 |
McCain’s Party Unity Problem |
 |
For months, the media has focused on the question of Democratic party unity. Now that Obama is the presumptive nominee, there are still ongoing questions as to whether Hillary voters will unite behind him. I think Hillary’s recent, and full-throated, endorsement helps Obama with this task. McCain’s extreme positions on issues that matter to women (and on issues that matter to any voter, male or female) help even more. Â
The media occasionally asks whether the religious right will get behind McCain. Some religious right demogogues, including James Dobson, have expressed skepticism about McCain, and it remains to be seen whether McCain will energize the religious right. Will evangelicals volunteer to go door to door for McCain in the way that they did for Bush?
But McCain faces another rift within his party, one less attended to by the media. How will he do with libertarians, Republicans who are socially liberal and fiscally conservative, voters who chose Ron Paul in the primaries? On CNN yesterday, Paul confirmed that he has no plans to endorse McCain, and doesn’t plan to do so unless McCain changes his views on the war in Iraq (not happening) and other issues. Paul, and many of his supporters, see the war in Iraq as a terrible mistake–Paul was the only Republican presidential candidate opposed to the war in Iraq. Paul also said that he didn’t see how he could serve as McCain’s VP if asked to do so as McCain might end up invading Iran without Congressional authorization, and Paul would have to resign. (Pretty damning commentary, I thought)
It’s not clear how much influence Paul has over his voters (although, for whatever it’s worth, Wolf Blitzer played video of one Paul supporter who said he’d vote for McCain if Paul endorsed him). Paul did get significant support in a number of Republican primary/caucus states, including Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Washington (Paul’s numbers were very close to McCain’s in several of these states).
McCain likes to invoke the legacy of libertarian hero Barry Goldwater, but Ron Paul has a stronger connection to Goldwater than McCain does. Libertarians don’t have a home anymore in McCain’s Republican party, the party of Guantanamo Bay, the Iraq war, and runaway government spending. As McCain tries to shore up his credentials with right wing extremists by reaching out to the religious right and criticizing the Supreme Court’s recent decision on habeas corpus, he only pushes Paul voters farther away. Will they end up voting for Obama, for Barr, or will they stay home? I don’t know, but it will be interesting to see how this plays out. And as Jason has pointed out, it’d be nice to see the Republican party move away from evangelicals and toward libertarians. The bottom line is that there are a lot of people who reject the Bush years and want something different. John McCain offers more of the same, as Paul himself recognizes. I also agree with Jason that I’d like to see the Republica party start paying more attention to libertarians than it does to religious extremists.Â
Good article, but you lose major points for helping to spread the “full-throated” meme.
thanks–but why do you object to the full-throated point? I watched Clinton’s speech and she seemed quite enthusiastic…
I’m not objecting to the semantics, Chris, just the choice of words. I realize that Obama started it — using the term “full-throated endorsement” — but it comes off as rather “Fox News-ish” when used to say Hillary enthusiastically endorses Barak. It’s the kind of word choice that calls attention to itself simply because it is unusual (not typical). Unintended as it surely is, there’s an innuendo there that won’t be missed by a lot of people. It’s pretty clear to me that the media is using it more and more. Someone with more time than I have might look at how the term is being used, and by whom, but a quick search on Google News seems to verify that the frequency of its usage has jumped way up in the past month.
oh, I see–it is a pretty odd phrase…I probably heard it somewhere (I guess from Obama?) and lazily repeated it. funny thing is I don’t even like it. I guess I should say “enthusiastic”–thanks for pointing to this
*snicker*
It’s a Clinton — “full-throated” reference - think about it.
Hint: Blue dress
Usage of the word “enthusiastic” is much better. *wink*
*crawls back under his rock*