was nothing but show. When the package failed a few days later, it was McCain who had egg on his face, while Obama looked cool under pressure. If McCain could fail this test, then what would happen as President?

Lack of Policy. Yes, McCain is a hero. Yes, he is a maverick. But the decision to run soley on biography when the GOP brand was in the toilet was a mistake. He could have gone the route of French President Sarkozy who also had to run against a very unpopular predecessor and against a rock-star Socialist rival. But he chose not to. He could have ran as he tried to in 2000 as a different kind of Republican that could salvage the party and lead in a new direction. But that would require new ideas and new policies. He offered very little, which allowed the Democrats to tar him as Bush II. I have yet to read the Times piece about the campaign, but reports say that for the most part, McCain and his campaign were about repackaging and repackaging McCain and not concerned with proposing new ideas and new ways to jump start the GOP and move it towards the wide center.

Not tending towards his base. McCain had a base-among moderate Republicans, Reagan Democrats and independents. He could have ran on this base and created a new GOP coalition for the 21st century. But instead, he ran on the old Christian Right base which tends to skew old and male. Yes, I know that some of the commentators would say that this was suicide. But since we are now seeing political suicide happen, one has to ask, it is more important to widen the base, create a movement, or rely on the same old, same old? The reason that moderates like Colin Powell, William Weld, Arne Carlson and several others are jumping ship is because McCain failed to cultivate a relationship with his "base." So, like a person spurned by their lover, they find another with flowers and open arms.

The debates. Actually, it was the second and third debates. I remember being 11 years old and watching the 1980 debate between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Reagan was the picture of cool, while Carter seemed off his game. Fast forward 28 years later, and it is Obama that shows a sense of maturity that looked presidential, while McCain seemd unsure of himself and trying to please too many people. A telling moment in the third debate, was when the subject of abortion was brought up. McCain seemed to not know which message to bring up. He shared that he had voted for Ruth Bader Ginsberg,a liberal who supports abortion rights, and then try to shore up his pro-life bona fides. He wanted to show he was willing to be the maverick and also be the loyal Republican on the same issue. It didn't work. I'm not saying one can't be pro-life and vote for a pro-choice judge, it's just that he didn't come off as confident. Perception is reality and McCain didn't come off as presidential during the debates, but came off as petty and small-something I thought I'd never say about John McCain.

While I am supporting Obama, it is with trepidation. I worry that once in office he will veer too far to the Left, pleasing the Democratic base. I can only hope that with so much support from independents and Republicans, that he will realize that he has to govern from the center or face a backlash in 2010.

As David Brooks said, John McCain would have made an awesome president. He is and will always be a hero to me. But he became a prisioner of a GOP that seems blind to seeing that it needs to become a movement again, reaching towards the center- instead of a party of resentment and exclusion.

So, with sadness and hope, I will vote for Obama. Hoping the Illinois Senator will listen to the center and sad at what might have been with John McCain.

Sorry, Senator McCain. I just can't pull the lever for you.

Republicans Against 8

The common perception is that the GOP is anti-gay. While there are many Republicans who are homophobic, there are also many who are very gay-friendly and willing to stand up for gay rights and in this case against Proposition 8, the proposal that would ban gay marriage in California.

One such person is Tom Campbell a former Republican legislator in California. He says:

Republicans believe deeply that government should be limited. Government has no business making distinctions between people based on their personal lives. That's why, as a Californian and a Republican who has held elective office at the federal and state levels, I will be voting No on Proposition 8...

We've seen the walls fall down that once stood against women's rights; the same has been true for racial equality. When my mother was born, women still couldn't vote in many states. When I entered school, black and white couples couldn't get married in many states. It's easy to forget those things, but it wasn't all that long ago. Someday, we'll tell our children that, when two adults in our state who wanted to get married were told they couldn't, we had the chance to change that. I want to be able to tell the next generation that I was part of ending discrimination, not making it a permanent part of the law.

It's important that Republicans stand up to the discriminatory forces.

Log Cabin Republicans of California has taken part in the effort against Proposition 8 called Republicans Against 8. They have released two ads, including this one called "Backwards:"

Cheers to Campbell and other straight Republicans for their willingness to stand up for people like myself and my partner.

Colin, John and Me

I look up to Colin Powell.

He's a fellow black man that happens to be a moderate Republican like myself. When there was speculation back in the mid-90s that he might run for president, I was hopeful. Here was a black man who had a real shot at the White House. When he became Secretary of State under Bush, I was excited that we had our first African American Secretary of State, a black man sharing the world stage.

But it wasn't sheer racial pride that has made me an admire of the former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He was a moderate in his party. Save one other person, he was the head of a more moderate face of the party, one that was inclusive and spoke to our dreams and hopes and not simply our fears.

So, when Colin Powell decides to break with his party and support Barack Obama, that says something to me.

It's not as Rush Limbaugh says about a black guy supporting a black guy. What is says is how the GOP has lost centrists and independents that are key to helping the party win. If it were simply race, then Powell would have endorsed him long ago. No, this is about the dead end that the GOP, Colin Powell's party, MY party has reached- it has done everything to focus on the base and the result come November 4 is that it will for a time, be an undignified rump,having scared off everyone that could have made it a winning party.

When this election season began in January, I was pulling for John McCain. He was the only one that I wanted. When it was Minnesota's turn to vote, I supported him in the GOP caucus. I knew that he had a good environmental record and a solid history of reaching accross the isle. I knew he was a centrist conservative that could bring our nation together.

But he had to face the current GOP and that meant changing. I tired to hang on, knowing that this is what one has to do to get elected. The election is the silly season.

But what has soured me on McCain is what has soured Powell- the choice of a someone that isn't ready to be President. Maybe McCain thought he had to please his base. But in doing so, he scared off moderates and independents and even a few conservatives in the long run.

And maybe that shows one of the mistakes of the McCain campaign: he forgot to take care of HIS base: moderates and independents, moderate Republicans and Democrats that appealed to his way of governing. His focus on drilling, allowed Democrats to effectively paint him as against the environment when his record suggested otherwise. His willingness to focus on tax cuts, something he once opposed, again allowed his opponents to paint him as a big spender. Both moves frustrated his original supporters.

During the final debate, McCain said that he wasn't President Bush and that Senator Obama should not run against the President. One wonders, why didn't he say something like that six months ago? What if he proposed a new agenda, a new conservatism?

Like Mr. Powell, I still think McCain is a good person at heart. But he has not given people like Powell and myself a reason to support him. I think Powell's decision is something that is taking place among many Republicans tired of shenanigans of the last few years. Many of us hoped the Arizona Senator would chart a new course, but it didn't turn out the way we expected.

What Limbaugh and to some extent, McCain, miss is that moderates and independents are important to a party's success. The old strategy of the base plus one can't cut it.

Ronald Reagan showed us a conservatism that was inclusive and expansive. For some reason, his followers in the GOP have missed that message. In his 1977 speech called "The New Republican Party," Reagan had this to say:

And just to set the record straight, let me say this about our friends who are now Republicans but who do not identify themselves as conservatives: I want the record to show that I do not view the new revitalized Republican Party as one based on a principle of exclusion. After all, you do not get to be a majority party by searching for groups you won’t associate or work with. If we truly believe in our principles, we should sit down and talk. Talk with anyone, anywhere, at any time if it means talking about the principles for the Republican Party. Conservatism is not a narrow ideology, nor is it the exclusive property of conservative activists.

McCain forgot to widen the base. Maybe he has been listening to his consultants or hemmed in by the far right, but it shows that we Republicans have forgotten what Reagan told us so long ago.

What I hope is that after this election, the seeds of a new Republican party is born. I still believe in the GOP and still think it can change for the better. Yeah, I know that makes me a fool, but I am a conservative and this is my home.

In the end, Colin Powell had to do what he had to do: stand on principle and be true to himself. I just wish that was something John McCain had done.

Great Depression 2.0, Meet New Deal 2.0

The reason that John McCain and the rest of the GOP is failing this year is not because of media bias, or dirty tricks by the Obama campaign, but because conservatives have run out of ideas. McCain has never been an idea person, hoping that people would elect him on his august resume.

But you can only go without new ideas for so long, which is why the GOP is getting its head handed to them come November.

But I tend to think this is a Republican lost and not a Democratic win meaning, just because the GOP isn't doing so well, that doesn't mean that Democrats have new ideas ala Bill Clinton in 1992.

The Democrats have pretty much abandoned the "New Democrat" strategy, which placed a more centrist face on the party. It was that willingness to co-opt conservative ideas that gave Clinton two terms in the White House. But the base thought such moves were nothing more then "Republican-lite" and have worked to cast the Democrats in a more traditional liberal mold. Because of that, and because of the utter failure of the GOP under George W. Bush, we have a Democatic party running on policies that are 70 years old.

Politico is reporting that Democratic lawmaker see a need to bring back some of the programs that had their start in the Great Depression. Call it New Deal: The Next Generation.

With visions of a massive liberal majority in the next Congress and the power to remake economic policy for the next generation, Democrats are dusting off their New Deal history books and openly discussing the idea of re-engineering Depression-era agencies for the 21st century.

Several lawmakers want to bring back the Home Ownership Loan Corp., and others have discussed resurrecting the defunct Reconstruction Finance Corp., a federal program that made direct loans to businesses. Others see a lame-duck stimulus bill less as a short-term cash infusion for the economy and more as a long-term, government-driven jobs creator — a kind of modern Works Progress Administration that invests in infrastructure, bridges and roads.

The recent mess on Wall Street has led some to think that desparate times call for desparate measures and so we get this supposed New Deal sequel.

I think it can be wise to look at what worked in the past, and since the New Deal has been such an important part of history for the Dems, that makes sense. But it seems like they are trying to recreate some golden past instead of trying to work for the future. My personal feelings on government intervention aside, maybe some New Deal-style programs would make sense, but the fact is, we don't have the economy we had in 1933. Also, it's still murky as to whether or not a depression is an outcome. A lot of experts think we are headed more towards 70s-style recession than 30s-style depression. So, if that's what we are headed for, does it make sense to have such a big response?

I'm not saying the government should have no role. In such a crisis as this, government needs to have a role to keep us from entering a 21-century depression. But I wonder if this dream to establish a Second New Deal is overkill. The Dems need to come up with ideas that fit the current times.

The GOP have no ideas and that's bad. But to have the Dems dust off old ideas isn't any better and voters can only take that track for so long.

Long Time, No Post

I know, it's been a while since I've posted here. I've been posting a lot over at the Moderate Voice as one of the few center-right voices. I've also been trying a tandem post thing at the Square Deal, but don't know how long that will last. Here are a few examples of what I've been doing:

• John McCain, Sarah Palin and Gay Rights

• Sarah Palin on Hot-Button Issues

• GOP and Diversity

I haven't decided if I'm going to start blogging here again, but I just might. Stay tuned.

Obama-Drama and the McCain Drain

Just a couple of interesting articles:

• John B. Judis thinks that Obama's "new-politics" is looking more like the old McGovern coalition and that might spell trouble in November.
• Salon's Walter Shapiro has an article that Obama is having trouble closing the deal with Democrats.

On the Republican side. You'd think John McCain would be doing rather well with Hillary and Obama fighting each other. You'd think wrong.

• Jonathan Cohn thinks Democrats need to chill about all the intraparty fighting going on. His reason. Just look at McCain's poll numbers.
• Ross Douthat agrees.

The Way We Were...And Are

Around 1977 or so, my dad and I started going to this barbershop on Detroit Street in my hometown of Flint, Michigan. It was called Eddie and Earl’s Barbershop and it was your typical African American barbershop, if such a thing exists. Black men from all walks of life would come to this shop to get their hair cut, especially for church on Sunday.

While I was waiting my turn and reading copies of Jet and Ebony magazines, I remember seeing a poster that caught my attention. It read: BLACK IS BEAUTIFUL.

Those words were important back then. It was the 70s and the civil rights movement of the 60s was a very recent memory. I remember grown-ups sporting Afros and celebrating Black Pride. My mom bought encyclopedias on Black History to remind me that my people had a proud past. After centuries of being told by this country that we were dirt, Blacks in America starting feeling good about themselves.

It was during that time that black pastors like Jeremiah Wright took the pulpit preaching black liberation. While I’ve had mixed feelings on liberation theology, it was an attempt to see that the words of God were not simply about the “sweet by and by” but about justice here and now. I can imagine his words against a nation that prided itself in being ordained by God were a breath of fresh air to blacks as well as a few liberal whites.

My problems with Rev. Wright’s words are not that he isn’t patriotic enough. Christians place God first, not the flag. What does bother me is that his words reflect a nation that doesn’t exist anymore.

This is not to say that America has licked its racial problem. That will take time to solve and we still have issues (such as people who think hanging a noose is funny). But the fact is, America has changed in many ways. In the 1950s, my Dad couldn’t get a hotel room when he was traveling. He faced overt discrimination growing up in Louisiana. Today, he can stay in a hotel room in Tennessee and get a hot meal at a restaurant.

The America that Wright has preached about is one that seems irredeemably racist. It will always treat blacks as second-class citizens. It is an America without hope.

But the fact is, this society has changed. Overt discrimination is no longer in fashion. Blacks hold high positions in political office. And of course, a black man is running for President. Black America demanded the United States live up to its words and it did - for the most part.

I think that’s what bothers me about Rev. Wright as well as others: it’s as if the achievements of the last 40 years never happened. No, we can’t rest on those laurels, but we shouldn’t ignore them either.

Maybe Rev. Wright’s words made sense when Black America was still trying to find its voice, it’s self-esteem. Maybe those words were needed when White America turned a blind eye to its own hate. But I don’t know if they are needed now. To look at what words are needed now, one can only look at the man that has sat in the pews of Rev. Wright’s church: Barack Obama. I don’t always agree with him politically, but his words of hope and unity talk about the best in this country and that together, black and white and everything else, we can tear down the remaining walls of discrimination.

On the Wright Controversy

You can read what I think about the Obama-Wright controversy by going to the Moderate Voice.

Life Imitates Art and Visa Versa

A few bloggers and other media folk have noticed that this presidential campaign seems to strangley follow the last two seasons of NBC's The West Wing, where a fictional presidential campaign took place. According to Slate, the similarities of the character Matt Santos, an idealistic Latino congressman from Texas and Senator Barak Obama is not by accident. Check out this video from Slate to learn more.


I feel the need to go to a store and buy those last two seasons.

The Brain- Dead Republicans

It's been nearly seven months since the bridge collapse here in Minnesota. Right or wrong, it has become a symbol of our crumbling transportation infastructure.

For several years, transportation has been a burning issue. We were slow to light rail transit, and our freeways, built when the Twin Cities was a much smaller metro area, are full. Governor Tim Pawlenty (a potential VP candidate for John McCain), has taken a strong "no new taxes" pledge to the delight of hard core conservatives. Of course, a government has to do things like maintain roads, so Mr. Pawlenty has decided to use bonding bills to pay for some improvements, which is basically putting things on a credit card to pay someday. The Democrats, with the help of a few Republicans, crafted a bill that would raise the gas tax by five cents (something that hasn't been done in twenty years) , add to the sales tax in the metro area to pay for transit and raise license fees for new cars. The bill was vetoed by the Governor, but was overidden by the House.

The result for the dissident Republicans was that they were punished, losing leading leadership positions and quite possibily facing intra-party challenges.

I share this because it is part of the problem with the Republican party these days: it can't tolerate independence. The party of the man that once said, "The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor," seems more interested in making sure everyone toes the line to what they think is party orthodoxy.

Of course, it is important to have some sense of ideological cohesion. Ideology gives some framework to a political party. But ideology should be loose fitting lest it be a straight jacket.

And the analogy of a straight jacket makes some sense: those who seek purity tend to stop thinking. You don't have to use your brain if all you do is adhere to party tenets all the time.

This is why John McCain is still not loved by the hard core conservatives: he's willing to think for himself. He is definitely conservative, but in a democracy where one works with others who don't share the same views, he works with Democrats to get legislation passed. Things get done, but he angers the hard core because he isn't upholding the party line.

To me, such thinking is proof of a party in decline, a party turned in on itself. Punishing heretics might make one feel good, but after a while people start falling away. That's what has been happening to the GOP for years. People get tired of being called "RINOs" and traitors and walk away. I know a fair number of people who have left the GOP because of such narrow thinking.

Frankly, it's way past time for a Republican Reformation. There need to be new ideas to fit the times. But it might take losing this year and in 2010 and in 2012 for the GOP to see it needs to become the party of ideas again.

Myers-Briggs: The Presidential Edition

Emily Yoffee has an article up about the personalities of Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama and John McCain. If you've ever done Myers-Briggs, you will understand it.

For the record my personality type is INTJ.

Will Obama Really Appeal to Centrists?

Barak Obama fascinates me.

He can give speeches like no one else in a long time. As I've said before, he reminds me a of many a black preacher I heard growing up. He's a black man that seems to appeal beyond African Americans to persons from various walks of life and states that have low concentrations of African Americans.

But he also troubles me.

Not in some sinister way, but in the way Centrist, including a few Republicans are falling in love with him. He seems to be picking up independents in the same way that John McCain is. In fact, the Illinois Senator is looked at in the same way as the Senator from Arizona, someone that can attract people from the other party. However, as far as I can tell, and I repeat, as I far as I know, while Mr. Obama's cross party appeal is big on style and short on substance, while Mr. McCain is the opposite.

Obama has one of the more liberal records in the Senate. In some case, that's not a big deal. McCain is far more conservative than people assume. What is different is that McCain has reached out to the other side at the risk of offending the GOP base. He was part of the "Gang of 14." He reached out to Sen. Ted Kennedy, liberal icon/archenemy to craft an immigration deal that brought the wrath of many on the hard right. Many in the base don't like him because time and time again he has gone his own way.

Froma Harrop explains:

He had the fiscal discipline to vote against the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, and the decency to complain that they unfairly favored the rich. He's OK on the environment, concerned over global warming and against oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He supported tighter fuel-economy standards and opposes torture. John McCain is not an embarrassment.

Then there is Obama. David Brooks offers his record:

Does The Changemaker have the guts to take on the special interests in his own party — the trial lawyers, the teachers’ unions, the AARP?

The Gang of 14 created bipartisan unity on judges, but Obama sat it out. Kennedy and McCain created a bipartisan deal on immigration. Obama opted out of the parts that displeased the unions. Sixty-eight senators supported a bipartisan deal on FISA. Obama voted no. And if he were president now, how would the High Deacon of Unity heal the breach that split the House last week?

Now, McCain could back away from his maverick persona as he has done on some occasions and that could spell trouble come November. But the thing is, McCain at least has a record of making his party's base mad for not always being the loyal solider. Obama hasn't done that.

In recent blog entry, my fellow blogger, Jeremy Dibbell wrote about seeing Obama in Boston. He really like the candidate and he explains what it was like to see the Senator:

Was it worth it? You bet. It's not every day that one has the opportunity to hear (and spottily see) the governor, two senators, a presidential candidate and 10,000 friends, all ready for a new kind of politics, a new way of doing things, and a new vision for America.

Maybe Jeremy sees something I don't, but it's hard to see how Obama will do things differently. Don't get me wrong; even though I am a Republican, I would like to believe Obama could bring about a politics of unity instead of one of division. But I do wonder if Obama is the centrist hope. His actions don't seem to live up to his words.

McCain's Decent Conservatism

As I was coming home tonight, I listened to some of John McCain's victory speech after winning today's Potomac Primaries. I found the speech interesting, because it seems to offer a window into John McCain's philosophy and character. I could be totally wrong, but he seems to offer a more decent and civil conservatism that is far different from the stuff we are used to hearing.

He does go after the Democrats, but he seems to express what is wrong with their ideas instead of saying that they are evil. He expresses a desire for small government, stating that government isn't the answer to every problem, but without all the anti-government rhetoric. He is willing to listen to those who disagree with him.

There is no talk about "family values" or other hot button issues.

This is a face of the GOP that I think many people would like to see; a party that is dedicated to small and efficient government, one that is strong on defense and willing to work with the opposition for the common good. This is a message that can reach across party lines and attract independents.

McCain is far from perfect. His more tempered brand of conservatism might be too little too late after eight years of a disastrous Republican presidency. But at least for tonight, I saw a Republican and conservative that I could be proud of.

McCain, the American Sarkozy?

John Fund of the Wall Street Journal, offers up a very good reason why John McCain could win in November and it's because he is appealing to independents and Democrats. That might seem strange, since Obama-fever, but Fund explains:

How could that be? The answer is that the same maverick streak and occasional departures from conservative orthodoxy that make conservatives queasy have the opposite effect on independents and even some Democrats. Mr. McCain's favorable numbers with independents exceed those of Barack Obama, who has emphasized his desire to work across party lines.

The self professed establishment of the GOP, the Limbaughs, Coulters and Hannitys think that to win it is important to be as right wing as one can be. They don't seem so concerned of the fact that they only represent a small faction of electorate.

Fund notes that only McCain can make inroads into the so-called "Blue States" and also hold the "Red States."

Fund then makes the case that McCain is the American version of Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President. His predecessor, Jacques Chircac was very unpopular and the Socialist candidate was offering change. Here is what Fund says:

In some ways Mr. McCain resembles Nicolas Sarkozy, the French conservative who won last year's presidential election even though the retiring president, Jacques Chirac, was unpopular and a member of his own party. "Like Sarko, who was of Chirac's party but not of Chirac, America's swing voters have intuited over the years that there is little love lost between McCain and George Bush," says the blog Race42008.

Mr. Sarkozy was able to convince a majority of French voters that he represented real change that would improve conditions, while his socialist rival, Segolene Royal, represented risky change that could make matters worse. That is precisely the challenge Mr. McCain faces this year against Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

I tend agree with the viewpoint. Of course, anything can happen, but McCain has a better shot at the White House because he appeals to people beyond the Republican base.

In short, it comes down to doing the math.

If Romney won the nomination, you would have probably have an energized base, but that's it. Independents would not vote for him and neither would Democrats. The GOP is too weak at this point to rely only on the hard right. McCain still has an allure with independents and Democrats and could swing them over to the GOP.

Why do people like Rush Limbuagh not see this?

Maybe because they are too busy listening to the sound of their own voice.

Or flunked math.

Romney:To Thine Ownself Be True

Howard Fineman has an excellent piece on the folly that was Mitt Romney's campaign.

The thing is, if he had ran as the fiscal conservative , social moderate that he did in the past, he might have been a contender. I certainly would have considered him.

But his willingness to throw gays under the bus in order to get the GOP nomination made him untouchable for me and probably for many other moderates who might have liked his managerial experience.

But he gave up trying to woo moderates and independents and instead decided to run for President of the Republican party instead of the United States.

Last December, I visited the Sloan Museum in my hometown of Flint, Michigan. There was an exhibit on the struggle to get a fair housing ordinance passed, a law that would outlaw racist practices that kept blacks from living in predominantly white areas. Demonstations took place on the lawn of city hall. In one photo, then Michigan Governor George Romney, Mitt's dad, was chatting with the Mayor of Flint. He was in favor of the fair housing ordinance and spoke in support.

Goerge Romney had courage. He was a popular governor and reminds us of a time when Republicans stood for fairness.

I have to think that somewhere out there George Romney has to be disspointed at his son's lack of courage.

Why I Don't Like Romney

Gay rights, tax cuts, gun control: Over and over in this campaign, Romney’s convenient changes of heart—whether in his actual policy positions or just in the way he talks about issues—have been well-documented. On literally every subject in which he was vulnerable to criticism from conservatives, Romney shifted his attitudes before entering the campaign, meaning he has never been in position—as McCain has often been—to have to defend an unpopular view.

And he authored a brand new chapter last night, proclaiming that Ronald Reagan would “absolutely” endorse him if the former President were still alive. Of course, when Reagan actually was alive, Romney was running around Massachusetts assuring voters that “I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”
-from the New York Observer

The funny thing is conservative blowhards are condeming McCain for his unorthodox views and yet Romney, who seemed to have a Damascus Road experience and became a social conservative gets a pass.

Romney's willingness to say anything to please the base and to never defend a position is nothing short of pure cowardice in my view. I don't care that Romney is a Mormon. That I have no problem with. It's his integrity or lack thereof, that I have a problem with.

It's a shame, because before his many flip-flops when he was still a moderate, I would have considered him.

Walk, Don't Run to the Exits

I think most of us know that at some point in the very near future, the US will start drawing down troops in Iraq. Come March we will have been in Iraq for five years. Five years.

We know that any draw down won't happen under the current President. Unlike his father, who was able to go to war and bring the troops home, the son hasn't or won't find an exit strategy for our troops.

The unknown is how we get out. Will we have a gradual withdrawl of troops, or will it be immediate? And what will be the political costs back home?

Jonathan Rauch has a good article that talks about the how best to leave Iraq. His concern is what happens if, as it is exceedingly possible, the Dems take the White House and hold on to Congress:

Then the Democrats will have a decision to make: Withdraw as quickly as possible, on party-line congressional votes? Or withdraw more slowly, at a pace that can command sizable support among Republicans—say, a majority or near-majority of them?

In short, can they not do what the Republicans did with the initial invasion: make it a partisan issue? Rauch explains one possible way the Democrats could handle leaving Iraq:

In 2009, a Democratic president might say something like this: “Every year of this administration, America will reduce its troop strength in Iraq. The downward path is nonnegotiable and ironclad. But the pace is not. If Iraqis try sincerely and strenuously to keep their country together, or if they decentralize enough to keep the peace, and if they produce results, we will help them, including militarily. If not, we’ll pull out much faster.” This is not unlike what Joe Biden has said, both as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and as a Democratic presidential candidate. It implies a faster withdrawal than Bush Republicans prefer, but a slower one than dovish Democrats demand. And my guess is that many, if not most, Republicans would go for it.

Republican hard-liners, of course, might prefer demagoguery. But grown-up Republicans would recognize that withdrawal is inevitable; they would want to be relevant; they would feel battered by the election results, and tired of incurring the public’s wrath; they would face intense pressure not to sabotage a new commander in chief who could claim the public mandate.

A Democratic President could be face with a wonderful opportunity: to help bring the nation together after 8 years of fierce partisanship. It wouldn't be something everyone would want, but it would be a way to leave carefully, which is not what we did going into Iraq.

Of course, the problem is going to be the Hard Left. They want out of Iraq yesterday and don't really care much about the consequences. A Democratic President might be made to feel that he or she owes their win to the MoveOn crowd which sees Iraq in partisan terms. If a Dem President did that, Rauch thinks the results would be disasterous, not simply for the Democrats, but for the nation as a whole:

So far in the primary campaign, Democratic presidential candidates have had a hard time keeping the door open for any American forces to stay in Iraq. If the Democrats sweep the board this year, doves will say that the public has spoken and wants change. Why in the world should they pace the withdrawal from Iraq at a rate that suits the losing party?

Yet if the Democrats were to rush for the exit with Republicans unified against them, they would be blamed by Republicans for whatever subsequent disasters befell Iraq and, for that matter, the whole disaster-prone Middle East. For years, they would face charges of having “cut and run,” which could reinvigorate the debilitating stereotype of Democratic weakness. On the other hand, a policy with significant two-party support would be less contentious, more sustainable, and thus more likely to succeed. Running the whole government, Democrats would need to care about succeeding.

Ruach concludes that any President is going to have find a way to leave Iraq and leave our country intact. Would a President Obama that has spoken about unity, be willing to work with Republicans on a pull out that will do the least harm in Iraq and help bring the country together? What would a President Clinton do?

I have no idea, but I do think we need to think long and hard about how to best leave. As I've said before, it was a mistake to rush in; it will be a mistake to rush out.

McCain and the Future of the GOP

The GOP is in trouble.

Yeah, I know, what's new? Aside from stating the obvious, the GOP is not the "party of tomorrow." It hasn't been for a long time. It has been so focused on trying to raise Ronald Reagan from the dead, that it has forgotten that times have changed.

Take tax cuts. When Reagan came into office in the 80s, the tax rates were crazy. Over time, they have come down considerably. The fact is, Republicans were sucessful. The problem is, conservatives started seeing tax cuts as the answer to all that ails us. But times have changed. People are no longer worried about Washington grabbing more and more money from us, they are concerned about health care and rising gas prices- and they know a simple tax cut isn't going to solve it.

Then there is the shrinking GOP base. Reagan was willing to open the door to a whole bunch of people who had never thought about being Republican. Not many changed, but I would gather that his message attracted many an independent and Democrat which is why he served two terms. Today, the party seems to think the GOP can win on the backs of the religious right and the Club for Growth crowd. The rise of "Tancredoism" has alienated Hispanic voters. If elections are won and lost by creating coalitions, then the GOP is making sure it won't win the next few elections.

The GOP needs to change. It has to provide an competent asnswer to pressing issues and so far, they haven't bothered to do that, except a few people...among them, John McCain.

I've supported McCain in the past, and then fell out of "love" with him for some of his social stands. But as time went on, I have come to seem him, not only as the one who can be a credible candidate for President, but one that could help expand the GOP and being about needed change in the party. As one writer notes, McCain seems to be the only GOP candidate that is courting Independents, while the others try to please the ever-shrinking GOP base.

The Republican party isn't headed for extinction, but if it doesn't really take on economic issues, if it doesn't care about expanding it's base, we can get used to Democratic dominance for quite some time.

"Yes We Can"

In the summer of 1980 I, along with my very Democratic mother watched the Republican National Convention which was being held nearby Detroit. I remember hearing the nomination speech given by Ronald Reagan. His words were stirring-stirring enough to have my mother reacting positively. She never voted for Reagan, but I can say that on that summer evening nearly 30 years ago, my mother was moved by this Republican's words.

I am wondering if we are seeing this again. I will admit, I have knocked Barak Obama. And I've been called on it. I do wonder if he is too green for the job. After dealing with a President with little experience, I am a bit hesitant to give another person with a thin resume a shot at the job.

However, there is something different about Obama. He has a charisma that is infectious and can move this moderate Republican in a way no Democrat has. I just listened to the Senator's speech in New Hampshire tonight and he made me feel like my Mom did all those years ago.

Some have said that Obama doesn't simply want to win: he wants to change the nation if not the world. I'm beginning to believe them. I also think he wants people to come along regardless of who they are. Andrew Sullivan is also noticing the Reagan-Obama connection:

Reagan was the cutting edge of the last realignment in American politics. With a good-natured, civil appeal to Democrats who felt abandoned by their own party under Jimmy Carter, Reagan revolutionised the reach of his own party.

He didn’t aim for a mere plurality, as Bill Clinton did. Nor did he try for a polarising 51% strategy, as George W Bush has done. He ran as a national candidate, in search of a national mandate, a proud Republican who nonetheless wanted Democrats to vote for him.

He came out of a period in which Americans had become sickened by the incompetence of their own government. Reagan shocked America’s elites by pivoting that discontent into a victory in 1980. And by his second term, he won 49 out of 50 states.

You can see the same potential in Obama. What has long been remarkable to me is how this liberal politician fails to alienate conservatives. In fact, many like him a great deal. His calm and reasoned demeanour, his crisp style, his refusal to engage in racial identity politics: these appeal to disaffected Republicans.

He is particularly attractive to those on the American right who feel betrayed by the Bush administration’s version of conservatism, just as many Democrats felt betrayed by Jimmy Carter’s liberalism.

I don't know if Obama has that reach; but it's looking damn close.

I think what sets this guy apart from Clinton's caution, or Edward's anger is that he is, like Reagan very optimistic about America. Like it or not, we Americans are an incredibly hopeful people, and when someone taps into our hopes, you can expect that person will win handily.

Another rap against Obama, one that I have used myself is that his record isn't that "independent." I think Alan Stewart Carl sums it up best:

A trip to the Obama website is the kind of in-depth-to-the-point-of-tedium experience you expect from any wonky Democratic website. There are plans upon plans upon plans. The Democrats, even with all their sub-species, are essentially the party that believes in the efficacy of national government. There isn’t a problem in the world that can’t be solved through federal power, and Obama’s policies do not deviate from that predilection.

Of course, a tendency towards statism does not mean Obama isn’t an independent at heart. After all, without evidence that he is deceiving us, we must assume the senator is sincere in his desire to bridge the political divides. Still, the vast majority of his policies are tried-and-true Democratic initiatives...

All the candidates talk about reforming government, but Obama’s website is the most passionate and most specific about changing the way government works. He has numerous governmental transparency initiatives which would illuminate the flow of money through our system. He wants political contributions documented and shared. He wants citizens to be able to see where federal dollars end up and who directed them there. Simply put, he wants accountability through transparency and he would use Internet technology to ensure anyone and everyone can see the money flow.

If you can categorize “independents” at all (a tricky task to be sure), you’d probably give them two qualifications. 1) a preference for new ideas that come from outside the usual party politics; and 2) a desire to reform politics and government as usual. Obama really doesn’t appeal to the first but he’s right in line on the second. Add to that his stated commitment to reinstating PAYGO, and I can see why independents are responding to his message.

It’s not that Obama is overflowing with new ideas, it’s that he’s promising responsibility at a level not offered or at least not accentuated by any other Democrat. In effect, he's saying: we’re going to do this the right way rather than continuing the closed-doors, backroom handshake system. After eight years of Bush’s hyper-secrecy and the previous eight years of Clinton’s equivocations, the promise of a new era of government disclosure and responsibility is truly alluring.

Obama is a liberal Democrat, there is no question. But what is interesting is that he doesn't use his ideology to exclude or belittle people. It is who is, and he will no doubt enact liberal policies. However, he also seems interested in getting all Americans on board, regardless of who they are. Reagan was a conservative Republican, but his rhetoric made people feel that they were included in his vision for America.

Maybe as centrists we need to stop expecting some "Centrist Messiah" who will split the difference, but instead look for someone who has a vision. Reagan had this and it seems like Obama does as well.

I'm a McCain man, but I do have respect for the Senator from Illinois.

Attack of the Moderates: This Time It's For Real?

Consider me somewhat of a curmudgeon, especially when it comes to politics these days. I used to believe that if moderates got active, things would change.

Five years of being involved in moderate Republican groups trying to get people interested and involved have tempered my idealism and made me somewhat bitter.

So, when I perused Jeremy Dibbell's blog (nice to see him posting again)today talking about a potential third party bid, I was a bit skeptical.

I still am, but I also think there is something to this.

David Broder reports in today's Washington Post, that Michael Bloomberg, the current mayor of New York who left the GOP this past summer and is now and independent is gathering a list of moderates in both parties in Oklahoma on January 7th. At first glance, this reminded me of Unity '08, the movement that is backed by old politicos that want to create a unity ticket for President. I've been leery of that movement since it seems to have no other goal than to have everybody place nice. There isn't any there there.

However, as Broder reports, this movement has some heft because of the names it carries. On the GOP side, we have people like former Gov. Christie Todd Whitman and former Senator John Danforth who co-lead the Republican Leadership Council; Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska; former Congressman Jim Leach of Iowa; former Senator and Defense Secretary William Cohen and Susan Eisenhower, a political consultant and the granddaughter of Ike.

On the Dems, we have former Senators Sam Nunn, David Boren, Chuck Robb and Bob Graham.

These aren't second string political players from the 70s, but politicians who were recently in power and have continued to have a role in public affairs.

Does this have any staying power? I don't know. Again, we have seen movements like this before, but this one has some heavy star power. What I have a problem believing is seeing Bloomberg as the candidate. I don't know, but he doesn't seem the type that could propel a centrist movement. I think at this time, we want a healer who can bring people together, but we also want someone that is a bit more charismatic than Bloomberg is. We need a leader, and he seems to much like a manager.

That said, there is someone in that group that could be a great consensus candidate and could rouse passions for a unity government: Chuck Hagel.

Hagel has the fire in belly and this would be a second chance to go after the prize after basically turning it down in March. Hagel could get enough support from Republicans, Democrats and Independents to make this movement an attractive option.

Here are what some others say:

From PoliGazette:

What many American moderates have hoped for - for years now - could very well happen: it seems that Mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg has teamed up with moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats. This group of people - who are in contact with Unity08 - has talked to several Republican and Democratic leaders, basically telling them, according to Broder at least, that if the Democrats and Republicans don’t nominate someone who reaches across the aisle, they’ll prepare an independent run.

Is that scary for both Republicans and Democrats?

Yes.

Bloomberg is a billionaire. If he starts spending his own money on a massive third party campaign he’ll pose a threat to the nominees of both parties. He could, as Americans call it, be a “spoiler.” A spoiler for who? Who knows. Could be for both in theory. In other words, Republicans and Democrats would rather not take the risk. Not only that, R’s and D’s also realize that if both parties nominate extremes (say Edwards and Huckabee) many Americans will consider voting for a third party candidate.

Especially if this third party candidate is backed by several prominent politicians from both parties and has hundreds of millions of dollars to spend for his campaign.

From Moderate Voice:

The American political process — if you include the way campaigns are run, negative campaigning, the tone of talk radio and some aspects of the blogosphere — may have disgusted enough people so that a candidate who doesn’t have the same predictable reactions, whose utterances don’t elicited the all-knowing smug wink and nod from those TV analyst talking heads and isn’t out of a politico cookie-cutter could have REAL appeal.

It looked like it could happen for Ross Perot in 1992, until he withdrew and jabbered about Republican operatives planning to disrupt his daughter’s wedding. By the time time Perot got in again, he had irretrievably lost Big Mo.

If Bloomberg does get in, many Americans open to a new option will be holding their breath — hoping he doesn’t have an engaged daughter.

At this point, I am still not holding my breath. This could just crash and burn. But it is worth keeping an eye. It would be nice to see a true centrist revolution take off.

I'll Take "Boring"

It's been a while since I've posted something vaguely political- I've been taking a break from writing directly about politics, and I've been spending more time writing about that other topic you don't talk about at parties: religion.

But something from a fellow blogger that has been also lying low has offered a post that has made me decide to come back to poliblogging, if only for a short time.

In that post, Alan Stewart Carl poo-poos the Des Moines Register's endorsement of Hilary Clinton and John McCain. The title of his post makes clear how he feel. Clinton and McCain "lack excitement." On McCain, he has this to say:

The Republicans should at least give us a race interesting enough to end in someone other than McCain. Or Giuliani. Those two have done a heck of a job obfuscating their moderate instincts while crushing their once-formidable integrity under months of transparent pandering. They might still lead national polls (Giuliani) and win establishment approvals (McCain) but I think the Republican Party will end up with someone else.

There are a few things here that bug me about his assessment of McCain. I would agree that McCain has on several occasions pandered on various issues (ie: tax cuts, intelligent design, etc.), but he has also stood his ground on several issues such as climate change and torture. And while he has wavered on immigration, he has not degenerated into the name calling that other candidates have done.

This is what the Register says:

Time after time, McCain has stuck to his beliefs in the face of opposition from other elected leaders and the public. He has criticized crop and ethanol subsidies during two presidential campaigns in Iowa. He bucked his party and president by opposing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. A year ago, in the face of growing criticism, he staunchly supported President Bush's decision to increase troop strength in Iraq.

In this campaign, he continues to support comprehensive immigration reform while watching his poll standings plunge. Some other Republican candidates refuse to acknowledge that climate change is a serious threat caused by human activity. McCain has worked on the issue for seven years and sponsored bills to limit greenhouse-gas emissions.

McCain would enter the White House with deep knowledge of national-security and foreign-policy issues. He knows war, something we believe would make him reluctant to start one. He's also a fierce defender of civil liberties. As a survivor of torture, he has stood resolutely against it. He pledges to start rebuilding America's image abroad by closing the Guantanamo prison and beginning judicial proceedings for detainees.

Is McCain perfect? No. I don't agree with his stands on gay marriage and have condemned him for it. But just as my gay liberal friends are not one-issue voters, neither am I. I want someone who also cares about the environment and is a national security hawk without going sacrificing civil liberties or damaging our image abroad. Out of all the GOP candidates, McCain stands out.

As for the Dems, well if I have to have a Democrat for President, I would rather have Clinton over Obama. It's not that Obama isn't a good politician, he is probably one of the best rhetoriticians out there. But you have to do more than move the people with words, you have to do it with action and I worry that he doesn't have the experience to really be President...yet.

Finally, the final words of Alan's post are some what troubling in my view:

I hope some excitement comes out of this insanely long election season. I have no horse as of yet, so I’m hoping some drama illuminates these carefully guarded candidates. Even if that doesn’t help me come to a decision, it’ll at least be more entertaining than the kind of election The Des Moines Register recommends.

Alan uses the words, "excitement" and "entertaining" in the last paragraph. Okay, the candidates aren't going to set the world on fire, but last I checked, I was voting for President of the United States, not the best singer on an episode of "American Idol." I am not as interested in wanting an "exciting" candidate as much as I do, a pragmatic and experienced candidate. I think it is a common feeling among centrists that we want some one that is bigger-than-life. I supported Ralph Nader in 2000 in the belief that he would shake up the system. I went with Howard Dean four years later for the same reason. Both were exciting, but in the end, they couldn't govern their way out of a paper bag.

In 2008, I am not looking for hero. I am not looking for someone that will entertain me. I want someone that will look at global warming, or work on health care, or immigration reform. McCain isn't exciting, but I think he can do that.