Evan McMullin Should Not Be Architect of New GOP

[corbe]

Evan McMullin Should Not Be Architect of New GOP

By Brian Sikma  |  November 2, 2016, 03:00pm  |  @briansikma

http://theresurgent.com/evan-mcmullin-should-not-be-architect-of-new-gop/


Independent presidential protest candidate Evan McMullin is a decent man and an American patriot, but under no circumstances should his view of conservatism form the basis of a rebuilt Republican Party post-2016, or form the bedrock of a new conservative moment.

There is no question that at time when both major political parties have nominated fundamentally distasteful and deeply flawed candidates, individuals whose basic human decency is open to question based on their previous records and remarks, Evan McMullin is a respectable human being. But while respectable and decent are now – remarkably – enough to fuel a nationwide protest campaign, they are not all that is required to rebuild a GOP that will emerge deeply divided on November 9th.

From social issues to foreign policy issues, and even touching an important fiscal issue, McMullin’s articulation – or lack of articulation – betrays good intentions that are not backed up by concrete principles or policy proposals.

Maggie Gallagher, a social conservative activist, expressed skepticism of McMullin back in August in a piece for National Review Online. Citing his general silence on domestic policy issues, she asserted that the former CIA officer turned Capitol Hill staffer is “not the savior conservatives are hoping for.”

On the life issue, Gallagher pointed out that McMullin’s website was then – and still is – pretty sparse on details even though the candidate declares that, “Our respect for life is the most important measure of our humanity.” Well put, and certainly very much in line with a conservatism that respects the equality of human beings and a belief that government should protect human life. But the only policy specific McMullin embraces is no taxpayer funding for abortion. “A culture that subsidizes abortion on demand runs counter to the fundamental American belief in the potential of every person – it undermines the dignity of mother and child alike,” his platform reads.

A ban on taxpayer funding of abortion is already the law of the land. What is still allowed – and what McMullin is silent about – is the use of taxpayer money to fund the non-abortion operations of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. That’s a recent debate that McMullin, if interested in proving his pro-life credentials as a serious candidate, could have easily weighed in on. Instead, he has remained silent on his website and a search for news clips and public statements turned up nothing.

Gallagher suggests that McMullin may be seeking “to be a unifier through vagueness, as many consultants would no doubt advise.”

In contrast to his one paragraph statement about the importance of human life, McMullin spends 19 paragraphs outlining his immigration reform plan. The plan is chock full of policy principles that McMullin wants to see implemented after the border is secured. It is a realistic and thoughtful plan – proof that even as a last minute candidate, McMullin can put meat on broad position statements provided the issue is one he cares about.

On another social issue – the hot button topic of the definition of marriage, and who defines it – McMullin has adopted a passive tone. Professing that he personally believes marriage is a union between a man and a woman, McMullin told Bloomberg that he “respects the decision of the [Supreme] Court and I think it is time to move on.” Pressed if perhaps the issue should be resolved at the state level, a position similar to those embraced by Republicans like Sen. Marco Rubio or Sen. Ted Cruz, McMullin again emphasized the matter is settled law: “Ideally, yes, but it has been handled by the Supreme Court, and that’s where it is.”

When queried about whether or not he favors appointing Supreme Court justices who might take the view that Obergefell v. Hodges, the case that forced all states and the federal government to accept same-sex marriage, was decided incorrectly, the nascent candidate said he would not favor those types of judicial nominees.

Sen. Marco Rubio famously said of Obergefell that, “I don’t believe any case law is settled law. Any future Supreme Court can change it.” Promising to nominate strict constructionist judges, the then-presidential candidate told NBC News, “I don’t think the current Constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate marriage. That belongs at the state and local level.”

Rubio wasn’t afraid to use some political capital to defend his position. According to another NBC News story, “Rubio seems unconcerned his positions on social issues might cost him younger voters.” He also pushed back against the argument that supporting the traditional definition of marriage makes someone a bigot.

For his part, Sen. Ted Cruz promoted the idea of an amendment to the Constitution that clarifies that the definition of marriage is settled at the state – not federal – level.

   Entire Article at Link Above

[sinkspur]

Who is saying his view should prevail?

One thing is for sure, Trumpism will be dead after Trump loses.

[corbe]

    I know there is allot of Evan people here, and I posted this NOT as Cut to the Guy.

    I admire the Guy, he's got big cajones to try this-For US.

[corbe]

Who is saying his view should prevail?

One thing is for sure, Trumpism will be dead after Trump loses.

   I don't know @sinkspur , maybe the 2012 Republican Nominee, not that it should matter, I agree.

[libertybele]

Considering the short amount of time he's had to campaign and attempt to get on the ballot, he's done remarkably well.  I've always been curious as to where he's getting his financial backing? LDS Church??  He came out of nowhere and really is a no one. He's known in UT perhaps, but the rest of the country hasn't really even heard of him...he's got a long way to go.

[sinkspur]

   I don't know @sinkspur , maybe the 2012 Republican Nominee, not that it should matter, I agree.

Do you mean 2020? 

There is no Trump clown car after November 8. 

[sinkspur]

Considering the short amount of time he's had to campaign and attempt to get on the ballot, he's done remarkably well.  I've always been curious as to where he's getting his financial backing? LDS Church??  He came out of nowhere and really is a no one. He's known in UT perhaps, but the rest of the country hasn't really even heard of him...he's got a long way to go.

McMullin's not going to win. He gives people of conscience someone to vote for.

[Cripplecreek]

Who is saying his view should prevail?

One thing is for sure, Trumpism will be dead after Trump loses.

Bingo and bingo.

[jmyrlefuller]

Considering the short amount of time he's had to campaign and attempt to get on the ballot, he's done remarkably well.  I've always been curious as to where he's getting his financial backing? LDS Church??  He came out of nowhere and really is a no one. He's known in UT perhaps, but the rest of the country hasn't really even heard of him...he's got a long way to go.

McMullin doesn't have a lot of money left, but remember: the Kristol camp said they were going to back someone, so there was a pent-up fund ready to be tapped.

[libertybele]

McMullin's not going to win. He gives people of conscience someone to vote for.

He may win UT and if so, he's made one for the record books and begins to start a path for 3rd parties in future elections.

[Oceander]

Yeah, it should be Donald Trump and his merry band of Orangeshirts.

[Chosen Daughter]

    I know there is allot of Evan people here, and I posted this NOT as Cut to the Guy.

    I admire the Guy, he's got big cajones to try this-For US.

And he isn't connected to Jeffrey Epstein, Weiner or Huma Abedin.   He doesn't have any sleazy interviews either.

[Frank Cannon]

And he isn't connected to Jeffrey Epstein, Weiner or Huma Abedin.   He doesn't have any sleazy interviews either.

How do we know? He hasn't been vetted in the traditional way......a Primary contest. He just kinda showed up up out of the blue, filed some papers in some states and he all of a sudden he is a "squeaky clean" candidate. I don't buy it.

[Chosen Daughter]

How do we know? He hasn't been vetted in the traditional way......a Primary contest. He just kinda showed up up out of the blue, filed some papers in some states and he all of a sudden he is a "squeaky clean" candidate. I don't buy it.

If the Republican party had given a candidate fit for office nobody would consider the third party.  McMullin claims he got in the race because both candidates suck.  He's right.

[Frank Cannon]

If the Republican party had given a candidate fit for office nobody would consider the third party.  McMullin claims he got in the race because both candidates suck.  He's right.

He's right about that, but where was he when it mattered if he is so great like when the Primaries were going on? I'm personally not that impressed with McMuffin. He's just some dude who figured out he could make a name for himself and get in a few history books by being a protest voters empty vessel.

[DB]

He's right about that, but where was he when it mattered if he is so great like when the Primaries were going on? I'm personally not that impressed with McMuffin. He's just some dude who figured out he could make a name for himself and get in a few history books by being a protest voters empty vessel.

Most likely because many Republicans didn't think the Trump circus would win the primary and therefore there was no major cause to jump in earlier.

[Jazzhead]

If the Republican party had given a candidate fit for office nobody would consider the third party.  McMullin claims he got in the race because both candidates suck.  He's right.

That's enough for me.  We're Americans; we shouldn't have to settle for suck.   

[Night Hides Not]

And he isn't connected to Jeffrey Epstein, Weiner or Huma Abedin.   He doesn't have any sleazy interviews either.

But he is connected to Rick Wilson, a disqualifier in my book.

[GrouchoTex]

"A ban on taxpayer funding of abortion is already the law of the land. What is still allowed – and what McMullin is silent about – is the use of taxpayer money to fund the non-abortion operations of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider."

Who audits this to prove that no Federal funds go for abortions?

Bueller..?

[mountaineer]

I would hope that the "architects" of a rebuilt conservative GOP would be more like Cruz, Gowdy, et al. None of them is perfect, but we've had enough of Republicans who are indistinguishable from the Democrats on matters of economics and policy.

[Jazzhead]

We have so many fundamental problems to solve;  I favor pragmatic conservatives who are informed by ideology but committed to the betterment of public policy, not partisan warfare.   

[TomSea]

Romney's really stabbing the pro-life movement in the back here.

I supported Romney, I don't blame him for being angry at "conservatives" or "Republicans" that didn't support him.

There needs to be unity.

[Jazzhead]

Romney's really stabbing the pro-life movement in the back here.

I supported Romney, I don't blame him for being angry at "conservatives" or "Republicans" that didn't support him.

There needs to be unity.

C'mon, Trump's no pro-lifer; don't be naïve.    I admire the Mormons who recognize a moral cretin when they see him, and refuse to make a deal with the devil like so many evangelical "leaders" have done. 

Trump is a mistake;  he never should have been nominated.   Yes, we need to unify,  but around an honorable agenda and honorable leaders.   In a week the nation will choose between a new Nixon and a new Mussolini.   Count me out,  but after the election I am open to reconciliation and a new resolve to pull conservatism from the wreckage of Trump's clown car.   
   

[Night Hides Not]

We have so many fundamental problems to solve;  I favor pragmatic conservatives who are informed by ideology but committed to the betterment of public policy, not partisan warfare.   

Most of those have been in hiding since the Rise of Trump.

I fall back on one name: Dave Brat.

[Night Hides Not]

C'mon, Trump's no pro-lifer; don't be naïve.    I admire the Mormons who recognize a moral cretin when they see him, and refuse to make a deal with the devil like so many evangelical "leaders" have done. 

Trump is a mistake;  he never should have been nominated.   Yes, we need to unify,  but around an honorable agenda and honorable leaders.   In a week the nation will choose between a new Nixon and a new Mussolini.   Count me out,  but after the election I am open to reconciliation and a new resolve to pull conservatism from the wreckage of Trump's clown car.   
 

IMHO, our efforts should be effective primary challenges to most, if not all, Republican Reps & Senators in 2018. Force the Chamber of Commerce and K Street to spend their money during the primaries, and exhaust their resources prior to the general. If there was a viable third party, they'd have a better chance to win in November.

McConnell and Ryan think they have an iron grip on their caucus, we need to shatter that illusion.