Redstate

Humans are animals subject to negative reinforcement. As I mentioned, if you look at our front page posts, you can find all sorts of things aimed at driving down spending. Wander through opinion work at any major site or conservative mag and find the same stuff.

And. They. Keep. Spending.

At some point, you just have to prioritize your energies. I'm all about hopeless cavalry charges up a hill, but eventually, you run out of horses and men.

From where I sit, the "Religious Right" can be defined by the following two characteristics:

• They have strong conservative religious beliefs, or moral beliefs based upon or similar to a conservative religion.
• They use political activism in an attempt to impose those religious or moral beliefs on the nation as a whole.

It's not the beliefs that make them part of the "Religious Right", it's the attempt to impose those beliefs on everyone else which does.

IMHO.

He has aspirations to be a more moderate version of McCain-Maverick, adored by the media-but no one cares a lick about him.  He is a cheap immitation of McCain.  Thus it can be argued that he is more pathetic than McCain himself.  That is something I suspect many believe is impossible, yet Hagel has achieved just that.

Tonight in Connecticut, McCain is of Connecticut. Tomorrow he will be of Delaware, and on Sunday he will be of Maine.

Three liberal states in the Northeast; McCain will be "of" each of them.  Did the article say when he'd be of Arizona again?

and too cranky and too hot tempered and too unpredicatble and too irrational and not trustworty.  He is my senator, regretably, and he would be a HORRIBLE president.  I've followed him since he ran here in 1982.  

He's not particulary bright, there were only 5 worse than him among the 899 at Annapolis.  He's more show horse than work horse.  Remember the Keating 5.  That's John McCain.

John McCain will be 72 YEARS OLD in 2008.  Reagan was 69 when inaugurated.  McCain's already looney.  God help us if he is trying to run our great country while he is in his mid 70's.

McCain, refusing to act as a party leader:

Even with his audience's prodding, he refuses to speak ill of Mrs. Clinton.

This is what you demand of your leadership, first and foremost?

Mr. McCain doesn't seem to have any trouble speaking ill of those in his own party.  When he can do that and yet refuse to speak ill of those on the other side of the aisle, well, it makes some of us wonder which side of the aisle he really belongs on.

So I can only assume McCain is shooting at me.

I have yet to see evidence to the contrary.

I really do.

But it isn't all that shocking that if you expect to lead a political party, you must be able to contrast yourself with the opposition from time to time. That applies equally to Democrats and Republicans alike.

It's not all that's required of leaders. Hence the qualifier party leaders.

"Religious Right"?

What does he mean by that?

I can't stand Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell.  But I am religious, and I am a conservative.  Am I part of the religious right?

Further, if I am part of the religious right because I'm a devout Christian and a conservative, then am I to believe McCain if he says he's a Christian and a conservative?

Hmmmm.

that is exactly how McCain won in NH.  I'm in MA, so the NH stuff is front page news always.  He didn't even try to get Republican's to vote for him in the primary because even then he knew it was a lost cause.  NH is an open primary, so "unenrolled" and republican's can vote.  Large numbers of democrats switched their party affiliation and voted for McCain just to screw Bush.  They boasted about it to reporters and on call in shows.  Also, liberal independants lapped up the McCain "straight talk".

McCain will definitely win in NH in 08 by ignoring Republicans again, but thank God for SC and the rational americans outside the North east.

between contrasting policy and speaking ill of your opposition.

Meanwhile, you said I misunderstood the diarist and should apologize.  You then said I moved the goalposts.  But you didn't address my question.  Doesn't the diarist citing McCain's refusal to speak ill of Hillary as evidence he is not acting as a party leader indicate the diarist's opinion that speaking ill of Hillary is an important component of being a party leader?

Re-read my prior comment.

I support anyone who respectfully rasies their voice for a cause they believe in, but we all complain about pork and the budget and then political sites like RedState go nearly full-time to cheer on stunts like the Schiavo affair that lead to no policy changes at all.

Do a little search on fronters on spending, taxes, and pork.

Note the decreases in spending in the relevant time period.

Ditto Schiavo. That there was no policy change does not belie that there was a change.

Note the relevant comparative numbers in both columns.

This is what you demand of your leadership, first and foremost?

Is that what he said?

I see -- I thought that by saying

Do a little search on fronters on spending, taxes, and pork.

Note the decreases in spending in the relevant time period.

You were directing me to do research on the budget numbers and that the decreases in spending were relevant (meaning substantial).  I get what you were saying now -- I was obviously not looking at the same columns you were.

And I understand now your point that politics leads to to fight battles you can affect, not those you can't.  But I refuse to believe that RedState should put not put its full energy (as it did behind Schiavo supporters) into fighting difficult battles like the budget.  Or, to put it more concretely, if "our railing about spending has precisely zero effect," we should rail harder.

He means 'cut out a few million in pork then raise taxes.'

NOW which priority would you prefer: save Terry Schiavo, or 'balance the budget'?

He means 'cut out a few million in [non-McCain] pork then raise taxes.'

that, more than anything else, McCain is concerned about Guiliani.  He feels he can hold his own on the right against Rudy, and is anxious to fight for those voters he perceives as the Mayor's base.

If he were more worried about Allen, say, he would be playing different cards.

He also wants to attract back those independents and Democrats who supported him in 2000.

My fundamental objection to McCain goes beyond ideology or issues, though.  He aspires to run the largest operation in the world, one with an annual operating budget of nearly $3 TRILLION.  WHAT has he ever done to demonstrate his ability to manage an operation larger than his Senate staff?

have different priorities.  That's fine and to be expected.  But my original point was about McCain and the diarist's criticism of him, not about what RedState should be doing.  My point was that McCain is to be respected, not denigrated, for his insistence that large difficult tasks such as the budget should be the focus of Congress, and not things like Schiavo.  Certainly it would not be impossible for a (hypothetical, don't panic) President McCain to push through spending cuts.  

Is it out-of-line for me to conclude that the diarist, citing a single reason for why McCain is not acting like a party leader, thinks that reason is a critical qualification for being a party leader?  This was what I did -- I admit to it and I apologize for leaping to that conclusion.

I also apologize for wasting so much thread on this, and to Thomas for wasting his time.  Sorry, man.

At least we know he is fully capable of completely contradicting himself inside of 60 seconds without even realizing it. I guess only SSM is worthy of the federalist approach.

MCCAIN: I sleep very well. Although there have been times when I haven't always acted on principle.

KING: Oh.

MCCAIN: Yes. The flag in South Carolina. I said that that was a state issue. It's not a state issue. It's a symbol that should not fly over the state capitol anywhere in America.

KING: It's a Bixy (ph) flag?

MCCAIN: Yes, sir. And I said that it really wasn't any of my business, was basically what I said. That was an act of cowardice.

KING: Do you support gay rights?

MCCAIN: Yes, sir. But I do not believe in -- I believe in the sanctity of heterosexual marriage.

KING: But didn't you support pro-union?

MCCAIN: I will vote against -- yes. I will vote against the constitutional amendment concerning gay marriage. Gay union...

KING: That would ban it. That would ban gay marriage.

MCCAIN: Because I believe that the people of Arizona should make the decision concerning the sanctity of heterosexual marriage and union between a man and woman. And I believe the people of Massachusetts should make their decision, and others. I think it's up to the states to make those decisions. And by the way, that's the federalist approach.

McCain has about as much chance of winning the Presidency as I have of rolling a snow ball clear across Hades in the middle of August!

You got that right! I think the only people who want McCain to even bother running are the Left. That way, when he gets creamed by a real conservative, the Dems/press can point and say "just look at those Republicans - so far out of the mainstream."

If I must have a Congress that does things, I'd rather my congressmen actually do things, not make ultimately meaningless gestures again and again.

Whether or not you trust McCain, he at least nominally agrees with you:  We worry about Ms. Schiavo before we worry about balancing the budget. We're going to take up this Family Marriage Amendment again. Why? The Republicans will vote one way, and the Democrats will vote another, and everybody knows it! It's pointless.  Different priorities, perhaps, but he agrees that real legislation that could pass is better than unlikely-to-pass legislation that is meant as a gesture.  You just disagree with him about which category a budget proposal falls into.

As for your other comment, come on, Thomas.  Enough with the sarcasm.  You don't think the president (absent some mutant ability) has at least some pull with how Congress spends our money?  At minimum he has the veto.   McCain's priorities aren't to be denigrated simply because he (at least nominally) puts fiscal responsibility at the top.

My point was that McCain is to be respected, not denigrated, for his insistence that large difficult tasks such as the budget should be the focus of Congress, and not things like Schiavo.

If I must have a Congress that does things, I'd rather my congressmen actually do things, not make ultimately meaningless gestures again and again.

Certainly it would not be impossible for a (hypothetical, don't panic) President McCain to push through spending cuts.

I'm trying to figure out what mutant ability or power (is he a 40th level enchanter?) McCain has that would allow him to overcome human nature.

Doesn't this choice imply that (according to the diarist) not only is speaking ill of Hillary an important part of acting as a party leader, but a critical qualification of acting as a party leader?

Only if you have that preconception when reading the article.

That a presidential candidate should be denigrated (by us!) for proposing that the budget should be top priority.  That we shouldn't ask our elected officials to take an unpopular position on the budget, even if it means a govt shutdown and potential bad poll numbers, because it's the right thing to do.

I totally understand your argument, Thomas, and I hesitate to continue because I'll just end up having to apologize again for wasting your time.  I guess I'm too idealistic, and that I don't filter my expectations through what's to be expected politically.  Your experience certainly dwarfs mine in terms of political exposure so I'll defer to your view for now...

...But I won't let that stop me from demanding fiscal sanity from whoever is the next president ;)

but he's behind Rudy in the primary for me.

If McCain has so little regard for my beliefs, he won't mind if I stay home on election day if he's the nominee.

because he won't win the primaries.  If he were to win the primaries, such as by some stroke of Democrat crossover lunacy, he won't get out enough vote to win.

Unless dKos endorses his opponent, that is.

between contrasting yourself with the opposition and speaking ill of them.

In part because, no matter how much you or I favor spending cuts -- and I'd cut almost everywhere -- our fellow voters do not, and forty years after Goldwater's charge into the valley of death, they seem to show no signs of changing.

Sorry.  I promise I won't be doomed to repeat that mistake.

Just got to say this: Please, anyone but Allen. He's just so... creepy. But yeah, McCain is selling out big time. I don't know who will be good in '08. Is Hagel running? He actually is a Lincoln/Reagan/T Roosevelt republican.

Again: Please, not Allen.

Your concern is a legitimate one. And you're not alone in demanding a pledge of fiscal responsibility; I'm there with you.

The essential problem is that there are two actors at work in any budget situation, and one of them has the final say. That one is not the President. If you want bipartisanship out of our elected officials, let's watch what happens when a President vetoes a budget. It won't take long to get to 2/3 in each House to override.

That a presidential candidate should be denigrated (by us!) for proposing that the budget should be top priority.  That we shouldn't ask our elected officials to take an unpopular position on the budget, even if it means a govt shutdown and potential bad poll numbers, because it's the right thing to do.

You misunderstand me. For clarity, in the abstract, none of these things are wrong. I just think McCain does it because it's part of his image, and because he knows it isn't going anywhere. And God knows he votes for pork for Arizona; he just opposes it elsewhere (to no avail, as he well knows). It's for that that I denigrate him.

I assume you're referring to:  acting as a party leader, which necessarily involves taking at least policy shots as the part of your previous post that addresses my question of whether speaking ill of the opposition is an important part of being a party leader.  OK.

So the diarist includes McCain's refusal to speak ill of Hillary as the first and only example of McCain's not acting as a party leader.  Now, before you try to get me on semantics again, I am aware that there are other, better examples.  But this is the one the diarist chose to prioritize.  Doesn't this choice imply that (according to the diarist) not only is speaking ill of Hillary an important part of acting as a party leader, but a critical qualification of acting as a party leader?

I think acting as a party leader, which necessarily involves taking at least policy shots at one's partisan opponents, is a vital component of being a presidential candidate. That he passed up two opportunities to do so -- Kennedy and Clinton -- speaks ill of the larger point.

Clinton isn't my ox to gore right now. YMMV. However, see paragraph 1.

Is the "religious right." That would be McCain's definition.

John McCain hates one of the most active and growing factions of the Republican party.  Splendid.

I do think our energies should be prioritized to decreasing spending.  I respectfully disagree that this is akin to a hopeless cavalry charge up a hill, because the soldiers fighting the battle are (at least nominally) our soldiers.  We elected them, and at some point they will respond to us if we put more energy into demanding fiscal responsibility.

At least McCain (NOT my choice for the 2008 nominee) understands priorities.  We worry about Ms. Schiavo before we worry about balancing the budget.  I support anyone who respectfully rasies their voice for a cause they believe in, but we all complain about pork and the budget and then political sites like RedState go nearly full-time to cheer on stunts like the Schiavo affair that lead to no policy changes at all.

Priorities?

McCain, refusing to act as a party leader:

Even with his audience's prodding, he refuses to speak ill of Mrs. Clinton.

This is what you demand of your leadership, first and foremost?

Personally, I'd call John McCain a TR Republican.  He's surely the most likely to bolt and create a progressive party of the current field.

McCain was speaking about priorities, not about mutual exclusivity.  Just look at the present legislative agenda, you'll see that despite the fact that there are plenty of good fiscal conservatives in Congress those issues are not getting prioritized.

He wants to get something done? Johhny boy has been sleeping with dragons, or whales rather, for too long.They're looking to friendly to him.

Teddy Kennedy gets done what Teddy Kennedy wants done. Nothing other. Teddy comes from that arch- conservative northeastern bastion of Taxachussets, remember? Where you can wed your dog, your cat, your sheep, or multiple goats if you choose to do so. Teddy has a drinking partner on Friday and Saturday nights in the person of Dodd, Chris, D-CT. They're usually found in the out of the way haunts in Georgetown etc., going toe to toe seeing who goes under the table first. They choose their spots carefully to ensure that no press photographer or newsprint person or CIA or NSA type can observe.

Senator Dodd, D-CT, is on a first name basis with practically every Communist or Left Wing Activist in Latin or South America. One of his friends had the bad fortune to be assassinated some time back. The FBI perusal of the deceased's contact lists found some unusual fellows in it. Of note were 13 former East German KGB agents. Not exactly the types of people you would want to have direct access to the halls of power in the United States.

I don't think the times call for a Senator McCain who sleeps with whales and dragons, rather someone who wakes every morning with the thought, "call me Ishmael".

"We worry about Ms. Schiavo before we worry about balancing the budget."

As if you can't vote for both!?  It is more likely that the typical Senator who voted against Ms. Schiavo voted for pork.  Look at the fiscal records of Collins, Snowe, Chaffee, and Spector.  I am not saying all social conservatives are good fiscal conservatives, but there is a good correlation.

Not in complete agreement with you Thomas (I'd rather there be battles over the budget and veto overrides than the current situation, for example) but it will be interesting to see how much of a factor pledges of fiscal responsibility are in the primary.

Please don't give two different comments the same title. One of my lesser-known jobs is to delete duplicative comments. Had I not double-checked before deleting, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

you and the snowball.

ohhh, that felt good.  Now where are those widows and orphans?   Leave it to Esquire, the magazine for the poor and disenfranchised, to spot compassion.  Moreover to locate it in dafedralguvmint, a good place to find it because it costs you less and someone else more.

       I hope McCain and the liberals leave a little of Lincoln for the rest of us, if this keeps up conservatives will br barred from the Lincoln Memorial.  Unless they take an oath of conversion.

In your book, he is not implying that one of the primary reasons McCain is not acting as a party leader is because he refuses to speak ill of Mrs. Clinton.

Tut tut, now. You did not say that. You said:

Thus, the diarist is saying that the foremost qualification for Republican leadership (or, minimum, a critical qualification for Republican leadership) is willingness to speak ill of opponents.

Now, you've either realized that you were wrong in the first place, and this is your gentle attempt to backtrack; or your prior use of the language was unutterably sloppy. Pick.

Maybe I am misunderstanding the diarist's use of the colon.

You appear to be, because he was introducing the next paragraph.

Please explain to me what the diarist meant in the above excerpt if it wasn't that McCain is not acting as a party leader because he refuses to speak ill of Mrs. Clinton.

Did I say that? I didn't say that.

In the end, the front runners are McCain and Rudy.  Who would you rather have in the Oval Office?

It's obvious... Rudy.

The issue: trust.

And they passed the fairness doctrine, i bet you almost anything mccain would sign it so he could shut up rush.

And I understand how you got there. God knows I make enough mistakes in a given day for a full front page of the New York Times.

Well, most of the front page.

Air America? ;-)

McCain has about as much chance of winning the Presidency as I have of rolling a snow ball clear across Hades in the middle of August! Conservative Republicans dispise him, and Southern conservatives will not speak his name.  His insult of the South has not been forgotten, nor will it be.

If the Republicans want to carry the conservative vote, at all, (I am not convinced they do!) then they had better give us a true conservative candidate to vote for.  No more compassionate conservatives, either.  We've had enough, thank you!

I am now convinced the "Powers That Be", within the GOP, have decided to throw the '08 election and that explains why the are planning to run McCain. He is the "Sacraficial Lamb".

that has me saving my pennies so that when 2008 rolls around I have $2000 to give IN THE PRIMARIES to Romney or some other conservative.

Had he said "Hillary is wrong on the economy" he would have been a VRWC attack dog "speaking ill" of his opponent.

Different priorities, perhaps, but he agrees that real legislation that could pass is better than unlikely-to-pass legislation that is meant as a gesture.  You just disagree with him about which category a budget proposal falls into.

Only because of human nature, thirteen years of experience, and no evidence to the contrary. But for that, he might have a telling argument.

You don't think the president (absent some mutant ability) has at least some pull with how Congress spends our money?

How they spend it? Sure. How much they spend? No. Not really.

At minimum he has the veto.

Presidents almost never veto their own party's legislation. Doing so is very bad for their ability to get anything at all done, and is worse when it's something as near and dear to their appropriating hearts (and re-election chances) as the budget. A vetoed budget can also lead to a government shutdown, which does wonders for me, but tends to poll negatively.

McCain's priorities aren't to be denigrated simply because he (at least nominally) puts fiscal responsibility at the top.

They are to be denigrated when all they amount to is so many pointless commands to the tide to stop.

When a diarist, listing reasons why McCain should be opposed, writes:

McCain, refusing to act as a party leader:

    Even with his audience's prodding, he refuses to speak ill of Mrs. Clinton.

In your book, he is not implying that one of the primary reasons McCain is not acting as a party leader is because he refuses to speak ill of Mrs. Clinton.  

Maybe I am misunderstanding the diarist's use of the colon.  Please explain to me what the diarist meant in the above excerpt if it wasn't that McCain is not acting as a party leader because he refuses to speak ill of Mrs. Clinton.

That was the explicit conclusion of the post.  One of the reasons given is, as I quoted, that he refuses to "act as a party leader".  The example given for this is that he refused to "speak ill of Mrs. Clinton."  So yes, I believe the diarist is saying that McCain is not acting as a party leader because he won't speak ill of opponents (among other actions, natch, but that's the one prioritized in the diary).  Thus, the diarist is saying that the foremost qualification for Republican leadership (or, minimum, a critical qualification for Republican leadership) is willingness to speak ill of opponents.  If this is a misunderstanding, I will apologize.

Meanwhile, you point to incremental progress as evidence this Congress cares about spending.  While I wish it were true, the budget is still overburdened with pork, wasteful spending, and too many entitlement programs.  And you can see the priorities of this Congress in the current legislative agenda.

that McCain never gets the nomination.

Perhaps the most outrageous McCain quote ever: His explanation for his "maverick" actions. God has given John McCain a special gift to know right from wrong!

What a jerk!

I just don't see anybody out there with the kind of integrity I'm looking for. Guiliani never impressed me, Allen is a good-ol-boys-club puppet, Romney is just a face, Gingrich is an ego maniac, and then there's McCain. We know that story. Who else is considering a run?

Thus, the diarist is saying that the foremost qualification for Republican leadership (or, minimum, a critical qualification for Republican leadership) is willingness to speak ill of opponents.  If this is a misunderstanding, I will apologize.

You need to apologize. I count three points sequentially in front of that one, no language prioritizing it, and really your own inferences as the only evidence of your conclusion.

Meanwhile, you point to incremental progress as evidence this Congress cares about spending.

I do nothing of the sort. What I said was,

Do a little search on fronters on spending, taxes, and pork.

Note the decreases in spending in the relevant time period.

Ditto Schiavo. That there was no policy change does not belie that there was a change.

Note the relevant comparative numbers in both columns.

The clear conclusion from these words was that I believe that our railing about spending has precisely zero effect, where ranting about Schiavo at least corresponded with some effect, however minimal. I was setting up a clear contrast -- or at least, it seemed clear to me and the guy who just emailed me to tell me I'm a theocrat [butthole] who doesn't care about overspending.

(rather hostile) post I gather you agree that the diarist was in fact saying that McCain does not act like a party leader because he refuses to speak ill of Mrs. Clinton.  

So you are now maintaining that saying McCain is not acting as a leader because he is not speaking ill of Hillary does not indicate the diarist sees speaking ill of Hillary as being an important qualification for acting as a party leader?  Or does this requirement apply only to McCain specifically?