A VP Nominee To Unite the Base
Written by YellowJacket on August 27th, 2008The Directors of RedState collectively penned an article pushing John McCain to pick VA Rep. Eric Cantor as his VP choice.
When “The Directors,” rather than one author, write a piece on RS, it’s a significant sign of agreement of many Republicans of different stripes.
Though currently I am dismayed at the prospect of either McCain or Obama in office (much like Derb at NRO and Mike here), if Cantor were selected as McCain’s VP nominee that would push me to join the bandwagon. Personnel is policy, and picking Cantor would signify a willingness to actually adhere to some conservative principles in office. He’s a regular champion of reform and true limited government in the conservative model.
But I still think McCain will go with someone more like MN Gov. Tim Pawlenty, or even CT Sen. Joe Lieberman. My prediction is Pawlenty. But I would not be disappointed if he instead chose Cantor.
27
PM
On the off chance that Cantor is selected what specific aspects of McCain’s policy do you think would change?
Will Cantor suddenly engineer a reversal of McCain’s amnesty proposal? Will McCain no longer believe in the merits of McCain-Fiengold?
I have a hard time believing that at his age McCain is going to change any of his policy stances.
If Cantor is VP then he will have a hard time being a part of the administration and remaining a conservative in any sense of the word.
27
PM
McCain’s VP will follow his policies during the administration regardless who gets picked. The real question is how they would act when they get their shot at the office if McCain stands down in 2012?
In many respects, conservatives would be smart to let McCain pick someone like Lieberman, Giuliani, or Ridge simply because they would not likely seek the Republican nomination if McCain does not run for a second term. This would leave the conservative wing a clean slate for 2012 possibly and another chance to get their act together not like the fiasco they had this time around.
27
PM
“In many respects, conservatives would be smart to let McCain pick someone like Lieberman, Giuliani, or Ridge simply because they would not likely seek the Republican nomination if McCain does not run for a second term.”
I concur. No matter the boost given to your career prospects by being VP, if it compromises your integrity it is a worthless position. How could Cantor look us in the eyes in 2012 and say, “Well I didn’t really believe in anything the administration did, trust me.”
27
PM
The problem with that idea is simple: the conservative movement in this nation is so divided that I doubt they will be able to muster a good pick in 2012. Based off the movement’s performance in 2008, I would suspect a moderate who can pick off one of the conservative factions will win again simply because the conservative movement needs to come up with a common definition of conservative and realize nobody is going to perfectly fit it though. Reagan was not a perfect conservative as nobody is perfect. If the conservatives realize these things, they have a good shot of winning the nomination in 2012. If not, we will get another McCain.
27
PM
I agree on the fragmentation of definition and on the lack of upper echelon leadership in the conservative movement. The trouble is, no one wants to bad mouth McCain (which I understand) so they remain silent instead. The best thing for Pence and company would be an Obama presidency that unites opposition around him and the rest of the RSC.
27
PM
I do not think its that simple. Its easy to unify against someone when you have a common vision, but the conservative factions (I am not referring to them as a singular movement because they are not) are becoming less of a unified ideology as a diverging interest groups with somewhat common origins. You will have the Huckabee fans. You will have the Ron Paul types. You will have the true conservatives led by the RSC.
I think the only way we are going to construct something resembling a stable and productive limited government coalition on the center-right in this nation again is if we set priorities that are conservative, but broad enough to be politically viable. For example, I think fiscal responsibility could be a real winner. Why hasn’t the movement taken one key issue or a few and put their full might behind them? Instead in our fragmented state, we cannot even come up with something along those lines.
27
PM
“Why hasn’t the movement taken one key issue or a few and put their full might behind them?” - Ryan
Because nobody seems to agree on what issue should take precedence. The Huck fans want social issues above all. Most of the rest want either limited government or fiscal responsibility as a priority. And unfortunately the various camps can be pretty dismissive toward one another.
28
PM
Well the reason we have this problem in the party is because we ceased defining conservatism as support for limited, but good government. Instead we became obsessed with achieving cultural ends at all costs. Certain elements of the social conservative movement are only socially conservative, but lovers of big government to enforce their morality. The Huckabee campaign was the first national manifestation of it. This movement must be liquidated politically speaking if the conservative movement is going to be for limited government again. I suspect we will need to kick them out of the coalition to achieve our ends. The question is who do you replace them with?