The Elephant’s Elephant in the Room

I'm afraid I can't really answer your request, I'm a moderate conservative who believes in small government, and I was a McCain supporter in 2000, but I refused to vote for George Bush in either 2000, or in 2004. I voted third party. When McCain became the nominee again, I was once again able to support the Republican presidential ticket.

I'm likewise very pleased with his running mate. Palin is quite a bit to the right of me on social issues, but she is a proven reformer and someone who will rule based on the Constitution first and her own beliefs second. Her record as Governor proved that when she vetoed a ban on certain gay rights after checking with constitutional lawyers.

And lets face it, the 110th Congress hasn't really done any better than the 109th Congress, despite the democrats having control over both Houses and the democrats failed to live up to their promises for the most part, just like the Republicans did. We must have a President who can unify across party lines. McCain has a history of doing this, Obama has nice words but no bi-partisan achievements of note, if at all. Obama voted with his party 96% of the time, Obama abandoned a bi-partisan ethics reform effort to go work with other democrats to make their own partisan one (remember the angry McCain letter to him?) Joe Biden voted with his party 96.6% of the time, so he wont be a big help there either.

Palin, on the other hand can help to soothe the far right when McCain moves to the middle. This gives them a certain flexibility. McCain can also call on instant support from Conservative but Reformer Tom Coburn who is well respected, and the folkes he worked with in the Gang of 14, and especially Joe Leiberman. There are plenty of Blue Dog Democrats that would be likely to respond to this, folkes like Steny Hoyer and Jon Tester, and maybe some surprises as well. Remember McCain worked on major legislation with some pretty liberal folk as well, Russ Feingold and Ted Kennedy come to mind. I just doing see Obama with the ability to reach many Republicans across the aisle aside from any of the anti-war guys like Chuck Hagel, but I think Hagel was retiring after his term is up in January.

Obama may be able to ramrod some legislation through if elected, but I don't think he will have the GOP willing to work with his non centrist platform, its just too far to the left. McCain on the other hand would have to work with a democratic Congress as an equal partner. Yes they will fight over some things, but he's won those fights before against both Republican and Democratic partisans. He is the only one who can truly unite the US government to where they can work together to unite the American people. Obama, in my opinion, cannot do this, after all, look how long it took him to unite just the democratic party, and that in fact, is still somewhat debatable.

Like Leo, I supported McCain in the Primaries in 2000. In 96 i voted third party. in 04, same as a protest vote.. Unlike Leo I cannot re-support McCain because of his switchback position. Hell I've even gotten into it with my own mother who''s a staunch arch-conservative and thinks the person is the platform- and logic says( tho she fails to grasp the nuance) is that the platform has bounced around all over the map for this guy. How can you promise change when you've towed the party line and capitulated to the radical right base? A bold decision but not a maverick one. A true maverick decision would have been to pick someone with a non Scots-irish Christian background like Romney or Pawlenty or even Jindal.
I long for the old days when it was just Republican( small government) vs Democrat(social welfare) now it's flipped totally upside down.

People forget that they'll say anything to the party faithful to get elected, and then once in office do a complete 180. Look at Clinton's liberal run vs his centrist administration. Look at Bush's compassionate conservative hooey vs. Unitary Executive. In the end, we all suffer to these career politicians. I saw a guy wearing a t shirt yesterday that said "Think first before you vote, and on the back it said "because your life depends on it" How true for a number of different reasons.
However you vote, vote with interests in mind, and not your heart ( because we all know the results of "looking into someone's heart:") because hearts are faulty.
Use your heads.

Look at past performance, then add a generous dose of partisanship, a quart of ego, 3 cups of kissing up to the donor base and a gallon of gridlock. In other words, disregard everything said in the heat of the campaign, and pray that the worst attributes of the candidate do not take hold once they have actual power.

the Republicans made a mistake starting in 2000 when Karl Rove convinced all of them that the Republicans could be a big government, big spending, pork barreling party. Karl Rove and other consultants convinced too many Republicans that budget cuts did not matter and that they could remain the majority party by using government spending, international adventures, and niche campaign strategies.

As The Atlantic Monthly pointed out in a long story, Karl Rove has no idea how policy was conducted in DC and was totally inept at policy. thus, the Republicans abandon everything they ran on in 2000 because they believe it was not important. Of course, some of the low approval ratings of the Bush Adminsitration are due to conservative being displeased.

Good article Robin, and you raise the necessary questions. This entire convention has been running on the reformer, maverick theme, but there are very, very few areas in which McCain/Palin actually diverge from Bush/Cheney. If he was in reality a reformer, a maverick, AND he hadn't chosen such an ardent and disturbing idealogue for his running mate, then I would have given him a closer look, afterall I voted for him once already. But since I look at his record and not the rhetoric, I have no choice but to vote for Obama/Biden. When all the glitter and applause and feel good talk fades away, we have to consider the state of the nation and what each candidate is genuinely going to bring to the job.

If voting for a Republican in the presidential election really is a vote for change, then what is this change from?

It's a change from the Cheap Labor, socialism for the wealthy , capitalism for the poor, deregulated economy of Shrub to the Cheap Labor, socialism for the wealthy , capitalism for the poor, deregulated economy of McSame.
It's a change from Shrub's pointless occupation of Iraq to a real war with Iran ( Real Man go to Tehran ).
It's a change from Shrub's support of Georgia to a real war with Russia.
It's a change from Shrub's occupation of Afghanistan to a real war with Pakistan.

The Republicans need to change from being like the Democrats, happy with big government (and becoming corrupt while in power, like the Democrats), which is why the Congressional Republicans were punished in 1996, to a cleaner party that wants to reduce the size and scope of Washington and reduce federal spending.

If McCalin-Palin can convince Americans they truly offer this, they deserve to win and should win.

The Republicans need to change from being like the Democrats, happy with big government (and becoming corrupt while in power, like the Democrats), which is why the Congressional Republicans were punished in 1996, to a cleaner party that wants to reduce the size and scope of Washington and reduce federal spending.

If McCalin-Palin can convince Americans they truly offer this, they deserve to win and should win.

I consider myself a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. The twin trade and fiscal deficits REALLY bother me. I am worried about Democratic excesses when they have both the white house and congress. However, the one primary thing that offsets all other worries in my mind is John McCain's hot headedness and his temptation to start more wars to offset the shame he feels about losing in Vietnam. I can easily imagine McCain bombing Iran, Syria, Pakistan and even parts of Russia. I don't think McCain has a "stop and think button" in his head.

DLS: If McCalin-Palin can convince Americans they truly offer this, they deserve to win and should win.

Perhaps they should start by examining their staff and removing the business as usual types. McCain-Palin need to walk the walk, not just talk the talk.

Kim makes a good point- I do so hope that if Obama's elected, that those things don't come to pass- though of course the opposite concern of gridlock applies, since Obama would be likely to have a nearly unstoppable majority in Congress (and we all know how honorable and trustworthy the current Dem majority Congress has been so far- just think what they can accomplish when they have no restraint!)

I'm right here with you, jdledell -- and I'm growing increasingly convinced that neither party is offering a candidate that speaks to me.

However, the addition of Palin to the GOP ticket is very off-putting -- not because I don't like her (I do). I even think she's willing to buck the status quo (if only because she hasn't a clue what the federal status quo is). It's not even because she holds extreme socon views (they are, after all, personal to her, as they should be).

It's because I haven't got a feel for how she thinks her socially conservative positions fit (or should fit) with national policy, and so far there's been absolutely zero from her about it.

In many ways my opinion is very similar to jdledell's. In a perfectly imperfect world the notion of a divided government has significant appeal, particularly when it comes to domestic many issues. After all, a president does not have total control over them. But at this point I don't trust McCain's approach to foreign policy and I don't like his attitude on Supreme Court judges.

Regarding the latter, a president Obama would have a very hard time making the SC more liberal, because the likelihood is very high that whatever opportunity he gets in that regard will be to replace liberal judges. I am also of the opinion that if Obama goes too far off the rails in terms of liberal domestic policy, there will be a backlash in the congressional elections in 2010.

CS- I think that phenomena (except maybe the gridlock in Obama's case) is the basic formula that constitutes the role of the chief executive in Washington today.

By all accounts both Clinton and Bush became more partisan, more egotistic and more accountable to big donors than when they were governors. To win the presidency in the first place you have to have, wealthy donors and an oversized ego, the poisonous partisanship in DC will do the rest.

CS- I really can't believe you are calling the Dem Congress dishonorable
---they have been angelic compared to the scandal-ridden GOP Congress that preceded them!

Excellent post, Robin.

John McCain needs to either run as a Republican, and accept both the good and the ugly of that party and the bad and the ugly of Bush's last eight years; or as the head of some "new" party of movement, that totally repudiates the failings of the Republican party during the past eight years. He can't have it both ways...