McCain on NYT Endorsement, Alito and Dems
McCain is a mixed bag of tricks for Republicans to sift through
By Ericka Andersen Posted in Archived — Comments (58) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Every time I hear John McCain speak, I can’t help but like him. But I could say the same for Barack Obama. As McCain surges ahead – perhaps securing the nomination in tonight’s Florida primary – I wonder if Republicans are losing their way. With a slew of liberal endorsements, most prominently the New York Times, McCain has become the popular kid in a crowd that shouldn’t like him – liberals and democrats.
I asked him yesterday in a conference call on his reaction to the NYT endorsements.
“My reaction is that I’m glad that they support my views, doesn’t necessarily mean that I support theirs. Look I mean I’ve gotten a long list of endorsements …of my favorites was in Boston, we got their very liberal Globe…”
(he started to mention more but technical difficulties ended the call abruptly.)
UPDATE: I just received an email from McCain's team telling me that the end of his answer to my questions was this: He "joked about how he received the endorsements of the very liberal Boston Globe and the very conservative Boston Herald in Romney’s hometown."
Of course he would not be quick to embrace the endorsement of the NYT but it’s not just them. A recent advertisement features clips of prominent liberals and Democrats praising McCain. Here's the ad, put out by Mitt Romney:
He’s also quick to love on the most liberal wing of the Republican Party – uplifting his recent endorsement by Florida Governor Charlie Crist and RNC Chairman Mel Martinez.
As HUMAN EVENTS John Gizzi writes today:
Crist is “the jolly green giant” -- his party’s pointman on global warming and other issues that could well lead Al Gore to sue for copyright infringement. Martinez is “Amnesty Mel” -- still an outspoken advocate of the comprehensive immigration bill that died in the Senate last summer amid spirited opposition fanned by radio talk show hosts.
Read More On This Below
He may have reckoned himself from the comment yesterday in John Fund’s column , where Fund wrote McCain had "indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito, because 'he wore his conservatism on his sleeve'."
In the conference call, McCain went back to his support for both Justice Alito and Justice Roberts over and over.
“I’m proud of my support for Justice Alito. I will continue my search as President of the United States to find two people who are like he is…
Literally every time [I speak]….I say we’re gonna have justices like Roberts and Alito. All I can say is that my record of strong support and I think the White House would be the first to say John McCain was out there slugging for him.”
McCain was also asked about his viewpoint on the Democrat side of the current election process. He didn’t say much except this:
“I am eager to discuss whether government should take over the healthcare system or if we should let the private sector do it and get inflation under control. I’m eager to discuss both Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton’s desire to raise the white flag and surrender in Iraq. I’m eager to discuss the fundamental differences philosophically…”
As much as I want to like John McCain for President (and will have to if he becomes the Republican nominee), I can't help but wonder why one of my most liberal friends said to me yesterday..."Oh, I love John McCain!" Wierd.
« BREAKING: Bank Collapses. Feds cite Sen. Chuck Schumer as "immediate cause" of collapse — Comments (14) | Endorsements! Endorsements! — Comments (17) »
McCain on NYT Endorsement, Alito and Dems 58 Comments (0 topical, 58 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Martinez problem has been on illegal immigration. And Crist has been a governor less than a year. So neither have much impact on the Florida primary.
So, you don't agree with him on one issue, therefore, they are from the "most liberal" wing of the party?
Remind me to ask you for advice in how to write Orwellian campaign slogans.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
It would also be fair to say that Governor Crist has not gained friends on the right due to his activism on environmental issues. I don't really have a problem with Crist myself, but that is another issue where he might be said to tack left.
...placing him near the bottom of the GOP.
Considering his work of late, Martinez's 2007 ACU rating is likely either be the same or lower than 2006. Still, that's not an honest appraisal. The next ratings will be the first from which a bare-minimum trend line can be established: Three years.
His average is 92, but using a two-year record for this sort of thing is dicey. Any time you're assessing human behavior, the best practice is to treat it just like targeting precincts for a campaign. The only truly close-to-honest measure is a recent trend line.
His first trend analysis isn't likely to look very good. But as much as I detest Martinez, I'd still want to see a five-year ACU rating trend before I'd be so audacious as to use it as a tool for debate. Because of the time difference in turnover and moving through the ranks between houses, I might agree to using a three-year trend in arguing about a House member, but not for a Senator.
These sorts of things can never be exact, even over time, so trying to use incidental snapshotting as a persuasive means is really disingenuous. Less objective measures about Martinez must be used...like his role in McCain-Kennedy and his abject failure as figurehead for the GOP.
Heck, even Benedict Arnold's early patriotism trend lines were stellar. In debate, would you like to hang your hat on his early work?
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
There's Crist's costly executive order regarding carbon emission limits to fight Global Warming.
There's his restoration of Felon Voting Rights.
While he's been great on pork barrel slashing and a couple of other conservative themes it like, it's this silly, impossible-to-understand, and rife with unintended consequences Amendment 1 that has me most concerned that he's a lot more liberal than what I bargained for.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
Maybe he'll get on one of the inaugural nudist flights to continue his "straight talk express."
"I wish I could say we thought of it ourselves but the idea came from a customer," Hess told Reuters by phone. "It's an unusual gap in the market."
Hey, as long as he brings his Hefner robe, nobody will be offended.
McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman, anything with "McCain" screams capitulation. America deserves better and that is why I am not voting for McCain.
"Two legs bad, four legs good"
...but I just don't agree with him on his war policy. Along with McCain all the way up to 1/1/06, I was calling for an increase in troop numbers but switched my position after 1/1/06 since I knew that politics would get in the way of an increase due to the upcoming mid-term elections. Given McCain's shade of Puprle and Obama's shade of Purple, I would love a general election between the two...
A former Repub strategist turned PURPLE,
Mr. Purple
www.mrpurple2008.com
Why you switched your position exactly?
...back on 1/1/06 because I lost hope that Bush 2.0 would add more troops to a losing battle... he waited until getting a beating in Nov. of '06 to let go of Rummy and then didn't heed the Iraq Study Group... It felt to me that Bush was playing politics with the war in Iraq. I believe we should be tracking Al Queda in the 60 plus countries that they have cells in with our CIA and then destroying them with our Special Forces when we find them... unfortunately, being bogged down in Iraq, doesn't help that strategy.
A former Repub strategist turned PURPLE,
Mr. Purple
www.mrpurple2008.com
... unfortunately, being bogged down in Iraq, doesn't help that strategy.
Of course, this assumes that the CIA is not actually doing what you're saying they should be doing, that SOCOM does not have the personnel (because they're ALL in Iraq) to execute the missions necessary.
None of that's the case.
...but perhaps you could enlighten me on exactly which issue, any one issue, where Obama has deviated from a hardcore shade of deep blue?
Obama's friendly speechifying about the virtues of bipartisan cooperation has never amounted to anything more than a call for Republicans to stop messing around with that free market nonsense and embrace their almighty Nanny.
His rhetoric may be purple, but his substance is all blue all the time.
--
"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox
...worked with Republicans and has an ability to both sides of every issue. Even though his blood runs blue, I do hope, if he is elected, that he would follow through on his campaign promises and work across the aisle. I also believe that Obama does believe in free markets and understand Wall Street.
A former Repub strategist turned PURPLE,
Mr. Purple
www.mrpurple2008.com
With you guys it's really all about hearing the words "bipartisanship", "moderate" and "maverick". Any politician who can intone phrases "put aside partisanship", "listen to both sides" and "get things done" with sufficient reverence and convincingly sound plaintive wails deploring the "bickering" and "rancor tends to do well with mushy middlers.
The content of the policy is really immaterial to "moderates" ... all they care about is that legislation is "bipartisan."
God help us.
accomplished absolutely nothing. It seems that the "Purple Gang" is attracted to comfortable platitudes and bumper sticker phrases.
How can anybody trust a guy who didn't even have the courage to call an infant born alive - a human and voted against requiring their medical care? Or how about not wanting people to use handguns in their homes? He also voted to end tax breaks for businesses and increase taxes - even voting against a repeal of the state gas tax. And on crime... he voted against the death penalty for gang members if they kill someone to help their gang and unsuccessfully sought a measure to expunge certain criminal records and create an employment grant program for ex-criminals.
Sheesh and I am just warming up. Actually, now that I think of it, BHO did do alot with his short time in government.
BHO is the epitome of everthing this country does not need; another politician that votes "present" in order to take advantage of political winds and blows wistful smoke into the eyes of an unwitting, uninformed populace.
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
...he's prettier than Hillary and smarter than Edwards. Otherwise, the three stooges are indistinguishable.
If Barack were truly "purple" he would meet the same fate as the last "purple" Democrat . . . Joe Lieberman. The Tolerant Left® doesn't tolerate non-compliance.
--
"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox
In Lexis I haven't figured out how to search editorials, so I have found few articles about the New York Times' endorsements over the years.
What I have found seems to indicate that in the New York and National Primaries, the Times always chooses a Republican as well.
In that light, the New York Times endorsement is hardly telling. Particularly when one actually reads it.
Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee
I will refer to this paragraph from the NY Times McCain endorsement:
“But Mr. McCain took a stand, just as he did in recognizing the threat of global warming early. He has been a staunch advocate of campaign finance reform, working with Senator Russ Feingold, among the most liberal of Democrats, on groundbreaking legislation, just as he worked with Senator Edward Kennedy on immigration reform.”
Tells me everything I need to know, seems his legislative priorities tend to the left.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/opinion/25fri2.html?ref=opinion
To that I can only say that you are merely pointing out something you already think. I am objecting to the idea that the New York Times endorsement is some enlightening revelation about John McCain. The fact that they, it seems, routinely choose a republican during primaries, touting the mere fact of the endorsement as a black mark is silly.
Their endorsement was disapproving overall. The mere comment about working with Dems is hardly revelatory or "telling". These are things said every day here at Redstate.
Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee
they say it over, and over, and over, and over again.
kat
The last Republican they endorsed in the general election was Eisenhower. (If memory serves me correctly, in 1952-I think they endorsed Stevenson in 56)
Let that ruminate for a bit. That means that, in a landslide year where everyone ran away from McGovern, they endorsed him. In 84, when Mondale promised tax hikes, they jumped onboard. Their endorsements would have meant President McGovern, President Mondale, President Dukakis, President Gore, and President Kerry.
So pardon me if I don't swoon when a name they propose be one of the two to add to that list would be McCain. To me, that should be the kiss of death.
Vote for the ulti-Mitt conservative. Romney '08!
DISCLAIMER: I am loosly affiliated as a volunteer for the Mitt Romney campaign. All viewpoints expressed are my own, not the campaign's.
That would be my point. They wouldn't endorse McCain in the general any more than they would me.
In the primaries ... according to wikipedia (yes, I know), they endorsed George Bush for Republicans in the 2004 primaries, and I found a number of articles referring to their primary choices in state politics. Meaning they chose both a Republican and a Democrat.
I can't find anything about them endorsing primary candidates in ever Presidential race, but evidence is pointing that it could be their common practice. It seems so to me. I wish I had better resources to find that out definitively.
Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee
his endorsements from Sam Brownback, Jack Kemp, Phil Gramm, John Huntsman, Tim Pawlenty, Tom Ridge, Tom Coburn, Jon Kyl, Trent Lott, Jon Thune.
Don't be idiots, someone who can attract support from across the entire political spectrum is nothing but a good thing. Describing Crist and Martinez as "the most liberal wing of the party" is ridiculous.
The ironic thing is if the Mitt Romney of 2 or 3 years ago endorsed McCain, he probably would have been included in this blog.
they see McCain winning because of the current crop of candidates running and are thinking - cabinet positions...
--roxer
"Where I stand does not depend on where I'm standing."
--Fred D. Thompson, 2008
In the computer game Nethack, a bag of tricks looks like an ordinary bag, except when you try to use it. If you try opening it up when it's on the ground, it instantly grows a set of teeth and bites you. If you pick it up and try to use it, a hostile monster comes out.
Hence I find a bag of tricks to be an amusing metaphor for John McCain and his campaign.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
The idea that Martinez and Crist are way out of step with the party is silly and unbecoming to the argument. Maybe endorsements don't matter, but these are leading Republicans in FL. In fact, they are the two top Rs in FL (current GOV and SEN). The Katherine Harris wing got walloped at the polls in her SEN race.
The party is a big coalition. It includes Crist, Gramm, Graham, Kyl, Coburn, Snowe, Collins, Pawlenty, and Martinez. None of them are "liberal." Some are moderate. All are Republicans. And to my knowledge, all support McCain.
If conservatives keep acting like Rockfeller Rs did ("we own the party, it's either our guy or I go home"), they might end up without a coalition at all (like the Rockfellers did).
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
This is the disheartening aspect of primary season, watching Rs eat their own (although, admittedly, I enjoy watching the Ds do the same). It seems as though each nice believes their sub-section consists of the true Republican.
In reality, there is FAR more that unites these candidates than divides them. All the Ds are far more likely to raise our taxes, support abortion judges and laws, retreat from Iraq under pressure and increase federal bureaucracy. I am all for everyone supporting their candidate fervently, but to dismiss credentials of a large number of other Republicans and provide fodder for the Ds is counterproductive to our collective effort of electing a Republican president and Congress and enacting conservative legislation that re-affirms our position as the greatest nation on Earth.
I gladly support John McCain and have done so since 1999. However, I will have no difficulty pulling the lever for Giuliani, Huckabee, or Romney.
Otherwise, Hillary gets to run the country for 4-8 years.
Eh, that was each 'niche'.
--H challenged...
Big coalition is fine. We need moderates in our party. But we don't need moderates RUNNING our party, and being our party's nominee for President.
When OUR guys at the top don't really look appreciably different from THEIR guys at the top, then the Republican party has lost its ability to communicate any message worth hearing.
If the Republican brand is not conservative (you know, the way most Americans not in Hollywood or in the national media actually LIVE and BELIEVE), then it's just the red team against the blue team.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
I see folks here complaining over earmarks. Why? Isn't Sen. McConnell a Republican who believes in earmarks? Think he is the only one? I bet not. So if we are to allow moderates into the party that are OK with this practice, then why complain? We held out our hand and accepted them.
When Rep. Boehner released a letter to the Democratic House leadership about curtailing earmarks for a year, this board was excited. It fell through and now the same folks are labeled spineless. I believe them more dishonest than spineless. Moreover, it would require they be against earmarks in the first place to be labeled as such. Out of the 2002, I would bet many are OK with earmarks.
Nothing wrong with a big tent, but it needs to be a principled big tent. Whose principles we use seem to be the bone of contention.
--roxer
"Where I stand does not depend on where I'm standing."
--Fred D. Thompson, 2008
thatwas supposed to be "Out of the 202 House members,..."
--roxer
"Where I stand does not depend on where I'm standing."
--Fred D. Thompson, 2008
MANY THINGS, depending on the audience, the circumstances, the goal, and the polls? Does the Republican brand change every few years, months, or even weeks?
To be sure, the Republican Party is a conservative party, but it is also a political party focused on winning elections, and then when the elections are won, on achieving as many of its goals as possible.
Good points, Mark. I submit that the average watcher from the outside does not see ALL that much contrast between the two major parties. I mean, WE do -- the chattering, blogging, activist class.
I believe that at least the banner-carrier (i.e., presidential candidate) needs to have a message and a mission that represents a more conservative than centrist part of the spectrum. I think it IS a winning strategy to focus on conservative themes. I would concede that this is debatable, if others will concede that in this century the GOP has largely looked like a war-hawk variant of the nanny-state socialist Democratic Party.
If we simply try to compete with the professional liberals in offering bennies to the people, we will lose.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
For myself, I'm way past the *wondering* stage, Ericka.
The ascendancy of McCain's campaign, along with what we've seen from the 2006 elections, the big-government aspects of the Bush presidency, the demises of Santorum and Fred Thompson, and the behavior in general of the GOP Senate.....
have all served to convince me that the GOP officially *has* lost its way. I agree with you that the McCain success is VERY troubling and a harbinger of much worse for the conservative movement.
But Human Events still ROCKS!
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
But the success of one of very few anti-porker, small government Rs left is also un-Republican.
So if we don't have a perfect conservative, the Republican Party is in disarray?
I think 2008 might be a good reminder of why both parties are coalitions and what happens if you think one part owns the whole thing.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
My point is not that the GOP is in disarray - that might or might not be true. My point is that the GOP has lost its way, lost its message. And that message is conservative governance.
If the Republican message is not conservatism, then the message essentially is, and can be no other: 'vote for us. We're not the other guys'.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
Maybe you should wait until he actually succeeds to say that.
It seems to me that the war is the only issue McCain is right on with the GOP. And it would be a biggie if he was the only one among the GOP contenders. But he isn't. They are all right on the war. So why pick the one guy who, more than any of them, is wrong on everything else?
------------------------
"It will not be McCain."
-Taniwha
Why shouldn't they like him? He agrees with them on everything.
------------------------
"It will not be McCain."
-Taniwha
Coburn, Kyl, Gramm, Flake, Keating, Ridge, and Pawlenty support him as well.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Not sure I get your point. I say he agrees with the NYT on pretty much everything. You DON'T say it isn't so. I understand why; It would be a pretty hard case to make, since the list is long, undeniable, and abundantly manifest: higher taxes, 'global warming', Juan Hernandez-style open borders, amnesty, no wall, and so forth. In the end, these are positions that people have managed to defend -- but not *Republican* people.
No wonder you answered with a non-sequitur.
------------------------
"It will not be McCain."
-Taniwha
If you were to read the endorsement, the NYT lists areas where they do not agree with Senator McCain.
But, assuming you have read it (and why wouldn't you if you posted that), then you already know that.
Look, nobody is saying that McCain is to the LEFT of the NYT. OF COURSE there are things they wish he were farther left on. But he is the GOP contender they agree with most, and that would say enough against him even if his own actions didn't scream 'amnesty loving, illegal-alien-citizenship-granting, border wall hating, higher-taxing, free-speech-curtailing, global-warming-claptrap-parroting liberal true believer' (which they do.)
What are you trying to purport, that he's a true conservative unless and until the NYT agrees with him on absolutely EVERYTHING?
If there were nobody on our side who DIDN'T believe those things, it might be different. But that's just not the case. Face it - the only reason anyone who was at all a nominal Republican would support him is love. Don't get me wrong: if those are your positions as well, then he's clearly your man. If they are not, though, then he isn't.
------------------------
"It will not be McCain."
-Taniwha
I'm just saying that the NYT always endorses a Republican during the primaries, as stated elsewhere. If you read the endorsement, you will see that it was hardly more than a half-hearted endorsement. Read it and contrast to the Obama endorsement.
The only reason someone would support him is love? You lost us there, I think. That sounds quite wishy-washy Democratic to me.
I am a fiscal conservative and support reigning in spending. I support the troop surge in Iraq, AND that the war was completely botched for the first 2 years due to Rumsfeld. I am anti-abortion. I believe that the US has lose respect internationally because of the rigidity the current White House has operated (not just the President, whom I supported, but the others) and that we need someone who can garner that respect. We need a president who can say that s/he was wrong and is willing to work with others to do what is best for our country. I want someone who is respected, if not liked, by members of the opposite belief (not nec. party). Like it or not, we will have a Democratic Congress for most or all of the next 4 years. If the President loses respect of his/her own government, then nothing will get done and all will look foolish.
I gained a tremendous amount of respect for Senator McCain when he went to Vietnam and supported resuming relations. He had more of a reason NOT to than just about anyone on the planet.
So, yes, if those are ideals that you chalk up to 'love' then so be it. They are very principled to me, I believe they are conservative beliefs and they are reasons that I have supported Senator McCain since 1999. If you consider him to be a liberal, then you might be a bit out of touch with the rest of society.
It sounds like you 'respect' him so much that you don't think you actually need to particularly agree with him. THAT'S what I call 'love', and it's a line I never cross with mere political candidates. If I agree with them, they might get my vote. If they disagree with me on things as important as [insert previously given list here], then they don't. I'm not voting to elect a father figure or a romantic partner, here - let the Dems select someone who makes them all gooey and weak in the knees. I'm voting for President.
"If you consider him to be a liberal, then you might be a bit out of touch with the rest of society."
Perhaps. But we'll see how out of touch either the one, or the other of us is with the *GOP*. Personally, I like to think that those who are so willing to sacrifice THAT many of our core beliefs, are not yet the majority of the GOP.
I could be wrong. The answer won't be all that long in coming, though.
------------------------
"It will not be McCain."
-Taniwha
...is that he would be working to reach out to all segments of the conservative base. Going to CPAC (which was the primary focus of the Fund article) and getting himself on to talk radio would go a long way.
1. McCain, 2. Thompson, 3. Giuliani, 4. Romney
From a center-leftie's perspective:
There is a bit of a love-hate relationship with McCain on the center-left side of the spectrum. Most like his stances on controlling the ridiculous notion of "money=speech", especially when it comes to the late-night additions of lugubrious crap into bills -- especially those hefty omnibus spending bills that we always seem to get stuck with after the inevitable filibusters and compromises.
A lot of folks, myself included, want to see illegal immigration halted. But on the other hand, is it realistic to expect all of them to go back to countries that they don't even know anymore? What about the kids left behind, that don't have citizenship in the countries their parents belong in? I don't believe in "amnesty", but frankly, the situation is a bit more complicated than just kicking them out. I hate the way illegals have been used to bust unions and threaten American workers who... *gasp*... want to be paid for their work. But maybe we could me doing more to ensure (small 'd') democratic reform is taking place in Mexico, so the working folks down there can get a fair shake.
I think McCain's success this year versus 2000 speaks volumes with respect to the problems with conservatism as both a movement and a group. (I speak as an independent, BTW.) My fundamental criticism with conservative ideology, in its current form, is its inability to address problems in a proactive fashion. Much of this has to do with the influx of laissez-faire neo-liberalism and the various distillations of Ayn Rand's Objectivist ideology.
The idea of a "hands-off government", at all costs, is neither realistic nor desirable. We are no more free under the crushing burden of rampant, over-controlling, bureaucratic corporate rule than we are under rampant, over-controlling, bureaucratic government rule. Yet "Less Government!" is all we seem to hear from the leaders of the movement. Look at some of the triumphs of old-school Republican Presidents from years past: the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System, for example. Government built the infrastructure, paid as used (via gas taxes), and private enterprise made good use of that infrastructure. It pays tax dividends to this day. It was a good investment. Would we see such support for a no-brainer investment like this from the current conservative movement? Doubt it. We'd hear more about how we should encourage private development via tax breaks. The difference is that Eisenhower knew what needed to be done, and he took the initiative in creating a solution that benefits both government and private industry. We need more of that today, not just throwing money and tax breaks at problems and rolling the dice.
What am I getting at? I think McCain's is merely a sign of an overall larger movement to getting back to collective responsibility. I don't mean that in a socialist or communist sense, but rather as a attitude of "we're in this together". Hurricane Katrina was certainly the turning point in this mentality -- where the Federal Government sat idly by while the inept Louisiana government was overwhelmed.
It's time for the conservative movement to do some soul-searching, and examine just how it came to the point where ideology trumped pragmatism. Perhaps it's time for a pragmatic ideology. And let's face it -- McCain is probably the most effective candidate to run against the Democratic candidate this fall, but the mood of the country is quite sour when it comes to Republicans -- especially should a "rock star" like Barack Obama get the nod from the Democratic Party. Chances are that the Republicans will have plenty of time to do that soul-searching.
I am ever hopeful that a movement towards pragmatism in the Republican Party will help our nation forge some real solutions for the myriad of problems that we have let fester while we played the game of petty partisanship over the last 15 years.
who will drive moderates out of the party and loose the next election just to make a point.
For 8 years we heard the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were of the upmost importance. Suddenly, the conservative establishment tells us national security takes a back seat to the economy. There will be no economy left to speak of when the suicide bombers come to NY, LA and ATL.
When Mitt Romney debates the war with Hillary Clinton and attacks her stance, she will be able (rightly) to say,
"I have more experience in this area than you."
When Mitt Romney debates Obama, Obama will be able to say (rightly),
"You don't have any more experience in this than I do."
Only McCain can say,
"I've been there for two decades and I know better than you what we need to do."
When Romney refused to say what he though about the surge in 2006 he let the cat out of the bag. His finger was in the wind. McCain knew what to do.
Rush and the others can bleat all they want, but they represent a small and narrow brand or conservatism
Rushervatism. There is plenty of room for McCain under the tent, and he's not the one threatening the movement.
"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper
If the ultra-conservatives run the party, it will be homogenous, small and living in a country run by a government farther to the left than any time since the 1930s.
So, be happy with that or do something about it.
to what conservative said "national security takes a back seat to the economy."? I haven't heard it. To this conservative the WOT is numero uno. As a matter of fact I hear conservatives say we aren't fighting it hard enough. I do see Dems trying to change the subject from Iraq to the economy all the time. Are they part of the conservative establishment?
--roxer
"Where I stand does not depend on where I'm standing."
--Fred D. Thompson, 2008
And when Hillary says "We must stop those evil corporations and their global warming ways" McCain can answer "Yep, I agree, my bipartisan legislation is ready to go" (McCain-Lieberman)
When Obama says "The court are in danger of being taken over by conservative extremist" McCain can say "I was there for you, with bipartisan help I blocked them" (Gang of 14)
When Hillary decries all the horrible "negative" political speech from those that have no business expressing an opinion, McCain can proudly say "I agree, I passed bipartisan legislation to silence that!" (McCain-Feingold)
When Obama says, I can not support the xenophobe Republican position on illegal immigration McCain can point to his bipartisan work with Ted Kennedy to grant amnesty. (McCain-Kennedy)
That's just a sampling.
Now with McCain, as you can see that’s a mighty big tent, so big it overlaps the Democrats tent a great deal.
So please forgive us purist if we don't want to be confused for the Democrat party on important issues. McCain is just not our guy.
Let's evaluate, shall we?
And when Hillary says "We must stop those evil corporations and their global warming ways" McCain can answer "Yep, I agree, my bipartisan legislation is ready to go" (McCain-Lieberman)
REALITY: McCain is for dropping the corporate tax rate, yet he believe corps are evil? Go right ahead with that one, if it lights for you.
When Obama says "The court are in danger of being taken over by conservative extremist" McCain can say "I was there for you, with bipartisan help I blocked them" (Gang of 14)
REALITY: Read McCain's passionate floor defense of Alito, his support and quotes regarding Roberts, his voting record on judges and the absence of gridlock in Congress as many of Bush's nominees have sailed through. It's called getting something done.
When Hillary decries all the horrible "negative" political speech from those that have no business expressing an opinion, McCain can proudly say "I agree, I passed bipartisan legislation to silence that!" (McCain-Feingold)
REALITY: You just said that Hillary would decry negative political speech. That's funny in itself.
When Obama says, I can not support the xenophobe Republican position on illegal immigration McCain can point to his bipartisan work with Ted Kennedy to grant amnesty. (McCain-Kennedy)
REALITY: Not everyone believes that it's realistic to deport 20 million people. Some believe that by doing that, you will look very Hitlerian or Stalinish, will alienate the Hispanic vote (see Gonzalez, Elian in 2000) and cause the party to become a very small minority. It's not amnesty, it's a realization of what we are facing. Has Romney said he'd round up all the illegal immigrants? Nope. In reality, under Romney (or any other candidate), the same illegals will still be here, so is that passive amnesty? The question is are you going to secure the border and has anyone said they are not in favor of securing the border. As Republican voters are showing, this is not the issue many would have hoped it would be (which a victory in Florida would cement).
That's just a sampling.
So please forgive us purist if we don't want to be confused for the Democrat party on important issues. McCain is just not our guy.
REALITY: I just hope you are not confused with the Republican Party with such lies, distortions and xenophobia.
Not everyone believes that it's realistic to deport 20 million people. Some believe that by doing that, you will look very Hitlerian or Stalinish, will alienate the Hispanic vote (see Gonzalez, Elian in 2000) and cause the party to become a very small minority.
Nobody opposed to McCain-Kennedy EVER said they wanted to "deport 20 million people." We just wanted to give enforcement-caused attrition a chance to work as it did for Eisenhower. That's the historical lesson in this to follow.
If you're feeling free to haul out the Hitler and Stalin comparisons without succumbing to Godwin's Law, then let me feel free to haul out the flesh-eating necrosis comparisons about what you're willing to tolerate being done to my nation.
Most polls have shown that a strong plurality of Hispanics oppose Amnesty, which the bill absolutely was in the minds of many.
In addition, there's simply no equation that makes sense for Republicans to root for giving status in the franchise to millions upon millions of people who come from political heritage traditions and experiences that do not manage republican self government well. You're rooting for a future nation in which the whole political spectrum must necessarily move to the left; our next generation's "conservatives" will have to be more like Hillary Clinton than Fred Thompson to have a shot in a national election.
Traditionalism, originalism and continuity will all be laid waste by the caliber of desire inherent in those who now come.
The bottom line for us is that we don't want to ever sell on the cheap (conditional amnesty by fine) or give away (blanket amnesty) something as precious as citizenship, especially to anyone whose actions (they're here illegally) betray an utter disrespect and disregard for a key rule of law that undergirds who we are.
You may feel your citizenship is worth a mere $2500 to $5000. If so, have at it. Sell it. Mine? There aren't enough zeros after one in infinity to establish a list price if it means my kid has no America left to care for when she's grown up.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
There was some purposeful shrillness (just for the fun of it) in response to Goldenboy
None the less allow me to respond.
I’m glad McCain wants to lower the corporate tax rate, whether or not he can get this past his Democrat buddies or other “Maverick” Republicans is questionable. Let’s just say even if he does, his cap and trade scheme to “solve” global warming will do WAY more damage to the economy then any tax cut will undo. Frankly I can’t take anyone seriously that buys into this whole Global Warming babble and it scares the heck out me if that someone is in a position of power and can enact legislation.
Next McCain helped engineer the gridlock on conservative judges with his little “Gang of 14” fig leaf to give cover for the Democrats to continue their filibusters. I really don’t care what he “says”, I only notice what he does. I’m sure Lincoln Chaffee, Susan Collins and Olympia Snow where also working hard as members of the Gang of 14 to advance conservative judges too. It’s called obstruction.
Hillary decrying negative political speech, yep, your right, that is funny, but what McCain did to political free speech was not.
Lastly, aside for the fact they came here ILLEGALLY why would you want to have 12 to 20 million more DEMOCRATS on the voter rolls? Why do we owe these people a pass, shall we extend that favor to other identity thief’s? I’m a big believer in solving the issue by enforcement, if we actually enforce our laws they will leave on their own. The problem will be solved by attrition.
Lastly, I am a Republican, like it or not, big tent and all.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
Romney and his supporters have sublimated the war on terror to the economy to pave the way for Romney. He has not foreign policy experience.
The fact is that Rush and the others influence large segments of the Republican party and now they are on a power trip trying to purge anyone who disagrees with them.
The Radio Republican logic is basically thus:
p-1 All conservatives agree with Rush
p-2 A does not agree with Rush
Ergo- A is not a conservative
Has it occurred to anyone that Hispanic radio stations have been growing since the late 90's? That's direct competition for market share for conservative radio hosts.
They're trying to stir up hatred and resentment for a group of people who have been working in this country for over 100 years. They want to build walls.
That is not conservatism.
"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper
Martinez and Crist are from the "most liberal" section of the Republican party?
Martinez ACU: 90% - Higher then Rick Santorum.
They don't have ratings for Governors, but while Crist might be a self-serving politician, he's identifiably liberal on exactly no issues.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"