Intellectually, I recognize that John McCain could have done very well with either Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney.
Palin brought in an avenue to reel in disaffected Hillary supporters. She puts a very articulate and reasonable face on the issue of domestic energy production. She is a reformer and maverick - which fits into McCain's career and image very well. She also has impeccable pro-life credentials (I don't think a woman should be forced to carry her rapist's child).
She lacks experience, though, and on the economy in general, she is not as strong as Romney. But the pluses far outweigh the minuses.
Romney had the economic credentials - in spades. He also had no real skeletons, had been vetted, and would have not only locked down some uncomfortably close Mountain West States (Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico), but he had a very good chance of flipping Michigan. The way this election is shaping up - McCain winning Michigan means game over for Obama.
There were downsides. He and McCain didn't exactly get along in the primary. The other, though, leaves me with a bag of mixed emotions.
To wit, Mitt Romney was shot down for the Presidential nomination by anti-Mormon bigotry among evangelicals - a bigotry that was played to by Mike Huckabee. It was a bigotry that a lot of leading conservatives did not denounce. Why they did not do so is a mystery. Afraid of losing support? Was it a reluctance to make a charge that has all too often been used by the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson with little merit? Who knows? But the fact they didn't take on Huckabee has led me to seriously reconsider my alliance with conservatism.
Worse, it also colors my views on a very dedicated wife, mother, and public servant. As much as Sarah Palin is a good nominee, and knowing intellectually that it is very likely that she was selected on the merits, a part of me will always wonder whether she got the slot entirely on the merits (which make it just about a coin toss), or because McCain blinked vis-a-vis Huckabee and other anti-Mormon bigots. I’m probably being very unfair to Governor Palin, but that question just is not going away any time soon.
Showing posts with label GOP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GOP. Show all posts
Friday, August 29, 2008
Thursday, June 26, 2008
A healthy attitude...
Chris Cannon's attitude is the type of thing I wish we had more of in DC.
Quite frankly, his defeat is a bad sign. He had a 96% ACU rating in 2007 - which is not exactly a failing grade - or at least it didn't use to be a failing grade. I guess now, the commissar wing of conservatism will go after you year after year until they get you.
They don't want principle. They want blind obedience.
That is not what conservatism is about.... or at least not what I thought conservatism was about.
I'm not leaving conservatism.... conservatism's leaving me.
Quite frankly, his defeat is a bad sign. He had a 96% ACU rating in 2007 - which is not exactly a failing grade - or at least it didn't use to be a failing grade. I guess now, the commissar wing of conservatism will go after you year after year until they get you.
They don't want principle. They want blind obedience.
That is not what conservatism is about.... or at least not what I thought conservatism was about.
I'm not leaving conservatism.... conservatism's leaving me.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Graham wins by a landslide...
The commissar wing's attack fails again. Lindsey Graham, a supporter of comprehensive immigration reform, beat zampolit wing favorite Buddy Witherspoon by a 2-to-1 margin.
In other words, a silent supermajority of the GOP in a conservative stronghold was okay with a candidate who stood for comprehensive immigration reform.
It seems that the conservative alternate media (talk radio, National Review, etc.) is once again out of step with the GOP.
In other words, a silent supermajority of the GOP in a conservative stronghold was okay with a candidate who stood for comprehensive immigration reform.
It seems that the conservative alternate media (talk radio, National Review, etc.) is once again out of step with the GOP.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Unpatriotic Conservatives, 2008 style...
In 2003, David Frum wrote a brilliant takedown of anti-war conservatives. It pulled very few punches, and laid out a compelling case that they were clearly .
Today, though, there is a new batch of unpatriotic conservatives who are perfectly willing to sell out our troops by sitting out 2008 - perfectly willing to let Obama win, despite the deleterious effects he will have on the country. If there are better words than unpatriotic and selfish, I'd like to hear them.
Quite frankly, they are going about immigration all wrong. We do have some problems, particularly with gangs and drugs. But how do we deal with that aspect of border security when we waste our time raiding meat-packing plants and construction sites? We don't. But it provides plenty of bloody shirts for people like Michelle Malkin to wave in the immigration debate.
But when they will, through their inaction, elect someone who is likely to surrender in the war on terror, someone who is stupid enough to meet with people like Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions, and someone who will likely appoint Supreme Court justices who will be more inclined to engage in judicial putsches on issues like gay marriage, it's time to call them out.
What is truly the most important issue facing America, immigration, or the war on terror? I think most Americans would argue the latter. Holding our troops hostage over immigration is despicable, and it will not win friends.
Today, though, there is a new batch of unpatriotic conservatives who are perfectly willing to sell out our troops by sitting out 2008 - perfectly willing to let Obama win, despite the deleterious effects he will have on the country. If there are better words than unpatriotic and selfish, I'd like to hear them.
Quite frankly, they are going about immigration all wrong. We do have some problems, particularly with gangs and drugs. But how do we deal with that aspect of border security when we waste our time raiding meat-packing plants and construction sites? We don't. But it provides plenty of bloody shirts for people like Michelle Malkin to wave in the immigration debate.
But when they will, through their inaction, elect someone who is likely to surrender in the war on terror, someone who is stupid enough to meet with people like Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions, and someone who will likely appoint Supreme Court justices who will be more inclined to engage in judicial putsches on issues like gay marriage, it's time to call them out.
What is truly the most important issue facing America, immigration, or the war on terror? I think most Americans would argue the latter. Holding our troops hostage over immigration is despicable, and it will not win friends.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
What does the GOP need?
Governor Schwarzenegger's comments about the GOP's need of re-branding will probably touch a few nerves. But in a sense, he is right, albeit, it's not so much "re-branding" the GOP needs, but to instead ditch the "new brand" that largely emerged from 2005 to the present.
From 2005 on, a certain group of conservatives (not all, but a very vocal segment) have decided that at some point, they had a monopoly on principles. Those who did not toe their line on certain issues (most notably immigration, but you can include Terri Schiavo and the nomination of Harriet Miers on that list as well - if you want, you can even include No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D as well) were often derided as RINOs, unprincipled, or worse.
The result... well, I'll let you read some views from SJ Reidhead, The Anchoress, AJ-Strata, and myself.
Take some time to peruse those blogs (outside the posts I linked to), and see if you can describe where SJ Reidhead, The Anchoress, AJ-Strata, and myself tend to stand on issues.
I dare to say that most people would think that the four of us are probably in the mainstream of George W. Bush's political coalition. They'd peg us as Republican and right of center.
Yet all four of us are feeling less and less welcome in the GOP, and that is largely due to the fact that people like Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, and Ann Coulter have routinely talked down to us as if we were somehow not good enough to be in their club, and a lot of party leaders have gone along with their commissar act, and have not called them out on it. then of course, when this "new brand" of strict compliance was no savior at the polls, they demanded even stricter compliance, claiming a lack of principle was the problem.
The fact that people may have looked at their "true conservative" brand and decided to reject it does not seem to have crossed their mind at all. So they try a harder and harder sell, ticking off more and more people. By insisting on a coalition of the pure, they are literally shrinking their base of support. As long as the GOP goes along with that, then they will find their base of support shrinking as well.
So, maybe the GOP needs to tell the commissar wing to stuff it.
From 2005 on, a certain group of conservatives (not all, but a very vocal segment) have decided that at some point, they had a monopoly on principles. Those who did not toe their line on certain issues (most notably immigration, but you can include Terri Schiavo and the nomination of Harriet Miers on that list as well - if you want, you can even include No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D as well) were often derided as RINOs, unprincipled, or worse.
The result... well, I'll let you read some views from SJ Reidhead, The Anchoress, AJ-Strata, and myself.
Take some time to peruse those blogs (outside the posts I linked to), and see if you can describe where SJ Reidhead, The Anchoress, AJ-Strata, and myself tend to stand on issues.
I dare to say that most people would think that the four of us are probably in the mainstream of George W. Bush's political coalition. They'd peg us as Republican and right of center.
Yet all four of us are feeling less and less welcome in the GOP, and that is largely due to the fact that people like Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, and Ann Coulter have routinely talked down to us as if we were somehow not good enough to be in their club, and a lot of party leaders have gone along with their commissar act, and have not called them out on it. then of course, when this "new brand" of strict compliance was no savior at the polls, they demanded even stricter compliance, claiming a lack of principle was the problem.
The fact that people may have looked at their "true conservative" brand and decided to reject it does not seem to have crossed their mind at all. So they try a harder and harder sell, ticking off more and more people. By insisting on a coalition of the pure, they are literally shrinking their base of support. As long as the GOP goes along with that, then they will find their base of support shrinking as well.
So, maybe the GOP needs to tell the commissar wing to stuff it.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Why the Congressional GOP is lagging McCain...
AJ-Strata has an excellent post on why the Congressional GOP is lagging McCain.
The tone the right has taken on immigration has been shrill, declaring those who did not toe a hard line traitors repeatedly, as well as enemies of the Republic (Paul J. Cella is one of the more easily found ones, but you can see similar sentiments in some comments on threads at Free Republic). As I posted elsewhere, such comments have been counter-productive, to put it mildly, and arguably, destructive to the Republican coalition. Some of the comments, quite frankly, would only have been resolvable via the Code Duello.
The hard-liners on immigration have been akin to the people crying about global warming - with practically no proof for their dire predictions, and their response, is much like those of the global warming believers to critics, as described by Michael Crichton.
Some of this rhetoric borders on the fringes as well. In the age of Google, it is easy to find. It's why the "dirty pool" MacRanger describes can stick, as well, even when the specifics are false. Just glance at the immigration threads at FreeRepublic.com, or comments at Townhall (particularly those directed at supporters of President Bush on immigration, like Linda Chavez or Ruben Navarrette), and you can see just why the dirty pool works. The lies are believable.
Contrary to what Mac wants to believe, the MS-1 loss, as well as Hastert's seat, indicates that conservatives have lost touch with America in some respects. I can't speak for anyone else, but who wants to vote for someone who views them as a traitor over a disagreement - much less work with them?
Perhaps MacRanger can answer that question. Because the Congressional GOP needs to either answer that question - or they need to mend fences with the moderates they have been working so hard to alienate.
The tone the right has taken on immigration has been shrill, declaring those who did not toe a hard line traitors repeatedly, as well as enemies of the Republic (Paul J. Cella is one of the more easily found ones, but you can see similar sentiments in some comments on threads at Free Republic). As I posted elsewhere, such comments have been counter-productive, to put it mildly, and arguably, destructive to the Republican coalition. Some of the comments, quite frankly, would only have been resolvable via the Code Duello.
The hard-liners on immigration have been akin to the people crying about global warming - with practically no proof for their dire predictions, and their response, is much like those of the global warming believers to critics, as described by Michael Crichton.
Some of this rhetoric borders on the fringes as well. In the age of Google, it is easy to find. It's why the "dirty pool" MacRanger describes can stick, as well, even when the specifics are false. Just glance at the immigration threads at FreeRepublic.com, or comments at Townhall (particularly those directed at supporters of President Bush on immigration, like Linda Chavez or Ruben Navarrette), and you can see just why the dirty pool works. The lies are believable.
Contrary to what Mac wants to believe, the MS-1 loss, as well as Hastert's seat, indicates that conservatives have lost touch with America in some respects. I can't speak for anyone else, but who wants to vote for someone who views them as a traitor over a disagreement - much less work with them?
Perhaps MacRanger can answer that question. Because the Congressional GOP needs to either answer that question - or they need to mend fences with the moderates they have been working so hard to alienate.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Deserving an ass-kicking at the polls, part 342345
Seems a Republican congressman has decided that porn is the biggest crisis facing the military, and he wants to ban it.
Not aging SAR choppers, not tankers bought when Dwight D. Eisenhower was president, not the fact that we are in need of troops for a surge in Afghanistan, but the fact that Playboy and Penthouse are available at the local PX.
Talk about stuck on stupid...
When the troops have the gear they need, when we've won the Global War on Terror, when we don't have other problems, then we might be able to talk about whether Playboy should be available.
Until then, while our troops are fighting, let them have the latest Playboy and Penthouse issues.
Not aging SAR choppers, not tankers bought when Dwight D. Eisenhower was president, not the fact that we are in need of troops for a surge in Afghanistan, but the fact that Playboy and Penthouse are available at the local PX.
Talk about stuck on stupid...
When the troops have the gear they need, when we've won the Global War on Terror, when we don't have other problems, then we might be able to talk about whether Playboy should be available.
Until then, while our troops are fighting, let them have the latest Playboy and Penthouse issues.
Why Malkinbots don't get it...
Right Wing News shows how Malkinbots manage to blow it.
His beef is over a young woman brought into the United States as an infant who had had several liver transplants due to a liver disorder.
Let's repeat one phrase here: As an infant. In other words, her presence here in the US is not due to any criminal action or intent of her own.
And this is what we are seeing by allowing the problem to fester for a long time, rather than solving it when we had a chance to do so with much less difficulty.
Now, what do we do about people who were brought here at young ages, who have not committed crimes, other than to grow up here? Or whose families wanted nothing more than to save their lives?
Most people don't blame kids for this stuff. And the type of stuff in the comments of Right Wing News will be found repulsive by most Americans. There is a reason that non-generic Republicans tend to do a bit better. PArt of it is the tone-deaf attitude conservatives seem to be showing.
His beef is over a young woman brought into the United States as an infant who had had several liver transplants due to a liver disorder.
Let's repeat one phrase here: As an infant. In other words, her presence here in the US is not due to any criminal action or intent of her own.
And this is what we are seeing by allowing the problem to fester for a long time, rather than solving it when we had a chance to do so with much less difficulty.
Now, what do we do about people who were brought here at young ages, who have not committed crimes, other than to grow up here? Or whose families wanted nothing more than to save their lives?
Most people don't blame kids for this stuff. And the type of stuff in the comments of Right Wing News will be found repulsive by most Americans. There is a reason that non-generic Republicans tend to do a bit better. PArt of it is the tone-deaf attitude conservatives seem to be showing.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Not the GOP's problem...
This commentary by JB Williams shows why I can't stand conservatives these days.
Why? Because he seems to ignore the fact that conservatives have done their fair share of bridge-burning in the past few years.
In recent years, some conservatives have taken a position that anyone who is not 100% with them to be enemies. This has been particularly true on immigration, where accusations of treason and the "anti-American" label are common. then there are cases where those who dare depart from the latest wisdom of talk radio and the conservative intelligentsia get called "party hacks" who "sold their souls" as well.
So what is to be done by those who receive such fire?
Me, I'm inclined to respond with some serious return fire. As far as I am concerned, it makes no sense to try to please people who view me as a traitor or party hack. You want to call me that, don't expect me to work with you.
Conservatives need to stop blaming others for their failure to close the sale with Republican primary voters - that is who elected the delegates that will make John McCain the GOP nominee.
Why? Because he seems to ignore the fact that conservatives have done their fair share of bridge-burning in the past few years.
In recent years, some conservatives have taken a position that anyone who is not 100% with them to be enemies. This has been particularly true on immigration, where accusations of treason and the "anti-American" label are common. then there are cases where those who dare depart from the latest wisdom of talk radio and the conservative intelligentsia get called "party hacks" who "sold their souls" as well.
So what is to be done by those who receive such fire?
Me, I'm inclined to respond with some serious return fire. As far as I am concerned, it makes no sense to try to please people who view me as a traitor or party hack. You want to call me that, don't expect me to work with you.
Conservatives need to stop blaming others for their failure to close the sale with Republican primary voters - that is who elected the delegates that will make John McCain the GOP nominee.
Monday, April 07, 2008
William J. Murray tries to pull the woll over people's eyes...
William J. Murray's response to the outcry over his anti-Mitt ad is yet another example of the volume of disingenuous comments made by the anti-Mitt social conservatives.
He's trying to claim that Mitt Romney being Mormon had nothing to do with that open letter.
Race42008 listed some comments made about Mormons by signatories to that letter:
He's trying to claim that Mitt Romney being Mormon had nothing to do with that open letter.
Race42008 listed some comments made about Mormons by signatories to that letter:
- Matt Barber, Policy Director, Concerned Women for America quoted here as helping a reformed homosexual who converted to Mormonism find “scripturally-sound” evangelical churches to attend.
- Ted Baehr, Author of Culture Wise Family, on the September 11th film: “What [the character of] Brigham Young does in the movie is talk about…that you have to have blood atonement… This is going to be an issue [for Romney]. ”
- Janet Folger, President Faith2Action, See here: “Romney, as a Mormon, doesn’t believe Jesus was God’s only Son (Lucifer, they claim, was his ‘brother’). Nor does he believe in the virgin birth. Instead, Mormons believe God the Father had physical sex with Mary. The word blasphemy comes to mind. A bit more than a mere ‘denominational difference,’ don’t you think?”
- Gary Glenn, President AFA, Michigan, played the “religion card” in his GOTV efforts for Huckabee
- James Hartline, Founder and Publisher, California Christian News: “San Diego Republican Party Hits New Low - Invites Cult Member As Christmas Party Guest Of Honor” - “Mormon politics is more about promoting the economic interests of the Mormon Church and its wealthy members rather than any pseudo Biblical beliefs.”
- Linda Harvey, President Mission America: “He used his Republican and Mormon identity to push through radical policies on gay marriage, abortion and pro-homosexual school programs that Ted Kennedy always dreamed about.” - link
- Gregg Jackson: Writes here in an article entitled: “Is this the end of Evangelicalism in America?”: “A cornerstone of the Mormon Church, Grudem writes, is the classic heresy of Saint Paul’s day – angel worship. In his book, Grudem insists that an orthodox Christian must practice the theology he reads. So why would he step forward to become part of the Mitt Romney propaganda blitz trying to mislead evangelicals into doing what would shock most evangelicals in American history: elect a Mormon for president? “
- Peter LaBarbera: “The sponsor of a homosexual-inclusive “hate crimes” bill in Utah is hailing the support of two Mormon-owned media organs, signaling the neutrality of the powerful and socially conservative church on an issue that is seen by many family advocates as the first step in the wider ‘gay’ agenda.”
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Anti-Mormon motivations? UPDATED
Race42008 has some more info on some of the backers of the ad opposing Mitt Romney as McCain's running mate.
Read their track records. Then ask for yourself if the objection is really about social liberalism, or if it's because he is Mormon.
Because I know what this looks and sounds like to me. So, do I believe the protests of people like commenter FreedomFighter in a previous post on that ad, or do I believe my own eyes?
UPDATE: More discussion at Townhall.
UPDATE 2: Redstate commenters blow off concerns about the ad.
Read their track records. Then ask for yourself if the objection is really about social liberalism, or if it's because he is Mormon.
Because I know what this looks and sounds like to me. So, do I believe the protests of people like commenter FreedomFighter in a previous post on that ad, or do I believe my own eyes?
UPDATE: More discussion at Townhall.
UPDATE 2: Redstate commenters blow off concerns about the ad.
Friday, April 04, 2008
Weyrich proves untrustworthy...
Memo to Mitt Romney: The next time you run for President, do not trust Paul Weyrich.
The reason: The ad that Weyrich signed on to. (Article 6 Blog has some info here.)
What changed between the time Romney ran for office and even suspended his campaign, and the present day, when he is one of those mentioned as a possible Vice Presidential nominee? I can think of only two things: 1. Romney dropped out and ultimately endorsed McCain, citing the needs of the country and the GOP and 2. Mike Huckabee's complaints that conservative leaders didn't back him.
So now, Weyrich seems to be caving in to complaints from Mike Huckabee. In one sense, you cannot blame him for the second factor - his bread is buttered by these people.
That said, there things that must be said openly: Weyrich's flip-flop makes him untrustworthy. He's not someone who will have your back. He seems to be an individual whose personality is that of a Soviet-era zampolit.
It should also be noted some major Huckabee supporters were behind the ad. I guess they're saying Mormons need not apply for VP as well.
The reason: The ad that Weyrich signed on to. (Article 6 Blog has some info here.)
What changed between the time Romney ran for office and even suspended his campaign, and the present day, when he is one of those mentioned as a possible Vice Presidential nominee? I can think of only two things: 1. Romney dropped out and ultimately endorsed McCain, citing the needs of the country and the GOP and 2. Mike Huckabee's complaints that conservative leaders didn't back him.
So now, Weyrich seems to be caving in to complaints from Mike Huckabee. In one sense, you cannot blame him for the second factor - his bread is buttered by these people.
That said, there things that must be said openly: Weyrich's flip-flop makes him untrustworthy. He's not someone who will have your back. He seems to be an individual whose personality is that of a Soviet-era zampolit.
It should also be noted some major Huckabee supporters were behind the ad. I guess they're saying Mormons need not apply for VP as well.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Dobson projects...
James Dobson seems to think that John McCain has somehow divided the GOP.
In that, he is being grossly dishonest. Dobson needs to cast his eyes a bit closer to home. Specifically, he needs to deal with the fact that in dividing the GOP, he and his followers, particularly those who have demanded hard-line "no compromise" positions have been just as divisive, if not more so, than people like McCain.
Dobson, for instance, endorsed a candidate who made very liberal use of the politics of religious identity. He also seemed to be utterly unwilling to throw his support behind Mitt Romney when his support could have been very helpful, instead waiting until after Romney was out to make an endorsement. At the same time, when Huckabee's playing to anti-Mormon bigotry went on, he failed to say one word in opposition - probably to avoid upsetting his wife (which probably explains why he wouldn't endorse Romney in the first place).
Now, explain to this Mormon why the fuck I should trust James Dobson, or back someone he is inclined to support.
Of course, I will get the usual claims from Dobson backers that he was acting on principle, that Romney was not "really" a conservative, or some other bullshit explanation. But the problem is that Romney was the best shot to see those principles enacted in 2008.
So, this November, I'm pulling for McCain to win. Dobson will now have to kiss McCain's ass if he wants anything, and Republicans will be able to re-define certain relationships. Yeah, it's spite on my part. But I think I have some good reasons to feel that.
In that, he is being grossly dishonest. Dobson needs to cast his eyes a bit closer to home. Specifically, he needs to deal with the fact that in dividing the GOP, he and his followers, particularly those who have demanded hard-line "no compromise" positions have been just as divisive, if not more so, than people like McCain.
Dobson, for instance, endorsed a candidate who made very liberal use of the politics of religious identity. He also seemed to be utterly unwilling to throw his support behind Mitt Romney when his support could have been very helpful, instead waiting until after Romney was out to make an endorsement. At the same time, when Huckabee's playing to anti-Mormon bigotry went on, he failed to say one word in opposition - probably to avoid upsetting his wife (which probably explains why he wouldn't endorse Romney in the first place).
Now, explain to this Mormon why the fuck I should trust James Dobson, or back someone he is inclined to support.
Of course, I will get the usual claims from Dobson backers that he was acting on principle, that Romney was not "really" a conservative, or some other bullshit explanation. But the problem is that Romney was the best shot to see those principles enacted in 2008.
So, this November, I'm pulling for McCain to win. Dobson will now have to kiss McCain's ass if he wants anything, and Republicans will be able to re-define certain relationships. Yeah, it's spite on my part. But I think I have some good reasons to feel that.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Well, well...
AJ-Strata has found something interesting. Seems that Tom Tancredo's hard-line position on immigration is out of step with his district.
This is not surprising. Multiple GOP primaries have gone to candidates who favor a comprehensive approach, much like Senator John McCain has. They do not seem to be able to prevail in Republican primaries.
And that is the real issue. Social conservatives do not seem to be able to close the sale with significant chunks of the Republican primary electorate on issues like immigration to the point of rejecting a candidate on this issue. So now, they find themselves losing Republican primaries.
That is not John McCain's problem, and he is under no obligation (contrary to assertions from people like Rick Santorum) to accommodate them. To the contrary, the conservatives need to re-think, and ask themselves why they cannot close the sale. They certainly are not inany position to dictate terms to John McCain.
This is not surprising. Multiple GOP primaries have gone to candidates who favor a comprehensive approach, much like Senator John McCain has. They do not seem to be able to prevail in Republican primaries.
And that is the real issue. Social conservatives do not seem to be able to close the sale with significant chunks of the Republican primary electorate on issues like immigration to the point of rejecting a candidate on this issue. So now, they find themselves losing Republican primaries.
That is not John McCain's problem, and he is under no obligation (contrary to assertions from people like Rick Santorum) to accommodate them. To the contrary, the conservatives need to re-think, and ask themselves why they cannot close the sale. They certainly are not inany position to dictate terms to John McCain.
Monday, March 10, 2008
It's not about cake...
I have a lot of respect for MacRanger. Being a guest on his show was quite an experience, and well worth pursuing. That said, with regards to John McCain, he is way off base.
The fact of the matter is that "true" conservatism did not close the sale with the Republican primary electorate in 2008, particularly on what seems to be the litmus test of the past few years, immigration.
And I find it quite telling that people like Mark Levin don't seem to get it, and in fact, seem to be taking issue with people like the folks at Powerline Blog, who point out (correctly) that conservatives are not in a position to make demands on John McCain. Levin's comments are just typical of the poor strategic and tactical sense shown by conservatives in the last few years. And poor strategy, tactics, communications, execution, and interpersonal skills will not be negated by how principled a person is.
Finally, one last note: Losers do not get to dictate terms to the winners. If conservative want McCain to respond to their desires, they have to go to him, and they need to move his way. It would be respectful of the Republican primary electorate. It may even be a matter of their political viability - because it is very likely that the Democratic nomination will end with a significant number of disaffected Democrats, and McCain will more than likely be able to appeal to a lot of them. And if he wins, with folks like Levin loudly campaigning against him because he lacked sufficient purity, he and Republicans will have every reason to ignore conservatives.
The fact of the matter is that "true" conservatism did not close the sale with the Republican primary electorate in 2008, particularly on what seems to be the litmus test of the past few years, immigration.
And I find it quite telling that people like Mark Levin don't seem to get it, and in fact, seem to be taking issue with people like the folks at Powerline Blog, who point out (correctly) that conservatives are not in a position to make demands on John McCain. Levin's comments are just typical of the poor strategic and tactical sense shown by conservatives in the last few years. And poor strategy, tactics, communications, execution, and interpersonal skills will not be negated by how principled a person is.
Finally, one last note: Losers do not get to dictate terms to the winners. If conservative want McCain to respond to their desires, they have to go to him, and they need to move his way. It would be respectful of the Republican primary electorate. It may even be a matter of their political viability - because it is very likely that the Democratic nomination will end with a significant number of disaffected Democrats, and McCain will more than likely be able to appeal to a lot of them. And if he wins, with folks like Levin loudly campaigning against him because he lacked sufficient purity, he and Republicans will have every reason to ignore conservatives.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Arrogance on the right...
Let's get this straight... Kevin James thinks that after the results of the 2008 Republican primaries, he can dictate terms to John McCain on immigration?
Mr. James, it is very simple, the candidates who backed your position (particularly Hunter and Tancredo) lost, and were barely asterisks in the polling data. Even Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee (in the most disingenuous flip-flop of 2008) couldn't ride it to victory.
You are not in a position to dictate terms to John McCain. The voters in Republican primary elections from across the country have chosen him.
And if I were John McCain, I'd be pissed off, and would probably tell you where you could go.
Mr. James, it is very simple, the candidates who backed your position (particularly Hunter and Tancredo) lost, and were barely asterisks in the polling data. Even Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee (in the most disingenuous flip-flop of 2008) couldn't ride it to victory.
You are not in a position to dictate terms to John McCain. The voters in Republican primary elections from across the country have chosen him.
And if I were John McCain, I'd be pissed off, and would probably tell you where you could go.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Foolishness on the right...
It seems the GOP wants to remain the stupid party.
Never mind the fact that John McCain, a very vocal supporter of comprehensive immigration reform who has utterly rejected the Malkin-Tancredo hard line, has clinched the nomination. It seems that some conservatives will be pushing a hard line.
It has not won elections, it cannot even reliably win Republican primaries (only winning when there are multiple candidates supporting the approach favored by the majority of Republican primary voters in a given race).
Yet they insist on it. Conservatives are clearly out of touch with the GOP on this issue.
Never mind the fact that John McCain, a very vocal supporter of comprehensive immigration reform who has utterly rejected the Malkin-Tancredo hard line, has clinched the nomination. It seems that some conservatives will be pushing a hard line.
It has not won elections, it cannot even reliably win Republican primaries (only winning when there are multiple candidates supporting the approach favored by the majority of Republican primary voters in a given race).
Yet they insist on it. Conservatives are clearly out of touch with the GOP on this issue.
Friday, February 15, 2008
A satisfying endorsement...
Mitt Romney's endorsement of John McCain was very satisfying, if only because it sticks it to Mike Huckabee.
The fact remains that Romney's going to need more allies than he had in 2008. Endorsing McCain is one step in that direction. Now, he will have the support of a number of the Republican establishment. Regan was willing to show unity with Ford after 1976.
If Romney is to win in 2012, he also needs to make it very clear that he will not be pushed around, and that he will be able to stick it to folks who diss him. This he has done, and Huckabee knows it, which must be why he has to be the first high-profile case of Romney Derangement Syndrome.
All in all, the GOP will be Romney's after November 2008, no matter what. He's shown he is a team player, but he also is the best we're likely to get in 2012.
The fact remains that Romney's going to need more allies than he had in 2008. Endorsing McCain is one step in that direction. Now, he will have the support of a number of the Republican establishment. Regan was willing to show unity with Ford after 1976.
If Romney is to win in 2012, he also needs to make it very clear that he will not be pushed around, and that he will be able to stick it to folks who diss him. This he has done, and Huckabee knows it, which must be why he has to be the first high-profile case of Romney Derangement Syndrome.
All in all, the GOP will be Romney's after November 2008, no matter what. He's shown he is a team player, but he also is the best we're likely to get in 2012.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
My vote, and why it went as it did.
It's official. This morning, I cast my vote in Virginia's Republican primary election. It will be said that I cast my vote for John McCain, and that is how it will likely be tallied. But in reality, it was more a vote AGAINST Mike Huckabee.
In some ways, I guess I was naive. I thought that Americans had gotten over religion as a barrier to the Presidency. That was arguably a question settled by John F. Kennedy.
I was wrong.
The New Republic seems to have hit the nail on the head:
But there is just too much evidence that they are a minority among evangelicals:
* James Dobson's maneuvering, discussed earlier in this blog.
* The admission from Huckabee's research director that many evangelicals would grab on to an issue like "flip flop", but would really be voting against Romney because he was Mormon.
* The Vanderbilt study contains statistical backup of the anecdotal evidence.
* The increase in anti-Mormon sermons in the run-up to the South Carolina primary.
* The comments on Huckabee's official campaign blog.
The preponderance of the evidence points to anti-Mormon bias among evangelicals as a primary factor in the failure of Mitt Romney's 2008 campaign.
Sorry, but I feel like I've been given the finger by values voters. Never mind that I have a lot of agreement with them on a number of issues, they simply have decided that a Mormon should not be president, and have made it clear that any Mormon who is too uppity will be taken down.
To quote Mase from "Will They Die 4 You" on the South Park Chef Aid soundtrack:
Quite frankly, I trust religious conservatives about as far as I can throw a Nimitz-class carrier. I'd rather have a moderate like McCain than a religious bigot like Huckabee. In the future, an endorsement from James Dobson and others of his stripe will be a negative in the primary - and I will keep options open, including sitting out a general election if I do not like the choices.
That's pretty much where I am now.
In some ways, I guess I was naive. I thought that Americans had gotten over religion as a barrier to the Presidency. That was arguably a question settled by John F. Kennedy.
I was wrong.
The New Republic seems to have hit the nail on the head:
Southern states have GOP primary electorates dominated by evangelical Christians, specifically by Southern Baptists. And many of those Southern Baptists are committed to blocking the ascension of a Mormon to the presidency.This is not to say all of them are. Nancy French at Evangelicals for Mitt and John Schroeder at Article 6 Blog backed Romney. So did MacRanger, who I had the pleasure of talking with in a number of shows (albeit after a flirtation with Fred Thompson).
But there is just too much evidence that they are a minority among evangelicals:
* James Dobson's maneuvering, discussed earlier in this blog.
* The admission from Huckabee's research director that many evangelicals would grab on to an issue like "flip flop", but would really be voting against Romney because he was Mormon.
* The Vanderbilt study contains statistical backup of the anecdotal evidence.
* The increase in anti-Mormon sermons in the run-up to the South Carolina primary.
* The comments on Huckabee's official campaign blog.
The preponderance of the evidence points to anti-Mormon bias among evangelicals as a primary factor in the failure of Mitt Romney's 2008 campaign.
Sorry, but I feel like I've been given the finger by values voters. Never mind that I have a lot of agreement with them on a number of issues, they simply have decided that a Mormon should not be president, and have made it clear that any Mormon who is too uppity will be taken down.
To quote Mase from "Will They Die 4 You" on the South Park Chef Aid soundtrack:
[Someone] smack me, I'ma smack 'em backSo, I sent them a finger and a hearty "fuck you" in return. Spiteful? Yeah, to a degree, it was. And I think, given the evidence, I'm entitled to take a shot or two. But there's also a cold, rational way of thinking about this situation.
If it lead to the guns, then that be that
Quite frankly, I trust religious conservatives about as far as I can throw a Nimitz-class carrier. I'd rather have a moderate like McCain than a religious bigot like Huckabee. In the future, an endorsement from James Dobson and others of his stripe will be a negative in the primary - and I will keep options open, including sitting out a general election if I do not like the choices.
That's pretty much where I am now.
Friday, February 08, 2008
Noted, Dr. Dobson...
James Dobson certainly played things cagey prior to Super Tuesday.
He told people to vote against McCain on Monday. But he didn't bother to actually endorse anyone until after Mitt Romney withdrew from the race.
Never mind what Romney did in Massachusetts after gay marriage was imposed on that state. Never mind the way Romney had lived his life. Never mind that in his time as an ecclesiastical leader, he never took a penny (and probably made financial sacrifices in that role, unlike Mike Huckabee).
But it seems his wife worked to exclude Mormons from the National Day of Prayer events in 2004.
If it looks like anti-Mormon bias and sounds like anti-Mormon bias... then you ain't likely to go broke betting on anti-Mormon bias.
Yob tvoyu maht, Dr. Dobson. I ought to vote for McCain on Tuesday to spite your religiously bigoted ass.
He told people to vote against McCain on Monday. But he didn't bother to actually endorse anyone until after Mitt Romney withdrew from the race.
Never mind what Romney did in Massachusetts after gay marriage was imposed on that state. Never mind the way Romney had lived his life. Never mind that in his time as an ecclesiastical leader, he never took a penny (and probably made financial sacrifices in that role, unlike Mike Huckabee).
But it seems his wife worked to exclude Mormons from the National Day of Prayer events in 2004.
If it looks like anti-Mormon bias and sounds like anti-Mormon bias... then you ain't likely to go broke betting on anti-Mormon bias.
Yob tvoyu maht, Dr. Dobson. I ought to vote for McCain on Tuesday to spite your religiously bigoted ass.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)