A Republican Who Can Win in PA

Eleven months ago, I wrote in the Philadelphia Inquirer that the key for Republicans to win Pennsylvania and the White House in 2008 was to focus on suburbanites who wanted a hawk on terror but a moderate on social issues.

"GOP presidential candidates need to focus on surviving primaries and winning the general election, not vice versa," I wrote.

John McCain is such a candidate, and he will be a formidable opponent for Barack Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton -- notwithstanding the daily barrage he is enduring from conservative voices. In fact, I'm starting to think their criticism helps him by accentuating his platform.

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, three of the biggest talkers in the nation, are among those outwardly apoplectic about McCain's success. Another conservative, James Dobson of Focus on the Family, has even said he won't vote for president at all as "a matter of conscience" if McCain wins the nomination.

Conservative criticism of McCain aims at his stance on illegal immigration, his close relationship with Edward M. Kennedy, his opposition to the Bush tax cuts, his desire to close Guantanamo, his embrace of global warming, and his (perceived) defiance of the First Amendment on campaign-finance legislation. All of which, we're told, makes him no Ronald Reagan.

Ironically, a full year ago, at the National Constitution Center, I asked McCain whether he was a Reagan conservative, and he told me: "Was Ronald Reagan a rigid ideologue? No -- I think if you look at his record when he was governor of California, he even raised taxes. But he had a vision. He had a vision grounded in good fundamental conservative principles and an optimistic vision of the future and an unshakable faith in America and its citizens, in the unique role we played in history and will continue to play."

Look: McCain's brand of Reaganism could return Pennsylvania to the GOP fold for the first time since 1988, when George H.W. Bush carried the commonwealth. In the intervening 20 years, the Republican Party has lost its hold on the Philadelphia suburbs. Why? The national political pendulum swung after 12 straight Reagan-Bush years, Democratic voters continued to flee Philadelphia for the suburbs, and the Democratic Party built solid organizations and gained traction in those counties. Consider that in Montgomery County, which in the 1980s was a well-oiled Republican machine, Democrats just won five of the nine row offices.

Karl Rove sought to stoke the more conservative GOP base in central Pennsylvania and the upper tier (the so-called conservative "T") of the state by relying on wedge issues. But that strategy didn't deliver a win for Bush in 2000 or 2004, nor do I think it would win in 2008. For every extra voter who gets pulled out of conservative enclaves in central Pennsylvania through wedge-issue rhetoric, the Democrats will continue to pull out an extra vote or two in Philadelphia and its nearby suburbs.

Instead, I say, the GOP needs to concentrate on appealing to Philadelphia suburbanites on common ground. Incidentally, last month I offered my thinking to Rove himself, and he said: "To win Pennsylvania as a Republican presidential candidate, you've got to do three things. You've got to drive up the Republican turnout in the T. You've got to eat into the Democrat numbers in Allegheny County and Southwest Pa. And you need to maximize your vote in the collar suburbs, the inner suburbs there around Philadelphia.

"The Republican candidate who wins Pennsylvania this year is going to be the candidate who can do not just one thing -- maximize the Republican vote in the suburbs -- but do all three things."

If John McCain wants to win Pennsylvania, he needs to maintain his maverick status. His independence and moderation on social issues may draw Rush Limbaugh's ire, but it's exactly what may enable him to appeal to some of the voters who sent Patrick Murphy to replace Mike Fitzpatrick in the House, and Bob Casey to relieve Rick Santorum in the U.S. Senate. They are the same voters who have been returning Arlen Specter to the Senate since 1980 and are comfortable voting for Ed Rendell regardless of party affiliation. These voters do not share in the conservative condemnation of McCain. To the contrary, they will appreciate that he isn't running for president on an ideological platform.

Which is why I believe the conservative blasting of McCain is good publicity around here.

Come to think of it, maybe the conservatives have this all figured out and realize McCain is their only hope in thwarting their archenemy, Hillary Clinton. I needed to know. So the morning after Super Tuesday, tongue planted firmly in cheek, I called Sean Hannity at home and told him I was wise to the cabal. I said I suspected he'd had dinner with Rush at Patsy's Italian Restaurant in New York and, united in their hatred for Hillary, decided the only way to deny her the White House was to overlook McCain's shortcomings and unite behind his candidacy because of his appeal to independents. How best to do that? By calling attention to his liberal votes in a mock bid to do him political harm.

Hannity, of course, told me I was crazy. He then said if it happened, it would have begun at Ruth's Chris Steak House -- not Patsy's.

Which, come to think of it, was not an outright denial.

Comments

[Cathexis]

Just out of curiosity, Mr Smerconish ... why should we be even remotely interested in "a Republican who can win in PA?"

I used to vote a straight Republican ticket most of my life, but I will tell you this: After more than 7 years of the Bush Administration and the current GOP, I can't even envision the circumstances required in which I would even deign to *consider* voting for *any* Republican. That "brand" is SO discredited that I really believe they should fold the Republican banner and start over.

Worse, they refuse to repent or even acknowledge the *incredible* amounts of damage they have done to our country.

I can forgive some degree of incompetence, sir, but not the astronomic levels we have witnessed since 2000.

I can forgive a smaller degree of preverication and spin, sir, but not a fraction of what we have been subjected to these past 7+ years.

I cannot forgive actions, sir, which flagrantly result in threats to our Democracy, Constitution, or basis for Government, as exemplified by the arrogant Unitary Executive outrage. (BTW, when you don't hear the same cheerleaders shouting for President Hillary or President Barack to enjoy those priveleges, perhaps you'll ruminate on your party's crass hypocrasy.)

I cannot forgive criminal actions, sir, against staute, Constitutional, and International law.

No, Sir. If the only opponent available to run against a Republican was a moss-covered rock, at this point, I'd be confident knowing that I'd vote for the option and, at least, it could NOT make things WORSE.

Anyone who has even an iota of integrity or actual patriotism will fereverently reject the shameful and discredited Republican Party -- including those "Republicans" or any *actual* Conservatives who value principle over labels.

Your party was hijacked by shameless, unprincipled radicals, sir. Until you and other "Republicans" realize this, I have nothing more to say to you.

[RepublicanBrain]

Why we should be interested is because the Democratic choices are far worse. Obama is Bush-lite when it comes to experience, and the only thing setting him apart is his skin color, which the liberals seem to care about. And Hillary is Bush-strong when it comes to war, except she has the idea of national health care (and the failure during Bill's administration to prove it). The only thing setting her apart is the lack of a Y chromosome, which the liberals seem to care about.

Unfortunately, none of the things you've mentioned amount to criminal. They've been looked at by the courts, and no such action has been found. And it is the courts, not the crying of people with loud voices, that matter. Take your sound bytes from the real world, and not from liberal shock-jocks, and you'll find the real truth.

Real patriotism is supporting the values of the Constitution, not what people tell you what the values are. When you remember this, and base your decision of candidate on fact and not outrage, you'll realize that Hillary and Obama are the worse choices.

[Mormondude]

What does McCain have to offer that Bush doesn't?

The only thing I can think of is military and foreign policy competence. And, of course, that's not in any way demonstrated at this point.

McCain started attacking the strategy in Iraq at the same time the Dems did. He was attacking Rumsfeld at the same time Democrats were attacking Rumsfeld. That didn't take any sort of political courage.

I will admit that he strongly advocated the surge before we knew it was going to be successful. But so did Bush and others.

He doesn't seem to have any competence or even understanding of any domestic issues, which means that with a Democratic Congress, he will essentially let the Dems dictate domestic policy.

I'm not voting for McCain. I'd rather see him go down in flames and let the Republicans in Congress solidify their minority opposition around true conservative values. Trying to further work across the aisle and deliver any sort of meaningful reforms just because a Republican is in the White House will do more harm than good.

[FearlessFreep]

The key to Republican victory in 2008: finding a way to make hell freeze over (or having Hillary Clinton to run against).

[WilliePilgrim]

Hmm...the GOP playing the Dems for fools? NOt at all unlikely. One of the big dangers of ideology, whether it's in the form of "delivered wisdom and knowledge" of religion or "the party line" of politics, it is a poor substitution for free thinking and pursuit of objective facts.
Both the dems and reps are equally guilty of this high profile form of idiocy. My distain is distributed proportionally.
Of course the our unreal expectations from politics are largely the result of our observing the convoluted shadow of its frankenstienian substance, the rest being hidden "for our own good".

[Pjsandiego]

The whole "McCain is a Liberal" movement is Karl Rove playing with the independents head. The election is all about the independents and when Rush and Hannitty attack McCain they are really just putting votes in his pocket from the independent wing. Conservatives are not going to vote for Hillary, Obama or any democratic candidate.

This is exactly the same reason that Huckabee won't quit. The message that McCain is a liberal is to win the general where McCain will certainly be a conservative, and will use that incredible temper and pigheadiness to get us into yet more wars!

[Pdubya]

did you even see the CPAC speeches?

mccain - booed
paul - applauded

[Mormondude]

Paul finished behind Romney in some states, AFTER Romney dropped out.

Paul is a pipe dream, and he's already confirmed that he won't run as an independent, so he should go back to the House and get some work done.

[GLOBALISATIONisBARBARISM]

It'd just be tingling to know which one is the greater pipe dream, Ron Paul or America, the "Land of the Free", - if it's really no better than all the "pragmatic" people at large in the political arena will have it be.

[GLOBALISATIONisBARBARISM]

pdubya, keep up the good work. Let the dudes of this world taunt.

I am sick of even reading myself through such articles. All this reasonable, childish "wisdom" so shrewd and so stupid at once, which through every pore breathes its all-pervasive credo: tactics trumps principle, power and career is all, morals are for the weak.

IT’S SUFFOCATING!

The question after eight years of Bush, and at the beginning of the greatest economic crisis for at least two generations should be WHAT PRESIDENT IS SUFFICIENT FOR THE SURVIVAL OF THE NATION? (!)

The question is nothing of this stuff discussed above. Do people even realize how decadent a world we (U.S. plus Europe) have become. Elect a person president who as recently as last year complained Bush should be given more credit for the "great economy".

Please, someone pinch me and tell me this is real.

[Bluedanube]

People are beginning to realize that a McCain administration would be Bush's 3rd term. Do you honestly believe that the citizens of Pennsylvania want 4 more years of a failed ideology and administration? Are Republicans more concerned about their party winning than in the well being of the nation? If so then it would seem that so called Republicans have the mentality of high school fans rooting for their home team when the score is 100 to 0.

[Joeseo]

Of course you are correct about the third term. That is why John kissed the feet of the Bush family and Jerry Falwell et al. Once he did that, he had the nomination sewed up. He and Hillary both know the score is all about Oil in Iraq and both will continue the Aramco occupation. Fait accompli;...ask Tony Blair.

My high school guys did the same rooting only they died in Viet Nam in the highest numbers of any school in our country. They believed the lies of a Texas democrat and in patriotism. They still get laughed at by the conservatives who worshiped William F. Buckley.

Tragically, the Neo-cons continue their cowardice and demeaning behavior about Iraq. If these bastards had any courage they would insist on a true market solution. Bring home our Troops and demand Private protection of Iraq Oil. Its sheer Corporate socialism, if not outright fascism, having our young subsidize Aramco with their lives.

[Poboy]

"the key for Republicans to win Pennsylvania and the White House in 2008 was to focus on suburbanites who wanted a hawk on terror but a moderate on social issues."


As an outsider looking in, I think Pennsylvania is up for grabs and will likely go Democratic in this upcoming Presidential election.

According to Wiki, this state is about evenly split among Dems and Repubs in Congress, with Dem advantage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Pennsylvania_delegation_to_the_110th_Congress

At the state level, in 2006 the statehouse was transformed from Repub to Dem.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x1713

The state has voted Democratic in the last 3 Presidential elections.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x1713

Your conclusions are but wishful thinking, posing as thoughtful insight. I wish people stop giving these crazy ass suburbanites more credit than they deserve.

BTW, WTF does war hawk or moderate on social issues mean? To answer this question is to answer why I think the people who think this way are crazy.

[w&cheneysuck]

If you are watching closely, this is payback time to McCain by W. McCain was the good soldier and, against his better judgement, supported W. quid pro quo. Now W. is weighing in on Clinton and defending her against those (David Schuster) who spoke out against Chelsea. Who cares what he thinks? The media should stay away from W; it would devestate him not to be in the news!

Smerc, I am from PA and I don't believe that your views reflect those of the PA constituency. Most of the folks that I know on the Main Line are Dems or reformed Republicans (in light of W's extreme failures as a leader)! He is an embarassment of major proportions on every level.

As for McCain, the machine hasn't even revved up the engines against him. He has a long history that will be brought forward....looking forward to that ;)

GO OBAMA!!!!

[tumblewind]

Any intelligent Republican would have learned their lesson on far right candidates with Bush! Bush has been a unmitigated disaster for this country! As far as I can see McCain isn't a gram better than Bush! It's going to be the same set of failed policies that's bankrupting this country! That's literally destroyed the economy! The phony 'War on terror' needs to end with this President! McCain has already said if it takes '100 years' we are going to stick this mess out! Personally, I don't think there is much choice this election. I either go with the one who might get us out of Iraq and bring some integrity back to the White House. Or 4 more years of failed Bush policies. This country can not afford another Republican in the White House! It's going to destroy us if it happens. So I have no reservations about voting Democratic!

[cybermome1207]

Well I AM in a Philly suburb.And while I agree with you about McCain winning against HRC, its not because he's a maverick or socially moderate.That is his back story crafted by his PR team.

He's just another Republican rubber stamper with a really bad temper..

Our country literally cannot afford another Republican in the WH

[sparkandy]

Although my daughter lives in New Jersey, the town she lives in is close enough to Philadelphia to be a suburb (close to Cherry Hill). Now she's torn between McCain and Obama, the first time in her live she's even considered voting Republican. McCain's social liberalism is refreshing to many of us who hate the rigid fundamentalism of the Republicans for the last few decades. It's going to be an exciting election, with two choices people like, rather than two choices they hate.

[Herrington]

Here’s the real deal PA. Reagan concocted a coalition of traditional fiscal conservatives and religious fundamentalists to create an electoral majority in 1980. He took advantage of the modest overlap of fiscal conservatism and religious fundamentalism. But just because it got him elected does not mean it was the right thing to do.

Fiscal restraint took a back seat to religious issues because the fiscal message was less compelling. To steer this coalition to the ballot box was difficult, because they are disconnected issues that overlap only somewhat in the electorate. As the fiscal message faded next to the very successful religious electoral imperative, the Republicans lost sight of the goal in pursuit of the means.

Now there is a great deal of historical evidence that fiscal conservatives include but are not limited to mavens of big business. It is now becoming clearer that big business is indifferent to fiscal restraint as long as their profits flow. It is equally clear they were fine promoting religious issues over fiscal issues as a means to control government.

The die they created for a president in this pursuit of religious fundamentalist appeal and side bet of fiscal restraint would be one that fit George Bush perfectly.

I do not think they counted on the neo-cons. If they did, it could only have been defense contractors and oil men. Bush then introduced something that Americans have never had to deal with to any great degree, a government motivated by military imperialism.

Now the Republicans have a real mess. They must appeal to popular support in the party for a war that they created and promoted, religious fundamentalists and true fiscal conservatives. No party or platform can do this. Bush popularity numbers reflect that. McCain is the best fit, and he does not fit.

In order for Republicans to continue to exists as a party, the house must be cleaned. Fiscal restraint is the goal and should be the message, it is credible. Reagan’s big tent was an illusion that has resulted in political suicide for the party.

[RepublicanBrain]

This is hardly the case. This is no "real deal." Fiscal conservatives and religious fundamentalists are not the majority of voters. They weren't that way in Reagan's time, and it's not that way now.

Big business didn't create any of this. What created neo-conservatives in abundance were expatriating liberals who disagreed with Democratic ideas. Typically, they started around the Carter administration (who, by the way, had an approval rating lower then GW.)

Republicans and Democrats will always exist. There were far more problems earlier on in this country's history, and the parties are still basically intact.

[doxyluv13]

Sorry, Smerc, wrong again.

The war that McCain wants to last 100 years is no more popular in PA than it is anywhere else. It will drag him down. Plus PA has been trending Democratic in national races anyway and is unlikely to break that trend except in a strong republican year which 2008 show no sign of being.

[LARiverWater]

President Bush came out tonight in support of the Clintons. Saying “I don’t think Bill is a racist”, (talk about triangulation), and that “Obama has no experience”. WAKE UP PEOPLE! The Repubs want the Clintons to get the nomination. It’s now CRYSTAL CLEAR! It’s obvious and shame on us if we can’t see them for what they are. Just because we’re paranoid of them, doesn’t mean they’re not manipulating us. The radio news reports (AP news) of the election is playing only Hillary sound bites, listen carefully. The Right control most of the Radio networks. It’s starting to NOT go their way, and their only hope of winning is to run against the Clintons. Don’t be stupid & fooled by Coulter, Limbaugh and the rest. They’re actually saying they’ll campaign for her. They know she’s their only shot. I like her, but no one will admit they’re voting for Bill. She feels like the safe bet, like when you play not to lose. But energizing the right and dividing us into red & blue is exactly what they want us to do. What we need is courage to change it all (she’ll be a part of it, but not front and center), to diffuse any power they have left. It will then be between new and really old, real change and another Bush. That we can win.