Centerfield

I was relieved when the editors at RedState endorsed Shadegg. Many of them over there defended DeLay for far too long, in my view.

I had never really heard of Shadegg before these recent events, but everything I've heard about him thus far I like. Definitely better choice than anybody who accumulated power under the auspices of DeLay.

If it's really true that he's more of a libertarian than a social conservative, that's an easy choice for me. And a fiscal conservative? Now I'm swooning. :-)

OK, now CNN says Shadegg wants to end the practice of putting earmarks for pet pork projects into big appropriations bills. So now I'm ready to blow the guy. But my cynical side says OK, he must have no shot...

Brian,

I mean libertarian in the sense that his focus and priorities are those issues mentioned, rather than social engineering, if you will. I know he is pro-life, but other than that I don't know what his stance is on other social issues. I also know that he is a favorite of the Republican Liberty Caucus that calls itself a libertarian organization, neutral on social issues.

Shadegg was one of the rebelious 25 that voted against the party on Medicare reform, and has been one that consistently votes against the so-called "big government Conservative" proposals we have seen lately.

Whether he has a true shot is a good question, although I can't imagine why he would jump in at this time if he didn't think so, especially since he resigned his leadership post to do so.

I'll reiterate a previous comment. Shadegg represents northcentral Phoenix and part of Scottsdale. A fairly well to do and conservative part of town. He is in fact my Rep. Low key and well spoken. He's a fiscal conservative and along with other AZ congressman (i.e. Flake and McCain) has been vocal about "earmarks". He is conservative and he has some traditional conservative social stances: pro-life, pro-death penalty. Doesn't like to pick fights in public. I believe he's well respected in AZ and in Congress. Has been in Congress since '94.

Initially when his name was mentioned he was publically very deferential but now with steam picking up he is now expressing interest.

Here's" his website.

PS Yes I voted for him but then again last general election I don't recall any democratic candidate

Chris, where does he stand on campaign finance reform? Does he support McCain?

I'm not sure but I don't believe he was as enthusiastic about campaign finance reform. I believe he holds a fairly traditional conservative view on that (i.e. limits free speech)

Whew! Thanks for that....

In order to keep the promise made almost eight years ago, the party needs a leader who will place principle above politics and not be afraid to do what is right.

You mean like standing against the version of Medicare prescription drug benefits that ultimately passed because it was too costly and then turning around and taking one for the team by supporting it. Check out this for more on Shadegg's commitment to principle.

Scott;
I reviewed the link. Not to defend Shadegg on this point but it is worth pointing out that Shadegg has had a consistent interest in addressing the health care coverage issue. As a fiscal conservative he's generally searched for market solutions. I would see this vote for Medicare prescription as 1) expressing a concern regarding health care coverage 2) trying to get something passed even if it was fiscally "un-conservative".

I guess in this case (though I'm not a conservative) I have sympathy for Shadegg. I'm very concerned about inability to address the health care "crisis" AND at the same time upset that we have made and continue to make promises we can't pay for.

Oh yeah, and PS... So which candidate for House Majority leader does the New Republic support?

Chalk up another vote for Shadegg from this small-government conservative.

Shadegg, like McCain, is a typical Western conservative. His priorities are defense and fiscal issues. He believes in securing America, maintaining pro-growth policies, keeping the budget in line, and generally keeping the government out of our lives. Like Newt, he's not some fundamentalist libertarian who wants to end Social Security or anything. Rather, he supports the Gingrich notion of restructuring government to make it work better and cost less.

Like McCain, he voted against Bush's big-government initiatives, such as the Medicare bill. Now, I'm the first one to admit that Bush's heart was in the right place with those bills. And I'm not opposed to a government that makes sure our education system is the best in the world or that tries to guarantee seniors a safety net in their retirement years. But Bush, unlike Newt, hasn't acted like a conservative at all on these issues. Instead, Bush has basically been a low-tax liberal, taking rights AWAY from states on education and designing a prescription drug benefit that adds trillions to Medicare in the long run without doing a thing about the fact that it's part of the ticking time bomb that are our entitlements, and that will bankrupt the country in a few decades.

Shadegg rightly opposed Bush's turn towards big-government conservatism at a time when most Republicans were still confusing it with "compassionate conservatism." Like his icon, Barry Goldwater, he does go a bit too far sometimes. He thought Bush's tax cuts in 2001 should've been deeper. I thought they were about right. But that's okay, because he's running for Majority Leader, not POTUS, and the best Majority Leaders tend to be firebrands.

On social issues, Shadegg is what most Western Republicans are: an understated social conservative who doesn't spend a lot of political capital on social issues. People forget that McCain is pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, and voted for Robert Bork. That's because McCain never talks about or campaigns on social issues. Like most Westerners, McCain and Shadegg likely believe that government should only get involved in these issues when it has to, and sometimes it does have to --- there's no way you can avoid picking a Supreme Court nominee, for example. But I would think that a small-government conservative like Shadegg who doesn't spend much time on social issues would be more amenable to centrists than a big-government busybody.

Finally, Shadegg would lead the way in cleaning up the culture of corruption in the GOP congressional caucus. Paired with, say, a President McCain in 2009, Shadegg could help lead Congress back towards a decent, honorable, small-government conservatism that the West has been known for and that has been lacking for the past few years.

I am happy anytime I can help push the political process back towards the middle. I prefer compromising to make modest incremental movements.
Shadegg is as close to a bi-partisan champion as we are being offered.
How can we help Shadegg?
Where is the RMSP and "It's my party too" in helping to move the ball to the middle?

There is a broad blog campaign to support
Shadegg.

http://www.truthlaidbear.com/archives/2006/01/13/an_appeal_from_centerright_bloggers.php

Shadegg has a lot of explaining to do on his relationship with lobbyists.

See: http://porkopolis.blogspot.com/2006/01/red-statecom-reminds-us-that.html