TNR BLOGS

December 01, 2008 | 2:02 PM
December 01, 2008 | 1:00 PM
December 01, 2008 | 12:42 PM

December 01, 2008 | 11:22 AM
December 01, 2008 | 11:10 AM
December 01, 2008 | 9:57 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

December 01, 2008 | 1:36 PM
December 01, 2008 | 12:00 PM
November 29, 2008 | 3:23 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
02.09.2008
Republicans Heading For an Iceberg

ST. PAUL, MN: As a rule, political candidates begin moving to the center on Labor Day, but John McCain has continued to focus on solidifying his rightwing base, particularly among social conservatives. The convention’s first two days have been a conservative love-fest for McCain’s vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin. McCain’s handlers have also allowed social conservatives free reign in writing this year’s Republican platform.

 

McCain strategists have tried to explain Palin’s nomination as an attempt to secure discontented Democrats who backed Hillary Clinton. But that’s not the refrain heard here among social conservatives who predominate among the delegates. They like Palin because she is one of them. And there is some reason to believe that McCain’s choice was partly intended to mollify conservatives like James Dobson and Richard Land who were on the fence, but who, since the choice of Palin, have become considerably warmer toward McCain.

 

That’s certainly the view of Grover Norquist, the head of Americans for Tax Reform, and a member of the secret conservative organization, the Council for National Policy, which met last Thursday and Friday in Minneapolis to debate McCain’s candidacy. According to Norquist, the council members, who include the country’s leading social conservatives, became enthusiastic about McCain when they heard of his choice of Palin. “They were uneasy before, and they suddenly became very excited,” Norquist explains, as we talk in the lobby of the St. Paul Hotel, after he has finished addressing the Arizona delegation. Norquist says the story of Palin’s child with down syndrome was particularly important to the social conservatives. “Even Richard Viguerie was enthusiastic. I’ve never seen him excited about any Republican presidential nominee.”

 

The council members and other conservatives were also cheered by the Republican platform. The McCain people exercised a “light touch,” says Norquist. And indeed they did. The platform is a paean to social conservatism and diverges from McCain’s own convictions. It backs a Human Life Amendment on abortion with no exceptions for rape, incest, or a threat to the health of the mother; it backs the Second Amendment with no exceptions (“gun control only affect and paralyzes law-abiding citizens”); and it takes a position on immigration that would warm Rep. Tom Tancredo’s cold heart. It focuses on enforcing “border security,” rejects “amnesty” and “en masse legalizations,” and promotes English-only legislation. Most telling, perhaps, it devotes very little attention to the Iraq war. That, too, reflects the disquiet of many social conservatives like Norquist about the war.

 

At the convention, there are rumblings about Palin from moderates and from conservative intellectuals like David Frum and Ramesh Ponnuru, but most of the delegates remain enthusiastic. Like Norquist, they reject the questions raised about Palin as attempts by “the left to destroy her.” And they are convinced these attacks will strengthen the McCain ticket. Like the passengers on Titanic, they celebrate, while the iceberg of doubt called up by her nomination looms on the horizon.

 

McCain now has tonight and the next two days to change course. If George W. Bush appears tonight, even by video, that is not likely to help McCain. That leaves him only two days. If he doesn’t move away from the militant right--and if the questions about Palin don’t subside--he is likely to lose the election, and even to lose it big.

 

--John B. Judis

Posted: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 1:05 PM with 20 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

Annabella2 said:

Well he has certainly lost the woman's vote, at least those over say 50, even Republican women who aren't Right Wing nutters and official operatives... Let me assure you, I know quite a few.  They are not saying much.  But they sure are rolling their eyes.

September 2, 2008 1:31 PM

icarusr said:

Exactly how would McCain move away from the right, when his partner, his soulmate, his "kindred spirit" comes up with a gem like this a couple of months ago:

"Alaska's governor asked the audience to pray for another matter -- a $30 billion national gas pipeline project that she wanted built in the state. "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that," she said."

I have a sneaking suspicion that God has other things to occupy him than "unifying people and companies" in getting a gas line built.  Reminds of Ambrose Bierce's observation on prayer: "To ask the laws of the universe to be annulled on behalf of a single petitioner, admittedly unworty."

"God's will has to be done"?  For a gas line?  My God, what hubris and what nonsense.

September 2, 2008 1:58 PM

michael said:

Didn't  McCain pick Palin because she was a sanitized female who could poach women who were pissed that Hillary was mistreated? Hey, it was not because she has a yet to be investigated firing of the boss of her ex-son-in-law. We didn't know about the naughty hockey kids for days. Nah, they can blame the left but they didn't include that part of the family tale in Dayton and Mrs. P. only admitted it when she had to explain the kid wasn't holding her own baby.  

The worst setting for people with holier than thou attitudes is cooped up is in a setting where they compete for who is closer to perfect.  This isn't a confessional retreat. This is a GOP with not good numbers, people backing officials who may be without a job and the news cycle is feeding on embarrassing stories. A losers locker room at half-time does not breed unity when everyone but the team is screwing up. These people have to go home sometime and they know the force they'll meet on the ground.

I won't speculate on how the backers of qualified VP picks who were passed over are saying...They can't blame Barack.

Norquist can blame the left all he wants for what he sees in the news. These people are worried. They headed out expecting to meet and greet The Brady Bunch and back home their VP is replacing John Edwards in the tabloids.

The good news is there aren't 80,000 of them fighting with each other instead of watching John accept. Send them home before they devour each other.

September 2, 2008 2:07 PM

csmiller said:

"it backs the Second Amendment with no exceptions (“gun control only affect and paralyzes law-abiding citizens”)"

I guess they are not dissuaded by the endorsement in Heller of "reasonable" gun control, penned by no less a right wing zealot than Nino Scalia.

September 2, 2008 2:47 PM

tomeg said:

Sarcasm aside, what is it that has triggered this sudden mania? It's creeping me out.

(Sarcasm rejoined, is it Kool-Aid? NO2? Beats me.

September 2, 2008 4:11 PM

kerouac9 said:

Since when is Grover Norquist a "social conservative"?  I thought he was a fiscal, libertarian conservative.  

It's hard to enforce morality with a 2% tax rate, right?  

September 2, 2008 4:59 PM

psantillana said:

I don't think he's going to move away from the militant right, because he loves the applause. The religious wing is not a majority, but it's the biggest single piece of the mosaic that is pretty much unified - if one of them is clapping for you, all of them are clapping for you. He loved what he was getting at the Rick Warren church, and he's going to tack that way.

September 2, 2008 9:36 PM

The Left Coaster said:

So who really picked Sarah Palin? Steve asked a very interesting question about why not Governor Pawlenty? We know from Max Blumenthal the conservative Council for National Policy (CPN) met last week to discuss who McCain (could) should pick and they

September 3, 2008 5:44 AM

The Plank said:

Look Who's Running On Biography Now by Jonathan Cohn No Manufacturing. No New Ideas. What's Our

September 3, 2008 11:00 AM

leertracy said:

I was struck last night by how much of a time-warp convention it is. Last night, my eye would catch that one Indian-looking woman, that one black guy, etc, in the sea of white, white, white. We have a few GOP folks wanting to make the tent bigger, but last night we saw an amazingly small tent stocked with the kind of faces you'd expect to see decades ago.

If the GOP wanted to grow as a party we'd be seeing something different, hearing something different. The GOP apparently is shrinking and losing fiscal conservatism as a concern, so that all that's left is the religious right.  And the White right at that... Folks like former congressman Watts point out that African Americans are closer to the GOP than the Dems on social issues. And it's true. But if those at the helm of the GOP actually WANTED blacks to vote GOP, they'd have made it happen by now, and we'd be seeing better black representation in the seats.

What's more, the GOP is in trouble this election in House and Senate seats, but there is no effort at this convention to help those folks. It's disconcerting to see the GOP so weak. And the only strong constituents are the religious right.

I wonder whether Paul and Barr represent anything longterm. Perhaps there could actually be a credible Libertarian party if the GOP continues its slide towards ONLY representing the religious right. Fiscal Conservatives and Civil Libertarians of both parties need a better home.

September 3, 2008 12:32 PM

Historian1956 said:

Whoever forced John McCain to pick Sarah Palin knew something that all the intelligent people in this country overlook as being too unbelievable to be true; women make up 51 to 52% of the voting public.  They know that there are so many more stupid, ignorant, uninformed women in the voting population who will vote for a woman; no matter how distasteful she is, simply because she is a woman.  Even liberal democratic women are touting Sarah Palin as a viable choice because they hope she will truly break the 18 million-strong cracks in the proverbial glass ceiling without regard for any of her policies or stance on any given issue.

The sad fact is that the advisor or advisors who promoted Palin are correct.  Women have been led down the fairy tale path that they have been so downtrodden in this and previous elections, as well as, out in the working world, that any woman will do, no matter how unworthy of the office she is, just to get her into a policymaking position in government.  It has become a situation that anyone with a vagina will do, just to keep the face of the government from looking like it is made up of only people with penises.

I realize this will come off as sounding harsh and unbelievable to anyone who cares about the issues, who doesn't care what the persons in power look like as long as they get the job done, but one only has to read some of the liberal newspapers, magazines and online magazines to see that the claim that the only reason Hillary lost the nomination was because the news media and Barack Obama's campaign were sexist, not that she couldn't run or manage her own campaign staff effectively and only listened to the men in her life.  Some of these women writers are going out of their way to give Sarah Palin every benefit of the doubt and are actually promoting her and therefore, John McCain because he chose a woman for his running mate and Obama did not select Hillary.  

Long after it became apparent Obama won the nomination, people like Joan Walsh of Salon and Howard Wolfson have been touting every ridiculous claim that if such and such hadn't happened or had happened, then Hillary would have won.  They disregard all evidence to the contrary and claim without any proof whatsoever, that sexism was the only reason Hillary didn't win.  They never seem to get it that if Hillary had truly been the more experienced and best candidate that the primaries wouldn't have even been as close as they were and that her vote and delegate tally would have far and away been miles ahead of Obama.  It is the same thinking as the fact that the 2000 election was rigged, when if you step back and look at the situation realistically, if Gore really was the best candidate, the election wouldn't have come down to a difference of 500 to 600 votes in Florida, his should have been a landslide victory!   (Conversely as should have Bush’s have been.)

What is really frightening in this election cycle is that even today, 60+ days from Election Day, there are still people who should and would benefit from an Obama presidency, even if their lives depend on it (and some of theirs do), they say they still haven't decided on who to vote for!  This is a perfect example of why Sarah Palin was chosen over the much more qualified candidates McCain really wanted.  The unfortunate reality in this country is that with the right bumper sticker slogans and lip service, any unqualified candidate can and does win high office due solely to the prejudices and pandering to the lowest common denominator of the electorate.  There are huge groups of people for whom only one issue is important, whether it is the gender or race of the candidate, their stance on abortion or gun control, being of the "right" religion, what have you.  Unfortunately this occurs on both sides of the political spectrum, but those of us who really look at all the issues and the big picture don't want to even think that this is possible, given the amount of information available on all the candidates.  The real problem that exists is that for too many people in this country all the information in the world that is contrary to their single issue belief doesn't even exist and they don't bother to inform themselves beyond whatever it is that is MOST important to them.

I never wanted to believe this, although having performed political surveys in the past and seen and heard with my own eyes and ears, just how many ignorant people there are in this country (and I have surveyed many people who didn't even know who was running in a presidential election right up to days before the election), I'm afraid that this election cycle has proven without a shadow of a doubt that it is true.  I, personally, have been told by lifelong democrats, that since I am a woman, the only candidate I should have considered was Hillary JUST BECAUSE she is a woman!  People who told me this, didn't care about the differences in the candidates, or the fact I had been a lifelong Republican who changed my registration and for the first time worked and contributed to a democrat, it should only be important to me that a woman be elected in my lifetime.  It didn't matter that I saw all the debates on both sides and checked out all the candidates, viable or not, or read extensively on all the issues and positions of all the candidates and parties.  At first, I just discounted that this was a personal problem with the people in my life, but, then in my search for answers, I found the self-same conditions in every form of media.

I am truly frightened for this country, for the first time in my adult life.  The sheer number of "low information" voters out there is mind boggling.  I do believe that this is one of the most important elections in my 52 year long lifetime and the people in this country could simply throw their vote away for all the wrong reasons.  I am also certain that I will be flamed unmercifully for expressing this opinion, but I'm beyond caring anymore.  If John McCain and Sarah Palin are elected come November, God help this country and its future.  We will only have ourselves to blame.

September 3, 2008 2:20 PM

butchie b said:

That sounds like what some of my more conservative friends say will happen if Obama is elected.

Be not afraid. We survived Carter and W, just to take 2 examples.  We are a very strong and resilient country.  However, we must do what democracies do worst - act on problems before they become emergenices.  In this, the political elites across the spectrum have failed miserably - entitlement reform, health care, energy security - all have been ignored in favor of bumper sticker policies.

Hereabouts, W is thought an idiot.  Fair enough.  But the Congress since 2007 has been execrable.  Zero accomplishments.  Palin may fail - Pelosi already has, and Reid needs to give way to Hillary.  It's a bipartisan failure of the political branches - never mind who wins on November 4.

September 3, 2008 4:47 PM

Historian1956 said:

butchie b,

Thank you for trying to make me feel better about the political climate of our times.  I know in my heart that we have lived through some of the worst of presidents and congress, but I fear that if we continue on in this vein, we are doomed.  I agree that whoever wins in November that Pelosi MUST go; in fact, even if it would mean a Republican in her place, the voters in her district should get rid of her comes November.  For all my hopes for her, she has reached the Peter Principle as Speaker, especially given her refusal to even contemplate impeachment proceedings, among other horrendous decisions.  Harry Reid, should just retire.  I agree that Hillary should be put in his place, and if not her, someone with "testicular fortitude", which Reid lacks.  This congress has been less than incompetent, it is criminal.

I believe in this country and especially its people, just not at election time.  We are a nation of hard workers who are not afraid to band together to get things done, especially when the government fails miserably.  I want desperately for strong, competent, courageous people to be elected, not perfect, but willing to try to be and to aspire to do the right thing.

Thank you again for trying to help me feel better and less depressed aobut this whole election process.

September 3, 2008 5:22 PM

jemerk said:

If you are going to list the democratic congress as a failure, you should at least acknowledge the service that Mitch McConnell has done by filibustering everything but breathing oxygen.

September 3, 2008 6:00 PM

ironyroad said:

Um . . .  I hate to say this, especially to a Historian, but a little checking would have revealed that Pelosi regularly romps home with 75-80% of the vote in her district.  That suggests that voters think quite highly of her, and are not inclinded to dump her.

September 3, 2008 6:06 PM

Historian1956 said:

Ironyroad, no fact-checking necessary on my part, just wishful thinking.  I know she is hugely popular in her district.  

September 3, 2008 9:19 PM

Historian1956 said:

Jemerk, Mitch McConnell's filibustering everything goes without saying; however, the Democrats could have made good on their promise to filibuster the FISA amendment, they so unbelievably passed.  (Obama included)  When did the Constitution and Bill of Rights become nothing more than toilet paper in this country?  Tonight the lovely, unqualified, Hockey Mom  made fun of Obama and wanting to "read them (the terrorists at Guantanamo) their rights first" as if the Bill of Rights meant nothing and that the one major nation in the world with a written Bill of Rights would be lessened by extending those rights to detainees (Prisoners of War, just like John "a noun, a verb and POW" McCain.  Sickening and depressing and I think I'm going to head off to bed and draw the covers up over my head, forever...

September 4, 2008 1:32 AM

Historian1956 said:

Just a weird off topic question on something that has been bothering me for some time now.  What the hell is with the time stamp on TNR?  I am writing this at 1:32 AM EST and yet it will  read September 4, 2006 5:47 AM or something even weirder.  Even Greenwich meantime would be 6:32 AM.  Is TNR's servers located somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic or somewhere equally freaky?

September 4, 2008 1:36 AM

Historian1956 said:

Seeing my previous comment appearing just now, it does read a little fast for Greenwich Mean Time.  Sorry for the 3 consecutive posts.

September 4, 2008 1:38 AM

ericad said:

I agree with Historian1956 that it is simply unfathomable how many willfully (?) stupid and ignorant people there are in this country. And because majority rules, we keep getting stuck with crappy leaders (I give the benefit of the doubt to the 1st election of GWB, but RE-election?  sheesh!!)  To add further to her depression (but please come out of the covers in time to vote at least!), that while it is true we have survived crappy presidents in the past, we usually get a break between periods (not necessarily terms).  After 8 years of Bush-Cheney, we truly can't afford 8 years of McCain-Palin/Palin-xyz).  That probably really would destroy this country.  From where we stand now, I think our brief ascendancy in our youth is pretty close to history.  Bad timing people being born right now. Sorry.

September 5, 2008 9:24 AM