Redstate

in the "Romney Rising" thread.  As I said in my last comment there, absolutists on either the abortion or homosexual marriage issue will have plenty of ammo against Romney.

Augustine's post - with which I have little in disagreement - is "People's Exhibit A" of that ammo.

I would take issue with Romney's characterization as a "Northeastern liberal Republican", however.  Sure, he is certainly well to the left of Rick Santorum, but he's no Lincoln Chaffee, either.  Time will tell.

That said, all of this discussion is little more than wasted bandwidth if Romney fails to be re-elected in Nov '06.

But would you say he's less liberal than, say, George Pataki?

Socially, he's probably at least as liberal - though others may disagree (see the other thread on this).

Economically, certainly less.

Who would you define as a "centrist Republican"?  Just curious.  I would define Romney as such.

Is a good example of a Centrist Republican.

On just about every issue, he's slightly to the left of the President. He takes the Bob Dole (pro-life but all the exceptions) position on abortion. He has a relatively moderate voting record on every issue. On conservative issues, he votes as the party does, but never takes a lead on anything. He is never the most conservative or the most liberal on a given policy area, and he's been involved in lots of compromise efforts. He is benign and monotonous and always wins with more than 67% of the vote.

Be cold or hot, but don't be lukewarm.  I'm not a big fan of lukewarm Republicans.

And Lugar is the very definition of lukewarm.

Whenever I see Foreign Relations hearings where Lugar lets Boxer and others run the show, I can't help but miss Jesse Helms.

Good choice on Lugar, and astute observations.

Lugar is someone I've always considered to be the prototypical Senator.  Bland, knows-alot-about-alot, risk-averse, not-at-all Presidential.

Any Governors (past or present) fit your definition of a moderate Republican?  (Pre-scandal Rowland?  Owens?  Jeb?  Racicot?  Ahnuld?  Thmoson?  Just throwing-out some names while leaving-off obvious no-ways - Whitman, Weld, etc.)

And anyone who makes that comparison needs to realize this is not 1980.  The generational change has created whole new breeds of Republicans since the days when "moderates" were of the Chafee/Specter variety and "conservatives" all looked like Bob Dole.  Romney is among the rising group of Republicans that I call McCain Republicans.  They are fiscally conservative on both taxes and the budget, pragmatic about domestic issues like education and health care, foreign policy hawks, and socially libertarian.

Anyone who thinks these Republicans can be dismissed is just asking for trouble.  They are growing in numbers and include such prominent Bushies as Dennis Miller and Gov. Arnold.  Mitt could be their leader in 2008.  Moreover, his ability to attract social cons like Cal Thomas and K-Lo with well thought out compromises on social issues could make him at least acceptable to social conservatives.

Asking for an absolutist on social issues is tantamount to handing the White House to Hillary.  Demographics demand something different.  So does the Electoral College.  You can't govern if you don't win first.

As Chair of the Senate Agriculture Committe, He led the charge to phase out farm subsidies under Freedom to Farm and put his own State of Indiana's on the table first.

When he ran for President in 1996, he was the first to call for abolishing the income tax in favor of a NRST.

He's a staunch free trader.

Bonus: he's the go-to guy for dealing with securing nuclear materials from the former Soviet Union.

Unless those attacking Governor Romney on this issue are willing to advocate electoral suicide by demanding an outright ban on IVF, he seems to be trying to make the best deal possible on the issue and their criticism is rather disingenuous IMO.  If anything this looks like a rather clever maneuver on his part to force the pro therapeutic cloning advocates into moving to the extreme on this issue which is ultimately how you move the electorate towards your side.  

That being said, I have no preference for any particular presidential candidate at the moment.  My candidate will be the one that I believe can do the best job at reigning in entitlement programs (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security); supports market-oriented reforms in health care and federal regulations (particularly the environment); and is willing to buck the GOP party establishment (including the Bush administration sadly) by walking the walk rather than just talking the talk on federalism.

I'll add one more, at the risk of interfering with whatever planetary alignment caused Thorley to defend my senator, Richard Lugar:

But for Lugar, it is likely that the Philippines would have departed from the U.S.'s sphere of influence during the 80s.  

That said, the words "Nunn-Lugar" should end any debate as to "what has Lugar ever done?"

I have a picture in my office of me shaking Senator Luger's hand at the 1995 Iowa Straw poll while I'm wearing my "Phil Gramm for President" t-shirt.  ;)

When his last great accomplishment -- and I use those words charitably -- dates to over a decade ago, you'll pardon me, I hope, if I always think of him as The Man With the Mirror Nearby.

I know, I know, South Park Republicans, Eagles, flying mastiffs, whatever, are the wave of the future. These brave, daring, invariably egomaniacal politicians are always ready to do battle for their deeply held ideals, smear the portion of the party responsible for their cushy Chairmanships or other positions of power, and mug for television cameras. Oh, sure, they get pasted by theocons anywhere but blue states or safe seats, but by God, they're the future!

As a rule of thumb, never trust a man who constantly points out how honest he is.

Demographics, incidentally, favor us social cons. The growth areas are our areas. Mitt's areas are dying.

I would not be so bold as to assert that the demographics favor social cons.  It would appear that GWB is President today because he carried something on the order of 97 of the 100 fastest-growing counties in the country - most of which, not coincidently, are in Red America (and precisely none of which, also not coincidently, are in Massachusetts or New England).

That's all to the good for our side and is most certainly one demographic that is solidly in our favor.  There's also hope that trend will continue, if not accelerate, because the Dems have little-to-nothing to offer anyone not an urban liberal or who lives in the dirt-poor areas of the wilderness (such as the Blue patches in southern TX).

What I'm saying is that "fastest growing counties in America" does not necessarily equal "social conservatives".  In fact, it could be argued that the true swing vote, the only constituency that is truly "in play" in any election, are white, suburban, independent-registered, college-educated women (mostly) and men.  I'm not entirely sure how neatly that demographic translates to "social con".

My $0.02 - probably worth even less.

For the record, though Romney is my Governor, I'm not sure he would be my first choice for President.  I could easily see him being many peoples' second choice, though.

Cheers.

Seriously, I get why a lot of Republicans are not enamored with someone like say Senator Jim Jeffords but I don't recall Governor Romney dissing his own party or social conservatives in order to enamor himself with the other side

There is a world of difference between a "moderate" Republican who even if s/he disagrees with the GOP on a few issues, agrees with them overall, is basically loyal to the principles of the party, and can be counted on to support other Republicans versus an actual RINO who neither agrees with Republicans on most issues nor can be counted on to support the Party and other candidates.

IMO from what I've seen of the man, Governor Romney might be considered a "moderate" Republican (depending on the yardstick you use) but he's clearly no RINO and deserves to be treated with respect.

Electoral suicide would be nominating a liberal for the Republican Party - lest we forget a large part of what put the first Clinton in the white house was Bush 41's alienation of his base with the nomination of Souter and the "read my lips" new tax.

There are issues which most Republicans are willing to budge a little on for the sake of compromise (NCLB, Prescription Drugs for Medicare), but there are a few core issues that are non-negotiable to the hearts of a sizeable portion of Republicans - and abortion and gay marriage are certainly two of them.

I feel absolutely confident in saying that at least 20 per cent of Republicans (read, 10 per cent of the electorate) will not vote for an openly pro-choice candidate, no matter what - and I count myself among them. It would be electoral suicide for the GOP to try and defeat Hillary without the most devoted one-fifth of their base. By contrast, some of these issues on IVF and stem-cell research do not have to be deal breakers.

But we're still all approaching this from the wrong angle. Look at the Republicans who have won elections in the last 25 years - they have been the ones who were unabashed conservatives, most especially on social issues (Reagan, W). On the other hand, the ones who have lost presidential elections were those who "moved to the center" on an attempt to win greater portions of the electorate (Bush 41, Dole).

We saw the strategy work to perfection in this election - you win national elections not by attempting to cut into the other guy's base, but by motivating your own. It's the same track that (I think) should be tried in '08. Santorum for Prez.

I don't know enough about Romney to comment, but Krempasky's comments as they apply to McCain are right on. That's one of the things that has annoyed me about Lugar (and only recently) is that as he's preparing for his inevitable '08 run, he seems to be doing so by taking potshots at the socons. That's not a good way to win primaries, much less general elections.

anyone who equates "Bush" with "conservative" in the classical, economic sense is nuts.

Could someone explain to me what precisely characterizes Mitt Romney as a "liberal" in their eyes?  I'm totally stinking serious, here.

Is being not-anti-abortion alone enough to be cast as a "liberal" in the eyes of RedState?  What if someone was personally "pro-choice" but pledged to put Constructionists on the court?  Does that pass muster?  Does a record of reform in outrageously difficult political circumstances count for nothing if the reformer is not a purist on social issues?

I hope I don't sound trollish with these questions - I don't mean to.

Cheers.

And they do not favor social cons.  To the contrary, red state growth does not equal conservative growth, at least not culturally.  Social issues are largely generational issues, not regional ones.  That is, just because red states are the ones experiencing pop growth doesn't mean that the sons will have the values of their fathers.  Values systems change with each generation, and my personal experience has been consistent with studies such as a recent article in the Economist posted over in the "Social Issues" section of RedState.  Basically, the study suggests that Americans are growing more "liberal" on most social issues but not on all.  The trend seems to be towards freedom.  My personal experience, as a 26 yr old Republican in the suburbs of a red state, is that every "conservative" under 35 is pretty moderate to liberal on the social stuff.

So I wouldn't be holding onto hope for some massive socially conservative revival.

I should not explicitly link an otherwise decent fellow with John McCain, Dick Lugar, or Chuck Hagel, even when someone else does. Romney's a little higher class than any of those bozos. My comment was mostly aimed at the McCains and their fellow travelers.

My complaint with Romney is his abortion politics. He's to the left of the Party, and, if opinion polls are any indication, left of the country.

As for the respect thing... well, one earns respect. One does not deserve it.

The success of Reagan and W compared to Bush the Elder and Dole had more to do with the aggragate of their positions and styles.  I think it's simplistic to say that when Republicans run right on the social stuff they win, and when they don't, they lose.  Bob Dole ran at least as far to the right on social issues in '96 as Bush the Elder did in '88, yet the two elections had different outcomes.  And I could argue that the opposite is true by going to states like California, where socially conservative candidates lose statewide (Simon) while social moderates win (Arnold).

Anyway, the thing that I feel many RedStaters don't get is that being too socially conservative is becoming an electoral liability in much of the country.  States like NJ, CA, and IL are big, electoral rich states that will no longer elect anyone right of center on abortion.  And states like MI, MN, and PA are becoming out of reach for folks like Dubya who are a bit too conservative for the northerners on cultural issues.  That leaves Republicans who favor absolutist socially conservative candidates with a maximum of 300 electoral votes to try and reach for (the 31 red states from 2004 plus the really close states of WI and NH).  In other words, if Republicans ever want to break 300 EVs again, we're going to have to accept the fact that the red state model barely works north of Mason/Dixon and doesn't work at all on the coasts.  That doesn't mean putting up a social liberal like Rudy, but someone a bit more secular and moderate like McCain or Romney will soon be necessary as generational shifts continue.  300 EVs isn't much to work with, and the nightmare scenario of the Clintons laughing all the way back to the WH after flipping Ohio should be enough to convince us all to work together once again.

It ruins his chances in 2008. Anything he can do to accomplish that, I'm down with.

A couple important trends.

1.  Population growth is concentrated in Red States and especially FL, GA, TX, NM, AZ, and (not so Red) CA.
   
2.  Young Republicans are socially more moderate than older Republicans.  This is especially true on gay rights, multiculturalism and censorship.
   
3.  Abortion is not budging.  Young Republicans are as pro-life (or more so) than their parents are.  I think this is becuase the issue is less tied to the Women's Rights movement now and more focused on abortion itself.

Thus, my analysis is that keeping the party pro-life is important.  I could accept Romney if he agrees to appoint constructionist judges or at least judges who do not support Roe even if he is pro-choice.  But in the long run, abortion is not a liability as long as it is framed right.  However, gay rights and stem cell research will become a larger liability for the party especially with the under-30 crowd.

I could take issues with all sorts of parts of this, but I'll leave it at this:

You're looking at a snapshot in time, rather than a trend;

Young voters always look more liberal than they will be when they get around to voting;

In a year of intense partisanship, Hillary couldn't stop an unknown Congressman from taking over forty percent of the vote from her in the People's Republic of New York; and

No one's saying we need to run someone as far out there as I am in every district. But in a polity where conservatives outnumber liberals by ten or so percent, it doesn't make great sense to run someone who will cheese off most of those conservatives.

I'm always amused by folks who pin their hopes on how young voters are thinking now. Give them ten years. They'll have polarized by then.

Whenever you hear a campaign say,

"THIS IS THE YEAR WE TURN-OUT THE YOUTH VOTE!!!"

you are listening to the campaign of a candidate who is about to lose.

Thus has it always been - thus shall it ever be.

And I agree with you, Doverspa, with one caveat on abortion.  I think that abortion hasn't budged in 30 years because no significant legal developments have occurred to cause it to move.  If, say, Roe were overturned tomorrow, that could have a major impact on the electorate's positioning on that issue and could help or hurt one party or the other, depending on the circumstances.  So I think that, while movement now on abortion may not be necessary at the nat'l level, the GOP needs to be ready to respond politically to the nat'l movement that may occur on the issue should Bush's prospective SCOTUS Justices modify Roe or should Hillary succeed in moving her party right on abortion, which would attract lots of working class folks who agree with Democrats on other issues but stick with the GOP because of the life issue, and cause us to consider how best to counter that move, perhaps to attract more suburbanites who agree with us on taxes but who are more pro-choice.

Just ask McGovern or Kerry.  But I think you guys are misinterpreting what folks like Doverspa and I are saying.  We're not using the positions of college kids as evidence of emerging social trends.  College kids are always more liberal than pretty much everyone else.  What we're saying is the electorate as a whole is experiencing a natural generational shift on cultural issues, just as it always does (e.g., the Civil Rights Movement, the women's movement, etc.).  This sort of thing happens whenever a new generation comes of age, and the changes usually result in a significant cultural shift.  It's happening again, this time with gay rights and multiculturalism.  All we're saying is the GOP will eventually have to adapt to survive.

Is:

(1) You're predicting a trend based on those same youth voters, or your hopes, one of the two;

(2) You're making that prediction based on polling data that only favors you when the issues you're, er, the word hawking is too strong, but you get the idea, are out of the news -- it looks worse when folks hear about them;

and

(3) I have no idea what you mean by multiculturalism. It's a curse word, as far as I'm concerned, if you mean it the way liberals do. If you just mean racial integration and interaction, you're thirty years behind the times where the conservative movement is concerned.

Thomas, I do my best to separate analysis and activism.  These are my views of where the country is moving.

I definitely agree that as youngsters start families the coolness factor of libertarianism fades, especially on drugs, pornography, and the decadent pop culture front.

However, acceptance of homosexual is not a youth fad in my experience.  This is a generational shift and is based more on age than partisanship or conservative/liberal breakdowns.  Similarly, the idea that we are mosaic and not a melting pot is more popular with younger Americans.  Making English the national language is probably a winning position now, but won't be in 20 years.  Ditto gay rights.

In fact, I think we are risking losing many possible budding conservatives who are turned off by the anti-gay message of the party.  This includes many pro-free trade, pro-SS reform, anti-tax urban young professionals who think of Republicans as the party of religious dogma and Democrats as well-educated cosmopolitans.  On policy, we should win these votes.  But they won't even listen to our ideas because of the stereotypes.

We're fine for now and probably through 2010 in Congress at least.  But it is important to recognize that McCain (who is pro-life) was popular among younger Republicans and still is.  I think candidates who are economically conservative first (and in people's eyes) but who are also socially conservative will be the most successful after 2010/2015.

Read O'Rourke's longer bits on the Philippines. He labels Lugar as the chief hypocrite... even worse than John Kerry.

That you quote that crazy Frenchman Auguste Comte at the beginning of your comment. After all, you'd have to be just as loopy as him to believe that anecdotal personal experience is a greater indication of generational political views than, say, the Gallup poll... which has consistently indicated enormous growth of pro-lifers under the age of 30, to the point now of nipping at 58%.

That's simply not true. Roe isn't all that matters. See Saletan's book on how the right won the abortion issue.

Your suggestion that the GOP should consider countering the Democrats move by trying to attract pro-choice surburbanites is a wonderful suggestion. To that end, I encourage you to sign up to hand out flyers for Mitt on election day, while I and my pro-life circle repair to the golf course. Toodles.

As many pols are fond of saying, I think I'm being misquoted!  LOL.  Anyway Augustine, as the aggragate of my posts on the social stuff indicates, my feelings on the GOP and social issues are similar to those of Doverspa, based largely on the same evidence that Doverspa has previously alluded to.  Maybe I'm right and maybe I'm wrong, but that's where I stand.  If you and I respectfully disagree on these issues, that's fine with me.

There was a book about that theory a while ago. Well talked-about. The essential premise was that the party aimed at capturing young urban dwellers was the party of the future.

Except, of course, that 2002 and 2004 happened.

Growth is in the suburbs and exurbs. That is where social conservatives flee to. But I put all this to the side and leave it here:

Your opinions seem to be based on your perceptions, not on any data per se. I concede that mine are too. Where we differ is that I don't see -- in the polling data, in historical experience, in a word, anything -- to support your ideas. Maybe we're more tolerant of gays. Then again, everyone was convinced that we were more tolerant in the 1970s, and that particular epoch ended (for other reasons, thank God). As far as the English language thing, with due respect, that comes from, I would guess (but stand open to correction on) your life to date. I grew up in border states. The folks my age -- within a few years of you -- make my stance on English only look leftist by comparison. That's where the battles will be fought, and with due respect, I think your forces are badly outnumbered there.

As far as "mosaic" versus "melting pot," I have only my impressions to go on, but having lived in the South and West most of my life -- the growth regions -- my experience was that outside of college towns, the consensus of all age groups is that a melting pot beats the heck out of a mosaic.

As far as losing young, urban professionals: Welcome to the Republican Party since 1980. We've done ok since then.

Those suburbanites voted Clinton when presented with milquetoast Republicans on the abortion issue.

I wouldn't vote Republican if presented with milquetoasts. I'm with Augustine on the golf course.

Well, not really. I'm lousy at golf. Maybe chess, or a computer game. But I'm not out voting or organizing or rallying or fundraising.

And there are a lot like us. Who are maybe better golfers, so they'd be out there on the links. You get the idea.

NIGHTMARE-

"300 EVs isn't much to work with, and the nightmare scenario of the Clintons laughing all the way back to the WH after flipping Ohio should be enough to convince us all to work together once again."

Sorry, but I'd take Romney over that any day and would work to get him elected if he survived the primaries.  To go golfing or support a third party would in effect be putting Hillary in office and while Mitt is no pro-lifer, he's better than what she would offer.

Liberal Republicans, one and only one of Nixon's picks notwithstanding, produce judges at least as bad as the Clintons managed. Blackmun, Brennan, Warren, Stevens, and Burger all come to mind.

Hypothetically, let's just say it is a Romney vs. Hillary fight for the white house.  Who do you vote for?  Do you stay home?  Remember, this is Hillary we are talking about, not Bill.  She is smarter,far more liberal, and an absolute B**CH to our service members.  What do you do?

FWIW, I remember the 1980 election.  My mother was a registered democrat, single mom, serving in the US military.  She thought Carter was a complete idiot, yet Reagan "scared the sh-t out of her" and she worried about what to do.  In the end, she voted for Reagan, "the lesser of two evils" she called him and went on to be pleasantly surprised with the results.

Sometimes, we just have to take what we get and make the best of it.  Just my  $.02.

I still hold out hope that one of our diamonds in the rough will outshine all the rest and we won't even have to be concerned with the centrists.

Except at the personnel is policy level. And, simply put, I'm not sure Romney would put substantively different personnel in place than Hillary! would.

Liberal Republicans, historically, are effectively at least as liberal as liberal Democrats. Nixon and Ford are easy examples. Judges, policy, executive appointments, foreign policy: Name it, and they're at least as left as their Democrat predecessors.

We're not talking Reagan/Carter in your example. We're talking (issues, not personality) Rockefeller/Dukakis (or so). A little different, there.

I stay home and play Wizardry 8.

I knew about the more recent statements by Romney on abortion:

http://greaterboston.tv/features/btp_romney_032902.html

combined with the overwhealming opposition to Abortion by every Mormon I have ever known, I assumed that this was one of those pragmatic 'It's a liberal state and I'm not going to be able to get anywhere on abortion anyways so I'll let the issue be and focus my energies on issues where I can make a difference' attitudes that meant Romney could be counted on in the national scene.

So when everyone said Romney was pro-choice I was very surprised.  Then I found this:

http://www.issues2000.org/Governor/Mitt_Romney_Abortion.htm

Which suddenly made alot of sense.  A tramatic experience effecting a family member... now I can understand why Romney is taking a pro-choice position.  Sigh, I'm disappointed, he is pro-choice.  Although he is at least reluctantly pro-choice, and has strong beliefs that it's morally wrong.  I guess if he's a believer in appointing Strict Constructionists I could accept him, but if we are going to have a canadidate with  a weak position on abortion I'd rather have Condi Rice.  Romney wasn't really my first choice anyway, and he still gets points for fighting gay marriage in one of the most liberal states in the Union, but maybe we should encourage him to be a good governor and move on to challenge Kerry for a Senate seat. (I bet we could count on him to oppose fillibustering)

Stay home.

That Carter was more conservative than Romney.

Besides cutting taxes and reducing the size of government in Georgia, he was pro-life.

No dice games - I hear you only roll 20s.

At least he was at election time.

As a player, I tend to range nicely between 9 and 13, with solid 1s for THAC0 and 20s for saving throws.

Curiously, I rather wish it was the other way around.

That's what I meant: at the time of the election, he was pro-life.

Frankly, it's the last time we had two declared pro-life candidates running against each other.

Considering that he once voiced tepid support for civil unions.  Interestingly, President Bush has also shown some support for civil unions.  Whereas he wants a constitutional amendment to ban gay marraige, he is against a sweeping measure for civil unions- and believes it's up to the states ("President Bush said in an interview this past weekend that he disagreed with the Republican Party platform opposing civil unions of same-sex couples and that the matter should be left up to the states.").  So I don't think you can easily dismiss Romney as a "liberal", considering his position isn't far off from Bush's.

All in all, I'm very optimistic at the GOP potentials in 2008: Romney, Guiliani, Allen, Frist - all articulate, telegenic, and capable leaders.

This is what I alluded to in previous posts. There are many, many, many GOPers like us who are simply not (period) going to vote for a pro-choice candidate. If that means staying home, or voting Peroutka, and effectively seeing Hillary in the white house, then so be it - the blood of the unborn for those four years will not be on our hands.

Folks who are lukewarm on the abortion issue really fail to see the logical consequences of believing that life begins at conception. If one so believes (and I do), then one is also forced to realize that over 1 million legalized murders occur in this country every year. Can someone please explain how a person's view on any other issue is supposed to trump that? If Congressman "Karl-Rove-Planted-the-Forged-Documents-with-Dan-Rather" Hinchey was a genuinely pro-life candidate, I'd vote for him over Rudy Giuliani, and I think that's perfectly justified. There's a place for pragmatics and political skulduggery, but there's also a place where a person simply has to draw the line on principle, and abortion is the high water mark like me (and a whole lot of the rest of the most dedicated members of the GOP). I think the math is pretty simple - a pro-choice Republican simply cannot win a national election.

Another thing I'd like to say that is admittedly pretty inciendary (but I also think true) is that if a politician is pro-choice, even if they are in a position where they can have no influence on the issue (say, a local sherriff) that indicates a lack of clear moral direction to me. The pro-choice position has an inherent attitude of "do whatever feels good." It really, boiled down, is allowing fully grown adults to perpetrate death upon another to avoid the inconvenience of their own irresponsibility. Anyone who believes the government should stand by and allow that to happen (on any scale) has no place near the government, in my opinion.

Also, to echo something else which was said earlier about Republican Presidents who are lukewarm on abortion and their judges - can anyone think of a worse judge over the last 30 years than David Souter? Should Bush 41 ever be forgiven for giving us a judge that makes Ruth Bader Ginsburg look constructionist? Not by me, he won't.

MachoNachos

Because there is evidently a great deal of speculation regarding Romney's stands on these issues, I offer this, courtesy of today's Boston Herald.

Something interesting going on is how the local media and Democrats (same thing, really) are beating Romney up over his "nuance" on these issues - which is laugh-out-loud ironic when you consider that our junior Senator is Mr. Nuance, himself (JFK Lite) and I never hear any complaint about his well documented nuance.  Dog Bites Man, I suppose.

I took the time last night to go through my clippings and notes from the 2002 election (buried in my attic).  My notes at the time left me confident that Romney is, in fact, pro-life.  However, the Governor of the Commonwealth has very little actual power to do anything about that (judges are nominated by the Governor but confirmed by the Governor's Council - a colonial-era manifestation currently composed of elected members who are uniformly 1) Democrat and 2) to the left of Fat Teddy).  I know this will be very unsatisfying to the absolutists among us, but there it is.

His position on civil unions is actually pretty clear - he's opposed to them (ditto homosexual "marriage").  He was willing to settle for civil unions because the alternative was full legalization of homosexual "marriage" because (thanks to 4 knuckleheads on our Supreme Judicial Court) only a constitutional amendment can stop that now (and did I mention that Democrats control 6-of-7 seats in the legislature).

With this in mind, if you wish to continue to suggest that these positions are as bad as (or even, as has been suggested, to the left of) what we would get from President Hillary Rodham, you're welcome to - but I think you're insane.  There is simply nothing I see to support that conclusion.

With that in mind, I revise my previous statement regarding where Romney fits on the ideological continuum: he's well to the right of Pataki, to the right of Ridge, slightly left of Owens - as I suggested, a moderate (opposed to liberal) Republican.

Cheers.

I think the most stark social issue that is generational as opposed to partisan is gay marriage.  Here are a couple polls:

USA Today

61% of those age 18-29 said homosexual marriages should be valid, while only 37% of those age 30-49 felt the same.

Nifty age graph from Pew

Here is a CNN poll on under 30 citizens.

When asked if they approved of the way Bush was handling his job as president, 62 said yes, while the rating dips to 53 percent for the older group....

While a majority of younger Americans -- 53 percent -- support same-sex marriages that are recognized with equal rights under the law, 32 percent of the older group backed such a concept....

The groups also were asked whether racial and ethnic minorities should be encouraged to maintain their own culture or blend into the larger American society.

Fifty-four percent of younger Americans said they believe minorities should keep their own culture, while 37 percent of older Americans said they back the idea.

That's the type of evidence I'm drawing from.  What I want to reiterate again is that abortion is an exception in this trend.  We do not need to nominate pro-choice candidates, in fact, we should not as it will lose our base.  Also, I recognize that on tax/spending issues, people become more conservative over time.  This may also be true in families on some social issues.  I still believe we will need to accomodate those who agree with us on other issues but think homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle and even some who support gay marriage.

I must dissent from DaveDC's assertion that we need to cultivate pro-choicers.  We should be open to them, but I do not think a pro-choice Presidential nominee will get out the vote in Republican circles.  However, abortion is not the only social issue on the table.  Gay rights, stem cell research, right-to-die issue all color the spectrum.  I expect we will need someone who is moderate (not liberal) on these issues in the future (but maybe not in 2008).  Most likely it will take losing a Presidential race before this shift occurs.

Thomas- do you really think that people get more intolerant of homosexuals as they get older?  Do you know many people who were perfectly willing to accept gay marriage in their younger years but now are stridently against it?  That people were for stem-cell research in college but were opposed to it as they got older?  There are many issues that people become more conservative on over time, I just don't see any evidence at all that gay issues and stem cells fall into that category.  

The young get more conservative over time, or at the very least, polarize more. Maybe you're right, but historically, the largest recent population group that came up, the boomers, got significantly more conservative across the board over time. It's what happens as you age: You either gain wisdom, or get more ossified. I don't care how you characterize it, but, inductive reasoning though it might be, it tends to be true.

It'll come around again. See my last comment to Doverspa.

I would say that people are not at all likely to change their position on homosexual issues over time, but stem cells are an entirely different animal.

The difference is that everyone knows something about homosexuality (though not necessarily from personal experience), while almost no one, including most people in high places commenting on the subject, knows word-one about stem cells.

My experience (for what it's worth) is that the more people know about embryonic stem cell research, the more it creeps them out.  As such, the potential for people to move on that position seems to be much higher.

Again, for what it's worth.

Cheers.

Thomas, I didn't take the time to find evidence and separate out issues just to have you wave a broad brush about people getting conservative as they get older.  I recognized that on some issues that is true.  But I mention certain specific issues where that is not likely.  How many people do you know supported gay marriage at 28 and then opposed it at 35 or 50?

You mention the boomers so lets run with that.  Race and sex-based attitudes changed dramatically as boomers moved through their lifetimes.  Even TNR noted that

It's hard to say when this happened, but relations between African Americans and conservatives seem to have lost much of their poison. To be sure, the GOP doesn't attract many black voters, but, increasingly, it's a question more of policy than of personal hostility. I detected no code words for anti-African-American sentiment in any of the panels I saw

Conservatives (as Democrats at first) opposed integration during the boomers early years.  Many in that generation were more tolerant than their parents about race relations while they were young.  They did not become intolerant as they grew older, they pushed both parties toward higher levels of tolerance.

It is that type of shift that I see as inevitable.  If we stay on the side of intolerance, we will lose a majority of my generation.

What evidence do you have that people will become less tolerant of gay rights as they become older?

Calling oneself "personally pro-life" is bupkus.  Ted Kennedy even says that.  Sorry dude, but unless you've got Romney saying something that is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what he's always said and his spokesmen have always said about his abortion position, Romney's still to the left of Ridge.

Imagine how ludicrous it would be for a candidate to insist that they're "personally anti-tax" but that they "don't want to force my personal views on others."  That position is an insult to every pro-lifer.

It took fifteen years before another show could come along nearly that cushy about gays.

And "gay marriage" is a, you know, less than five year old issue as far as most of the public is concerned. I mean, seriously, who would I know who's had decades to mull this one over? This is like saying, "Who do you know who's gone to being less hawkish on the Iraq War between 25 and 35?" Check back with me in ten years, after this has been an issue in the public eye -- as opposed to the policy wonk eye -- for more than one election cycle.

And I would argue that on the limited question of gay marriage -- not gay rights in general -- folks will get more conservative over time for the same reason they usually do: Once they have a stake in a thing, they tend to become more polarized about it. Most of those 18-30 year olds (1) don't vote and (2) aren't married. Once you get married, you're invested in the issue. Maybe that makes you more open to gay marriage. O'Sullivan's laws would suggest otherwise.

Look, just so we're clear as far as most of this goes: I couldn't care less. Roger who you want, so long as it's consensual. Just don't bother me about it, and at this point, I'll take what I can get. But the idea that, mirabile dictu! the young will hold the same opinions they do now even after their lives have completely changed is ahistorical and counterintuitive, at best.

That the only pro-lifer in that group is Frist, and he's only nominally so.

-Allen supports first term abortions and stem cell research
-Romney sells that junk about being "personally opposed" but is without question politically pro-choice
-Giuliani is as pro-choice as Hillary

Augustine, would you support a Presidential candidate who supports constructionist judges and is moderate on abortion.  By moderate I mean similar to Allen's position in that it should be restricted by not totally outlawed.  To me, the Presidential candidate's position on judges is the major factor in the abortion debate.  If Roe is overturned, it becomes a legislative issue not an executive one.

Personnel is policy, as a friend of mine likes to remind us. His personnel will shape executive policy in a thousand important ways. Winning this war isn't just about having Roe (and Casey and...) overturned; it's about changing hearts and minds.

Incidentally, this is why I forgive Bush a lot. His personnel have made great policy.

and not "spending" - because GWB has certainly been a very large, smelly poop sandwich for us small-government types to swallow for the last 4-years.

Hope you enjoy seeing St. Hillary in the W/H in 2009.  I won't.

That one of the "moderates" makes the nod in 2008; and that Hillary's positives stay high enough nationwide to carry her to not only her party's nod, but also to the White House. These are not small leaps. It's 2005, for crying out loud. We don't get this carried away, traditionally, for another year yet.

but what, precisely, has GWB done to reduce the number of abortions, or to keep my tax dollars from being used to murder the unborn, in the last 4-years?

He signed the PBA bill Bubba vetoed (twice?  three times?), which is now being Constitutionally challenged, right?  This is certainly an improvement from the previous 8 (12?) years, but what is the net effect?  From a practical perspective, zero change, business as usual, another million dead.

And I would certainly say Romney has been more forthright in his opposition to homosexual "marriage" than GWB, wouldn't you?  Romney has certainly done more to fight it than the President, hasn't he?

Just asking.

It's certainly early.  But I highly doubt that the field will be substantially different 18-months from now than it is today.

The only thing that will happen between then and now is that some of those currently in the field will no-longer be there.  To wit:

• if Romney loses his bid for re-election in '06, he's finished
  
• ditto Santorum
  
• ditto Allen
  
• ditto Pawlenty

Also, point conceeded regarding St. Hillary (as she'll be dubbed in the MSM) - she's an astonishingly polorizing figure.  Outside of Ohio and possibly Florida, I don't see too many Red states she could flip Blue.  The problem is that losing one (or certainly both) of those is a real problem for us, and I don't see her automatically driving enough Blue states Red (Michigan?  Minnesotta?) to make up the difference.

How about Newt versus Hillary for '08???  It would certainly be fun to watch those to ultra-polorizing figures drive the electoral center nuts, wouldn't it?

That would be fun to watch.

In 1997, no one thought Gov. Bush of Texas was ready for prime time.

And it could be argued that we were right.

Glad he's there, though - far better than either alternative.

And yes, Newt/Hill would be a hoot - two Dobermans in a steel cage, to the death.

Cheers.

So we're now blaming the President for the fact that no Supreme Court members have stepped down in his first 4 years.  That's kind of low.  But how about we give him 4 more years and see if we end up with a Souter or a Rehnquist in the 1-3 spots opening up.

. . . sign an executive order to cut off funding for groups that perform and/or promote abortions?

Also since this issue has essentially been taken over by the courts, I would imagine you would want to look at Bush's current and/or likely judicial nominees and ask yourself whether they're more or less likely to be more favorable to your position than those appointed by Al Gore and John Kerry would have been.

My point (clumsily made, I concede) is that in any given 4-year period, the President either has, or does not have, much to do with this issue because (precisely as you allude) it's in the Courts now.

However, the point is that the net effect on the continuation of abortion in the US over the last 4 years is substantially unchanged from the previous 8.  The environment has subtly changed in our (pro-lifer's) favor, but I still think very little has been done in practice.

Bush's judicial nominees have been generally very good, certainly far better than anything we would have from Gore or Kerry (Associate Supreme Court Justice Estrich, anyone?  Yuck!), and for that I commend him.

Also, if he did de-fund PP (the ultimate abortion factory) then I missed that one - bully for him, and thanks below for pointing it out.

Regarding appointments, I have very little reason to believe Romney nominees would be substantively different from Bush (43, important distinction) nominees.  That's just my gut talking, mind you.  No one will be more disappointed than I if I'm wrong about that.

Cheers.

Not to be crass what with his recent death and suffering from Alzheimer's but how often have conservatives gone on about how great the Gipper was even though he hasn't "done" anything since he left office in 1988?  If we can appreciate his contributions some 17 years later, why impose a ten-year limit on Richard Lugar's?

IMO Nunn-Luger much like Gramm-Rudman (which paved the way to balancing the budget in the 1990's) are two fairly significant pieces of policy legislation and accomplishments for the legislators involved.  In choosing the man or woman to become the next leader of our nation, I would prefer someone who takes a long-term view in the policies they support rather than just trying to "do something" that looks great for the cameras but has little substantive effective.

President Bush when it comes to Social Security reform and liberating some 50 million people in the Middle East is such a person in that the effects/benefits of his policies are going to be in the long-term.  On issues like these as well as Medicare/Medicaid/health care reform, developing a sensible environmental regime, the demographic change of 60 million baby boomers retiring, and WMD proliferation we need someone who takes the long-term view and is willing if needed to stake their presidency on developing sensible and even bold policies rather than just trying to "do something" of great immediate popularity but little substance.

Sorry if I came off harshly.  My point is that we don't know when openings will come in the Supreme Court and 95% of the battle is there.  I could support people who are pro-choice but believe it should be up to the states and thus oppose Roe.  We'll see if Romney, Allen, or others walk that path in due time.  Once it is returned to the states, then I'll start worrying about politicians views on the subject.  Until then, it is a judicial battle.

Frankly, I didn't think it was harsh at all.  I just want to clarify that I wasn't "blaming" Bush for a apparent lack of action on abortion - but that by the nature of the issue there just isn't much he can do in his position.

No big.

Cheers.

The answer to your first question -- silly though I am -- is that he's been -- wait for it -- in office that whole time. A small distinction, perhaps, but a relevant one.

Every Senator crafts legislation that he believes will be a beacon to the future. It's part of why they look in the mirror every morning and see a President looking back. Lugar did this once. Hooray. His adventures in Asia are overrated (usually by himself and Lugarphiles), but I'll grant those, too.

And in the decade and change since...?

The last word I would ever apply to Dick Lugar is "bold." I suspect most folks would share that sentiment. Unless there's a camera nearby with a hostile crowd around it. Then he'll be as bold as can be.

he is also one of 101 people who can make any change.  We are leading that pack 56-43-1 and we have the most important 1 in the bunch.  But it is frustrating that pro-life majorities in the House and Senate along with a pro-life President cannot affect change.

Which isn't to say I wouldn't vote for that person if they were better than the other candidate on the issue, but I certainly wouldn't support them.

Allen has no personal commitment to the life issue.  He does not care.  And being to the left of Bob Dole eliminates you on the issue, imho.

How about:

-a reinforced Mexico City policy

-a ban on Partial-Birth Abortion

-a majority of pro-life Judicial Nominees

-Laci and Conner's bill

-the embryonic stem-cell policy

Pro-lifers had lowered expectations for President Bush after it became clear that his campaign promises to build a culture of life were mostly just that. But they were pleased by the activities of the administration on the side issues.

The challenge for the President now is that his first term's activities have really removed all the abortion policy side issues -- except for the real thing that pro-lifers care about: the Supreme Court.

But you can hardly hold it against the President that no Supreme has stepped down.  The Admin has been plenty active on the side issues.

I certainly don't hold the composition of the SCOTUS against Bush, and expect his (likely to be filibustered) nominees to be more of the Scalia-variety than the Sourter-variety.  At least, I certainly hope that's the case.

So, is it your argument that Bush has set the table for us to see the number of abortions in the US start to decline?

Frankly, that's the only thing I care about.  He can sign all the laws and proclimations he he handed, but until the number of abortions starts to decline, nothing has been done.

I'm not big on symbolism - and I just think many of the overtures you cite are just that.

Again, I don't "blame" Bush for that.  In his position, and until the issue is out of The Courts, there just isn't much he can do, I'm afraid.

Examples please.

Losing elections (local or national) does not preclude one from making a successful presidential run - neither does not holding any office whatsoever at the time of your run. See Lincoln, Reagan and Nixon for examples.

I think it's highly possible Santorum (my current favorite) loses in '06 and mounts a very successful campain for Pres in '08.

MachoNachos

. . . I take issue your characterization of Senators McCain, Lugar, and to an extent Hagel as "bozos."  While each might be wrong on some issues, by and large they are each pretty good.  

Senator McCain has been outstanding on his support of the war and deserves credit for his role in stopping the GOP from lapsing into becoming an isolationist opposition party (as the Democrats are in danger of becoming under Dean) during the Clinton administration.  He is a true deficit hawk, is strong on entitlement reform, and has rightfully set his sites on abolishing corporate welfare and reforming pentagon appropriations.   My main beef with him is his support of anti-trust statutes, his waffling (although he's generally reliable) on RTKBA, and his support for campaign finance "reform" although the latter issue has probably hurt Democrats more than Republicans.

Senator Lugar has exhibited true leadership on WMD proliferation (an area where Democrats are trying to make inroads issue-wise and Bush seemed weak on during the debates), had the courage to go after farm subsidies while chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, and has an almost unblemished record on supporting free trade.  

As far as Senator Hagel, I see little in his record to celebrate as he has the ominous distinction of being the only Republican elected official at the national level to support conscription and some of his comments on Iraq were irresponsible IMO.  That being said, he seems to have taken the point position on Social Security reform and in the call to roll back agricultural subsidies so there is hope for him.  

By and large each of these three Senators have generally decent albeit not very distinguished voting records.  While some have chastised them for criticizing some aspects of the war, generally (with the exception of one of Hagel's comments) their criticism has been constructive which is something that I expect from my elected officials.  By all means we should welcome constructive criticism that is given with the end of improving how we do things in mind which I believe is what they intended.

Is indeed a bozo in my book.  From The National Journal's Almanac of American Politics (certainly not a biased source):

"Hagel called on his military experience in 1997 to support the treaty against land mines, opposed by the Clinton administration; he spoke for the chemical weapons treaty ratified by the Senate in 1997 over the objections of Foreign Relations Chairman Jesse Helms; he voted against the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in October 1999 but joined Democrats and the administration in trying to prevent the vote. In 1999 he questioned whether the U.S. should defend Taiwan against a Chinese attack...

"In Bush's first full month as president, Hagel joined Christopher Dodd in sponsoring a resolution to open Cuba to all U.S. exports and to end all restrictions on travel and credit. "Our 40-year policy toward Cuba is senseless." He was one of two senators to vote against extending trade sanctions on Iran and Libya.

"After September 11, he has been one of the Republicans most cautious against taking action against states that sponsor terrorism. His experience traveling abroad on business and coordinating a G-7 summit may have led him to place a high value on reaching consensus with European nations. In February 2002 he was accusing the administration of a "cavalier approach" to the rest of the world and said that the axis of evil part of George W. Bush's first State of the Union speech was "name calling."