Another Perspective
Elections Have Consequences
A lesson in political pragmatism — or how an imperfect conservative would be preferable to a perfect liberal.
Nine months into the Obama presidency, it is clear that he and Senator McCain would have produced wildly different administrations. Now is the time to reflect and learn — and then to move on.
Taking the percentages of those who failed to show up, coupled with the knowledge that a significant number of voters crossed party lines — to the Obama camp — suggests President Obama’s margin of victory was not insurmountable: 52.9 percent to McCain’s 45.7 percent. A shift in just over 3-½ percent of the voting bloc would have given McCain the win. While Democrats were slightly ramping up their numbers, Republicans were ramping up their convictions that fighting for McCain was fighting for a lost cause. As stated by a post-election article in CNN:
“A downturn in the number and percentage of Republican voters going to the polls seemed to be the primary explanation for the lower than predicted turnout.…” Compared to 2004, Republican turnout declined by 1.3 percentage points to 28.7 percent, while Democratic turnout increased by 2.6 points from 28.7 percent in 2004 to 31.3 percent in 2008.… Many people were fooled…by this year’s increase in registration (more than 10 million added to the rolls), citizens’ willingness to stand for hours even in inclement weather to vote early, the likely rise in youth and African American voting, and the extensive grassroots organizing network of the Obama campaign into believing that turnout would be substantially higher than in 2004. (Emphasis mine.)
Senator McCain could have won, and there was a huge difference between the candidates. There is a huge difference between the philosophies. That should be abundantly clear by now.
The Internet Freedom Act of 2009 is a glimpse into what was behind door No. 2. It’s an example of what could have been. The bill is an attempt to keep government out of insidious Internet regulation. Not surprisingly, it’s being introduced by Senator McCain.
In foreign policy, Senator John McCain is solid. He is making the case for action in Afghanistan. Under the last administration, Senator McCain had the conscience and confidence to fall out of step with his President and criticize the strategy in Iraq. We called it the surge. It worked. It brought a measurable degree of hope and change to American national security. It allowed us to begin troop withdrawals. It was the right thing to do. That was last year. This month, Senator McCain is again pressing his President, this time aligned with a different party, calling for an end to the inertia in Afghanistan. His voice is significant because it was almost our voice. It was almost the voice of the Commander in Chief. But for a variety of reasons, most of them lamentable, that was not to be. Had wide-eyed Americans gone to the polls in larger numbers or taken an unemotional look at Barack Obama, would we be debating whether we’re “dithering” or losing the battle? No, I dare say that the word dither would not be crossing anyone’s lips, not in foreign policy.
I’m inclined to think that under a McCain administration, things would have been different: better-different — and not just in foreign affairs.
Domestically, President Obama has been anything but dithering. In the months since he took office, we have suffered stimulation, bailouts, Supreme Court Justice-fications, environmental indulgences, and health care histrionics. In short, despite a mild hurricane season, meteorologically speaking, this Administration has been on a domestic rampage, systematically attacking years of fiscal and social structure in a welcoming environment of low-pressure and high expectations. As hurricanes go, this one is just getting started. Policies and bulwarks against government intrusion lay scattered and broken along the battered shoreline. The warm water of the mainstream press coupled with the blowing winds of a Democrat-run legislature, ensure the likelihood that this season will not end with the coming winter, but will rage on until the midterm elections.
It could have been prevented.
That is not to say that John McCain is or was the perfect antidote to Obama fever — McCain comes with his own shortcomings. Understood. McCain made some choices during the Bush presidency that baffled the Right, perturbed the Party, and empowered the petulant press. Suffice it to say that he did that. Enumerating those moments is unavailing.
But as adversity brings out the worst in some, it also brings out the best in others. Since the election, on nearly every issue and at every turn, Senator John McCain has been a high pressure of resistance against the push of big government. That is what we’re fighting against, after all, the absolute and utter intrusion of government regulation and interference like no time in recent memory. We’re witnessing the infusion of artificial life and intelligence into a ravenous government, on an increasingly unapologetic scale. We’re witnessing the birth of an era of government, not just government, big government — the type of government that takes from one person according to his ability — against his will — and redistributes to another according to his need: an insidious form of government.
Generally speaking, government is good, is virtuous, is eternal, and is a necessary component of law, order, and justice. But a Big-Brother version of government is a vice. If left unregulated by its governees, this vice will tear through the fabric of our supernal system of self-governance. Alexander Pope’s brilliant commentary on vice illustrates the regrettable transformation:
Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As to be hated, needs but to be seen.
Yet seen to oft, familiar with her face,
First we pity, then endure, then embrace.
Years ago we lamented big government. Years ago, big government was seen for the brutish behemoth that it is. But that antipathy has been tempered through years of familiarity and assiduously “innocuous” propaganda about need, helplessness, and compassion.
Taking responsibility from the one and forcing it on the many is not just. Passing legislation that has not been read is not virtuous. Forcing the private sector to bow to anticompetitive energy policies is not necessary. Exploiting 30 million uninsured in order to place the reins of health care in the fist of the governmental is not compassionate. But shifting our power from the governed to the governing can bring about unwanted outcomes that smack of eternity.
Jeff| 10.30.09 @ 6:17AM
I DESPISE John McBackstabber. Yes , I and the country are suffering short term but 2012 will be glorius in that the RINOS in the GOP will be simply overwhelmed by us conservatives. You can see it happening right now in New York.
Did I mention that I DESPISE that backstabbing RINO?
Dixie Pixie| 10.30.09 @ 1:15PM
Let me get this straight.
John McCain has figured out what went wrong with last presidential campaign. Now he plans to surf into office on a wave of Obama discontent.
McCain-Lieberman in 2012.
How delusional can anyone become if anyone believes McCain has a shot at the presidential office. If McCain runs the conservatives will flee the Republican Party in mass. That may be why the Party Elders wants McCain to run. Less conservatives more moderates wins elections ?!?!?
On the other hand a McCain campaign is probably the only way to save Obama. Maybe that is the reason for the McCain media floater.
McCain is worse than a loser, he is a continuing political nightmare for the Republican Party.
Rick V.| 11.1.09 @ 6:33AM
Dixie,
I remember the speculation of a McCain/Lieberman ticket during the campaign; I would have voted for that with some trepidation. I voted for McCain/Palin with the same misgivings - not for her but for him. Still, as the article proves, hindsight is 20/20. Would we have been worse off with McCain in the WH? No. How many thousands of DEMs are kicking themselves that "Hillary!" isn't in the big chair? We'll never know. And Joe Lieberman is looking more and more credible for 2012. Let's hope we all survive until then.
Howard| 10.30.09 @ 1:54PM
Normally I do not respond to comments. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, Jeff, what you are saying is amounting to cutting off your nose to spite your face. Sure McCain has plenty of weaknesses, and is far from a perfect conservative. But he is 1000% better than Obama and his Socialist minions. The problem is that Obama will radically change this country; not allowing for "short term suffering", but a permanent movement to a Swedish style Social Democracy. I disagree with you on this matter.
Quartermaster| 10.30.09 @ 3:43PM
Howard, first you have to make the case McCain is a conservative. Rottsa ruck on that.
McCain has shown he is a moderate liberal. Yes, he may be fighting since he is in opposition. But while he was not, he stabbed us in the back repeatedly while he was all mavericky and such. The man is a RINO. Period. End of story!
sirkent| 10.30.09 @ 6:06PM
John McCain is a very brave and strong soldier. But he is a Rhino! It doesn't matter if the road to socialism is a shortcut (Obama) or a long winding road. It leads to the same destination! I voted for McCain. I knew wher Obama would lead us. But in all honesty, I was relieved that Obama won. My reasoning is that if we start sliding at the pace Obama would set, Americans would wake up and get back to God and the constitution!
PCP Smoker| 10.30.09 @ 7:35PM
Would we have had Tea Parties under McLame's slow decline to statism? Would Joe Sixpack be "concerned" about a government take over of his healthcare? Would a dithering old man seeking approval from the left be any different from the leftist dithering currently in the White House? Will Wall St & Silicon Valley executives support Obama in 2012?
This column, as all the other "Another Perspectives", is garbage. McLame's slow march toward socialism would have been worse than the shock therapy some clueless Americans are getting now, and will be getting once socialist healthcare goes through. Economically-comfortable Americans who have been flirting with liberalism for years are learning lessons about the free market they never got in college.
serfer62| 11.1.09 @ 3:28PM
McNasty would have installed the horrible, largest tax increase, job killing, bill "Cap n Trade". Guess who would get the credit for decades, GOP!
McStab-a Conservative-in-the-back is the killer of Conservatives and only his selection of Gov Palin gave his run any credit at all.
Rid DC of incumbent GOP...they suck
Alan Brooks| 10.31.09 @ 3:01PM
Another Gingrich-Toffler in Nov. 2010?
And which planet will he want to colonize this time around? Mercury?
Alan Brooks| 11.2.09 @ 12:17AM
in Jan. 2011 let's have a man (or woman) with both feet on planet EARTH.
Steve| 10.30.09 @ 6:22AM
And your point is ?????? That conservatives need to shut up and vote RINO in any and all circumstances?
Look, ever the good soldier, I held my nose and voted for McCain. While my RINO friends were voting for OBAMA! I detect, perhaps wrongly, a subtext in this piece to the effect that conservatives must ever compromise to accomodate RINOs. Screw that. It's time the RINOs are properly condemned and told that party loyalty is the be all and end all, like conservatives are told. Oh, dear. Party loyalty -- how can one be a *thoughtful* maverick if one doesn't sell out his party on a regular basis?
JAWilson| 10.30.09 @ 6:27AM
Woulda shoulda coulda. What a waste of time. I gave money to McCain for the first time in my life and I consider it wasted. The RNC won't get another dollar until they get a spine and an agenda.
Kitty| 10.30.09 @ 6:42AM
I, too, held my nose and voted for McCain because Sarah Palin was his running mate. Without Palin, I might have not voted for a president.
That was the last time I vote for a RINO, but never again.
...
c. j. acworth| 10.30.09 @ 5:31PM
Ditto, Kitty. No way I would've voted for McFiengold Cap'n Tax without Sarah, who I hoped would be able to talk some sense into him. I hate to say it, but I truely believe that this generation has to go through what mine went through in the days of the dreadful peanut farmer. Only then, with a flat economy, and no respect abroad, nothing but talk about "limits to growth" and "malaise", will this country be reminded of what is possible if the free people of America are allowed to keep the product of thier own labor and by free association solve thier own problems.
Conservative in Blue NH| 10.30.09 @ 6:42AM
Hogwash!! McCain actively campaigned to LOSE the election. He refused to challenge O in any substantive way. He disowned his own supporters if they DARED to point out O's failings. He EXPLICITLY stated that it didn't make any difference which of the two won the election.
Mr. Kirchofer, please take your ridiculous and losing proposition and peddle it somewhere else. The Media and RINOs got the candidate they wanted.
The only thing that kept McCain afloat was stumbling into and selecting Palin as his VP candidate. Then, his 'team' of electoral losers, in cooperation with the media, set out to undercut her in every way possible.
Lawrence Boccardi| 10.30.09 @ 6:53AM
All of the above comments are accurate, and correct. Had Gov Palin not appeared, I too, would have stayed home. Michael Steele can write to me daily, but not another red cent to the RINO's.
GO Hoffman!
Bram| 10.30.09 @ 7:40AM
You are scolding the wrong people. Most of you readers held our noses and voted for McCain despite how terrible a candidate he was. The election was lost in Feb. 2008 when the GOP powers picked a moderate instead of a clear-talking conservative.
The Presidential debates a year ago where a disaster. As Obama was listing off all his new government programs, a conservative would have pointed out all of government’s past failures and proposed less government as the solution. Reagan would have clearly defined their ideological differences (and enjoyed enormous gains in the polls). With every rambling Obama promise to throw around federal power and money, I heard “Well, there you go again” in my head.
Instead, we got McCain proposing slightly different big government solutions. I follow closely enough to know that Obama’s government solutions were of a far greater magnitude. The average independent just saw two guys proposing more or less the same things – so they voted for the young handsome one.
Tom Warwick| 10.30.09 @ 7:42AM
I have been a bedrock Republican for over 40 years. I voted for McCain ONLY because of Gov Palin. Otherwise, and I told this directly to the RNC, I would not piss down McCain's throat if he were dying of thirst. What I want to know is how much in bribes were paid to the RNC by the DNC to get McCain on the ticket.
Bill Kronenburg| 10.30.09 @ 7:44AM
Glenn Beck was right: McCain might have even made a worse President than Obama has.
McCain would have gone ahead with some form of the Stimulus, would have bailed out GM and Chrysler, would have certainly gone with Cap & Trade, and would have certainly gone along with Alien Amnesty.
Instead of the Republicans fighting some or all of these measures as the loyal opposition, they would have been pressured not to weaken a President of their own party and gone along with most of this long-term poison.
Yes, McCain would have fought the war more agressively than Obama, but I don't think that would have made up for giving us Meghan McCain as the First Twit for the next 4 years.
Fact is, the Republican Party (and this country) needs an enema, and that enema is Obama & the Democratic Congress. By 2010, the country will have gotten so fed up they might start tossing the whole lot of them out on their ears; then the Republicans will have a chance to start putting things right again -- that is, if they've learned their lesson by then (but that's a story for another time).
darcy| 10.31.09 @ 1:15AM
I really like the enema part, Mr. Kronenburg; it's long overdue, a smelly job, too, but someone has to do it.
In fact, if I read one more "RINOs Aren't So Bad" piece of excrement on this website, I swear I'll cancel my subscription to the mag itself.
You RINO apologists simply don't get it -- conservatives are sick and damn tired of being lectured to by WEASELS and treated like philistines and parochial idiots, and made to sit in the corner like the little trouble makers you think we are.
Oh no, no, no. We're the ones carrying the torch of the Founders -- and you RINO accommodationists are the ones all too eager to sell out the country for your 30 pieces of silver.
You vastly underestimate our anger at the degree to which the McCains, Grahams, and Snowes have themselves been the facilitators of the debacle in which we now are mired. But how to dig ourselves out?? We might ask you. And you can only offer us pablum and more of the same go-along-to-get-along nauseating treacle.
We turn a deaf ear to you. You had your chance with us, and you blew it. You RINOs are either going to wake up to reality or you're going to find yourselves locked out of power for good -- because your way is the way of destruction and we're not going over the cliff with you.
Big J| 10.30.09 @ 7:50AM
Boy, Robert P. Kirchhoefer (who is a Washington, D.C. attorney who previously worked in banking and finance) sure does know how to get the old blood boiling first thing in the morning.
I don't quite get the ultimate message of this ridiculous article, so I won't comment on it.
I do, however, have a message for the 57.2 percent of the population that was duped by this red-headed communist, the media and the McCain campaign:
I hope that we can recognize this country in 3 years, after he has done everything in his power to "remake it".
Thanks a lot, skillet heads.
bluecollarbytes| 10.30.09 @ 8:19AM
The McCain of today is probably not the McCain we would have had as president. Unlike Obama, I would have expected McCain to 'work with' the opposition in passing their agenda. McCain himself had some good Democrat ideas as candidate. Who can forget his knee-jerk proposal to create a 300-350 billion fund for homeowners in trouble, or his support of the Global Warming faith?
No doubt McCain would have been better for the country than the Obama we've come to know. But his efforts, concentrating on the muddled middle voters, allowed Obama to move even further Left. It's possible that the next Republican candidate is to the left of McCain, if the Republican hierarchy decides to split differences in Democrat proposals rather than Opposing them outright.
I agree that slowing down our march to greater socialism is better than a full quick immersion. That's just saying it's better than Nothing, which is what we have now.
The current discontent with a majority over their growing awareness of Obama goals can either help propel conservative thought via its' true believers, or encourage more bad behavior on the part of professional Republican careerists looking to cut deals.
Bottom line: Conservatives need to fight in the primaries for their preferred choice, then support whoever wins the nomination. The risks associated with an 8-year Obama presidency are just to great to live with as a form of protest by conservative voters.
Michael Tomlinson| 10.30.09 @ 8:44AM
Well said. Sadly, many who claim to be conservatives even worse "Reagan conservatives" are just the flip side of the MoveOn.org coin of complainers who believe only their agenda is conservative.
Based on his record and what these people think is conservative Reagan was a RINO.
The Big E| 10.30.09 @ 9:05AM
Let me remind you that following your formula for success got us where we are - a communist in the White House, a filibuster-proof majority of communists in the Senate, and an overwhelming majority of communists in the house. And your prescription is to build on that success with more of the same?
S.L. Toddard| 10.30.09 @ 9:18AM
Hear, hear! The previous Republican administration was such an unmitigated, nearly unprecedented disaster that they thoroughly discredited the conservative philosophy to which they falsely claimed to adhere (yet never acted upon), leaving America eager for any other direction than the one the GOP took, and giving the Democrats carte blanche to enact the most radical sorts of legislation that would never pass were the country not so desperate and shell-shocked.
Barack Obama: Brought to you by the good folks at the Grand Old Party.
L. Ross| 10.30.09 @ 10:36AM
First off, I can't believe I'm agreeing with Toddard, but right on, man.
The point this article truly missed is that the GOP needed to get its ass kicked, and kicked hard. No matter who won this election, the winner was going to face almost unimaginable challenges right now. Let's face it, the GOP needs to recover, clear their heads, and stop thinking and acting like democrats. John McCain was not the man to lead us down that path. Just like Clinton before him, I believe Obama is the right man to destroy the democratic party. If only we could find someone who could lead the Republican party.
Anthony| 10.30.09 @ 3:11PM
Mr. Kirchhoefer, Judging from the number and tone of the responses to your pitiful article thus far, I'd say you'll think twice before you venture into sharing your thoughts with anyone other than the family dog.
What gall to come to this web site, of all places, and pretend to lecture us on things we were years ahead of you on. Don't you dare presume to tell us about McCain and his pathetic candidacy. Many of us knew this result before McCain opened his mouth on the 1st day of his campaign. Nonetheless, we campaigned for him, gave him money and voted for him, all the while, he played his smug role of Maverick , while he berated US, his base.
To say that McCain would be better than Obama is as sophomoric an observation as you can get. Tell that to McCain, he who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory with his "pragmatism".
What you and your fellow RINOs need to know is that principle is ALL that we have left. We sacrificed principle for your precious pragmatism, while we held our noses for the insufferable McCain, and look what it got us. Why even his best pal, Colin Powell couldn't see fit to support Mr. Moderate, yet we get the blame.
Hey pal, learn this: take Powell, McCain, Graham and the other RINOs and get the hell out of our sight. We will stand on principle and we will prevail with candidates who also have principle. And when we've taken back this country, we'll tell you when it's safe to come out. Now go bill your D.C. clients at $500 p/h and leave the heavy lifting to us.
sirkent| 10.30.09 @ 6:17PM
AMEN!
S.L. Toddard| 10.30.09 @ 8:50AM
Mr. Kirchhoefer's piece is a shameful attempt to urge Conservatives to (continue to) abandon their principles and vote for a statist, Big Government representative of the rotted Washington establishment. Ignore him, and ignore the GOP until they start running conservatives. There is no use in slightly slowing down our inexorable slide towards socialistic totalitarianism. We must stop and reverse it. The only way to do that is to get Conservatives in office. And the only way to get the GOP to run Conservatives is to deprive them of power - of your vote - until they do. What they value is power and power only - if it is made clear to them that they will be denied power unless they run Conservatives, they will run Conservatives. Otherwise they will not, because the GOP establishment *despises* conservativism.
It is not a matter of Conservatives against Liberals. It is a matter of the conservative American people vs the Statist Elite, which encompasses the entire Washington establishment, Republican and Democrat.
STARVE THE BEAST.
Tim| 10.30.09 @ 9:38AM
Settle down Beavis...
Bydand76| 10.30.09 @ 6:43PM
Toddard:
"It is not a matter of Conservatives against Liberals. It is a matter of the conservative American people vs the Statist Elite, which encompasses the entire Washington establishment, Republican and Democrat. "
I could not agree more Toddard!
John II| 10.31.09 @ 4:20PM
My dear Toddard, I cannot find the words to express how strongly I AGREE with you, at last!
Perhaps we should just put foreign policy off the stove for now--or at least move it to a back burner.
We of the conservative Americano mainstream must put aside our differences and join forces against a common foe! And . . . together . . .we will . . . CRUSH the Lefty renegade!
(Sorry, I couldn't help paraphrasing Churchill, whom I know you despise. But we'll need some good rhetoric too.)
Etiquette Man| 10.30.09 @ 8:51AM
Dear Robert P. Kirchhoefer,
What the h-e-double-toothpicks has happened to AmSpec!? RET needs to step in and start kicking some RINO ass!
Only "conservative" website I know of where the "trolls" write the articles!
Every vote has to be earned. The GOP has forgotten that, and so are going the way of dodo (which should become the Republitards' new mascot). Many of us have formally abandoned the party that abandoned us years ago. I left the GOP in 2006, and so noxious was the arch-RINO Juan McShamenesty-Feingold in the nose of this heartland conservative that even the addition of the wonderful Sister Sara could not bring me to pull the lever for him.
Meanwhile, General Powell--the "ideal" republican in the mind of weasel RINO spineless backstabbing finger-pointing jellyfish like you.
Is it bravery of chutzpa to blame conservatives for the failure of the "ideal" moderate candidate to win the vote of equally "ideal" moderate "republican" Colin Powell? I dunno . . .
So it's OUR fault, is it?
Piss off, you finger-pointing, RINO nanny-nagger.
Seriously, piss off. That's literally the nicest thing that I can think to say to you (which is really something from the self-styled "Etiquette Man").
Did I mention that you should "piss off"? Oh, yeah, I did. Don't forget.
Piss off.
Ok, I'm done. Time to check my blood pressure . . .
Contemptuously Yours,
EM
Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 10.30.09 @ 2:55PM
EM: I just read the bottom of your post three times in a row, and I laughed three seperate times. Thanks, I needed a good laugh today.
Hey Etiquette Man, Piss Off Too!!
Let's Go Yankees!!
Quartermaster| 10.30.09 @ 3:54PM
"where the "trolls" write the articles! "
That is inspired! Too, too, too true. We've been gettin too much of this trash from RINOS that RET is allowing to write for publication in his rag and website. That's why I have ignored the shills telling me I need to donate to this space. Trolls indeed!
Louis Jenkins| 10.30.09 @ 8:52AM
If the premise is correct we're better off with warm soup than hot. The problem started a lot further back than McCain's run for office. All that passionate conservativism set the stage. The Contract with America ended about four years after it began. If the principles of conservativism were not worth fighting for in 2000, 2002, 2004, etc., what can be the end results in the subsequent elections? There is one word not found in the Decomcrat's play book-compromise! Unfortunately, every chapter, section, and subsection in the Republican manual starts with Compromise. This only gets you deeper in the quaqmire. The true Conservatives are emerging and writing a manual of their own, without the words Compromise, Play Nice, Civility, Politeness; perhaps its based on the Democrat's manula. The RNC big dogs better pay attention.
The Big E| 10.30.09 @ 8:58AM
Mr. Kirchhoefer,
In all honesty, I quit reading your article after the first sentence. That was all I needed to read to know that you have no clue what you're talking about. Had McCain been elected, the situation in Washington would be pretty much the same (with the possible exception of the war), except that Congressional Republicans would be under pressure to go along with a President ostensibly from their party, and as such, would stand to catch ALL the blame when it all goes to hell.
If I'm going to have a Socialist running the Country, I would it be one who doesn't look me in the eye and lie to me by claiming he's one of us.
That's what McCain was, and that's what his ilk are - wolves-in-sheep's clothing.
Crusader| 10.30.09 @ 9:15AM
I actually made it about half-way through the second paragraph, but it is more RINO-loving, blah blah blah big tent blah blah support your local RINO nonsense.
William R| 10.30.09 @ 9:03AM
"In foreign policy, Senator John McCain is solid"
McCain is at his worst in foreign policy. He's an unapologetic NeoCon! Pelosi wants to spend trillions on BS domestic programs and McCain wants to spend trillions on BS wars. Both are big government!
Watch this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P8CzRbLnC4
S.L. Toddard| 10.30.09 @ 9:08AM
Can't argue with that. It's certainly not a "small government" that polices the world and hubristically attempts to build nations out of thin air.
The current GOP's embrace of nation-building exposes their opposition to it under the Clinton admin as the cynical sham it was. The people - the conservative American people - agreed with the GOP back then, and we were suckered by them.
Not again. Small government means SMALL, small enough to fit within our Constitution, and small enough to fit within our borders (what there are of them).
ds80| 10.30.09 @ 9:06AM
Horse caca, and typical RINO-speak. Conservatives are to Establishment Republicans as Blacks are to the Democrat Party: to be kept on the plantation.
Louis Jenkins| 10.30.09 @ 12:16PM
That seems to be the underlying drift. Co-operate and graduate. We'll occassionally throw a bone your way so you conservatives won't be too alienated. You guys just go to the corner of this big tent and keep quiet!
Mc Cain claimed to be a Maverick that broke ranks with GOP, but his flight only magnified his dislike of true Conservatism. Too close to the Blue herd to be a true Maverick, afterall, a Maverick goes his own way. One foot was with the Blue crowd and the other was with the Red. So some of us were asking, "What's so Maverick about his behavior?" If he'd broke to the far right then he could have claimed to be a Maverick in all good faith.
S.L. Toddard| 10.30.09 @ 9:12AM
"But as adversity brings out the worst in some, it also brings out the best in others. Since the election, on nearly every issue and at every turn, Senator John McCain has been a high pressure of resistance against the push of big government."
Hear that, everyone? Now that the Democrats are in power, McCain has "rediscovered his principles", as they say. Funny how GOP Beltway elites always "rediscover their principles" whenever they're out of power and doing so will hinder a Democrat administration. The problem is, of course, that they invariably abandon those principles the second they have the power to shape American policy according to them.
No more Beltway elites. No more statist Republicans. No more Big Government "conservatives".
S.L. Toddard| 10.30.09 @ 9:15AM
I must say, though we have had our differences in the past, and though we still (myself and most commenters here) fundamentally disagree on foreign policy, I'm truly heartened at most of the responses here. I think it's noble and courageous that so many demonstrate that their first loyalty is to their principles, and that their loyalty to a political party is based exclusively on the extent to which that party defends and advances those principles.
Huzzah, Toddard-haters. I sincerely salute you.
Crusader| 10.30.09 @ 9:18AM
Not every Conservative is a right-wing, pom-pom waving, nation-building-supporting zombie, SLT.
S.L. Toddard| 10.30.09 @ 9:22AM
I know. I myself am a Conservative who is not any of those things you describe. But I've been excoriated here for not showing sufficient fealty to the GOP and voting for McAmnesty. Anyway, all I'm saying is that I think most of the comments here demonstrate something positive that deserves to be celebrated.
Crusader| 10.30.09 @ 2:51PM
Me too brother, me too. Hopefully folks are beginning to see the difference between being a Republican and being a Conservative. Being a Conservative means you don't have to support every nit-wit Republican or Republican idea that comes down the pipe. Now, if we could only get folks to see the boondoggle that is Iraq/Afghanistan and the enemy that islam truly is.
Ray S.| 10.30.09 @ 9:22AM
I truly despise Juan McQueeg. In my father's words, he is a "vile little man."
But we don't get perfect candidates. The only path is to vote FOR the most conservative candidate in the Primary, then vote AGAINST the most liberal candidate in the General election. I held my nose and voted for McQueeg and hoped his health would give out so that Gov. Palin could replace him.
But I am REALLY happy about what is happening in the NY23 district, though. It is about time someone put a shot into the GOP's bow.
Ted Agnew| 10.30.09 @ 9:25AM
The GREATEST VOTE I NEVER MADE was last year when I left POTUS blank and voted GOP down the rest of the ballot. John, "Cap&Trade;" McCain took delight in giving me the finger for over a decade. I was all to pleased to return the favor, even though I knew we were getting a communist tyrant as POTUS.
McCain was for amnesty, cap&tax;, agaisnt the Shrub tax cuts, and had no vision.
McCain gave voters NO REASON to vote for him and wouldn't take the fight to the Messiah.
He may, in fact, go down as the Franz Von Papen of the USA.
Tim| 10.30.09 @ 9:43AM
I did the good soldier thing. Wowzw. Then He repays me by letting his own staff trash his VP. It doesn't matter what you think of Palin. If Obama had lost and blamed it on Biden it would have been just as reprehensible.
I would guess that the Dems, the RINOS and the media are all grooming McStain for 2012. He is the perfect lose with honor opponent. The only man who can be counted on not to use Obama's first term record against him.
Big J| 10.30.09 @ 9:45AM
On a related note, Zelaya has been reinstated in Honduras due to "non-interventionist" pressure from the Obama administration and others.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t.....896536.ece
Between ACORN / SEIU, Rahm "Never waste a crisis" Emanuel and all the other Commie slime residing in and around the White House, how good do we have it right now, really?
Exit question one: Is this a preview of the good things to come regarding our constitution?
Exit question two: Was it really a good idea NOT to hold your nose and vote for McCain?
The Big E| 10.30.09 @ 2:13PM
In response to your closing question - YES!!!!! Unfortunately, I held my nose and voted for the bum, and I've regretted it ever since. I'd be regretting it even more if he'd actually won. I am sick and tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. Its like getting to choose the method of your own execution. Would you rather die by hanging or by lethal injection? Either way, you'll be just as dead.
Shez| 10.30.09 @ 9:48AM
I saw a brilliant bumper sticker the other day. There was the Obama image and:
"Hey college pukes, thanks a lot!"
Pingback| 10.30.09 @ 9:53AM
Political Wisdom: Obama’s Campaign, Flying by Seat of Pants - Capital Journal - WSJ links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Ben Pryor| 10.30.09 @ 10:27AM
The people that comment on AmSpec are clearly wound way too tight. Elections do have consequences, and we're seeing them right now. The idea that we should have 8 years of bad policy to purge a political party is nuts. Try reining in Obama Care in 2016. I'm guessing that won't turn out well. Kirchhoefer makes an important point. The fact that most of you making comments are clearly unemployed, or underemployed should have no bearing. Perhaps if you'd spent less daylight hours in your underwear ranting online, you too might have found gainful employment as a banker, lawyer, etc. ...
Tim| 10.30.09 @ 10:31AM
Blow me, Ben.
L. Ross| 10.30.09 @ 10:41AM
Amen to that Tim.
Blow me, Ben.
Etiquette Man| 10.30.09 @ 11:07AM
Hear, hear!
"Blow me Ben" has such a nice ring to it, that--absent any objection--I think I'll borrow it as an epithet applicable only to a particularly loathsome sort of troll (like Ben).
As in, "You know, we may pick on ol' Toddard, but at least he's no 'Blow Me Ben.'"
Or, "Man, that troll is a genuine 'Blow Me Ben.'"
So, thanks bunches for the inspiration "Blow Me Ben"!
And pucker up . . .
Ben Pryor| 10.30.09 @ 4:39PM
Sorry for the late reply. Had to do engage in an activity that is likely unfamiliar to the mouth-foaming AmSpec ranters. It's called "work". Anyway, you've certainly displayed rare wit with your riposte. While I shall not take you up on the kind offer, you are cordially invited to go f--- yourself. Have a nice weekend in granny's basement and good luck with the job search!
Etiquette Man| 10.31.09 @ 12:23AM
Dear Blow Me Ben,
I'll bet you give GREAT reach-around, too, when your boyfriends let you "pitch" for a change.
The HuffPo folks must just LOVE you!!!
Toodles!
EM
Anthony| 10.30.09 @ 4:57PM
Hey Ben, I am an overpriced lawyer, so I guess I get the professional discount, right? Thanks Tim, your eloquence has no equal.
Hey Ben, can you make it an office call, I'm kinda busy, here. Oh, and perhaps after you recovered from me, you might want to offer Mr. Kirchhoefer the RINO special, as he appears , as you say, to be rather tightly wound and can't get off the ground, sort of speak. Yes, he could certainly use some pragmatic relief.
Kathy| 10.30.09 @ 10:39AM
McCain is Dem-lite. He is only out for himself. That's why here in AZ we will be trying to get him out of office & put a Senator who will represent our State. We are overrun with illegals - McCain, pro-amnesty. Who was behind closed doors writing the amnesty bill - McCain & Kyl. Who voted for TARP when we wer screaming NO - McCain. Who wrote McCain-Feingold, the answer is in the title, and the US Supreme Court has made rulings against it as unconstitutional - with more to come. McCain wasn't going to win - because he was too much like Obama. A Dem-lite is no Conservative!
L. Ross| 10.30.09 @ 10:44AM
Living here in California, I knew that my vote would have absolutely no effect on the top of the ticket. I took advantage of that and voted for the Libertarian party. If we run a RINO again, I will vote Libertarian again. Hell, those guys need the boost.
lehrue stevens jr.m.d.| 10.30.09 @ 10:44AM
Foolish and shallow . Must have been written in the offices of the RNC. Please get the hell out of D.C. and talk with the 49% of us who still pay taxes. John McCain and Lindsey Graham epitomize what is wrong with the Republican Party!!
Thomas J. Hulting| 10.30.09 @ 10:46AM
Yes, Mr. Kirschhoefer, "Elections Have Consequences," but your predictably pedantic pandering on behalf of the "big tent," go-along-to get-along, reach-across-the-aisle-in-order-to-ALWAYS-compromise with the Liberal Left, Radical Egalitarian, Godless Relativists is entirely flawed.
Your "Elections Have Consequences" reminder should have been directed at the spineless, unprincipled, omni-valued RINOs such as Michael Steele, Newt Gingrich, John Cornyn, Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, Richard Lugar, John McCain, Charlie Crist, and yes, Jorge W. Bush. They, NOT Conservatives, have betrayed all Americans, from the Founding Fathers forward, with their sacrifice of valued principles in favor of perceived electability.
Thomas J. Hulting
BD57| 10.30.09 @ 10:51AM
The article comes across as scolding conservatives for failing to support McCain because he isn't 100% "loyal to the faith" and thereby sticking the country with Obama.
Well, sorry, I disagree with the premise.
Unlike the author, I don't have the time (and perhaps like the author, don't have the interest) to do the research on the electorate that elected Obama.
I do read a lot, though - and I'm pretty sure the tenor of what I've read is this:
1) Republican turnout was down;
2) "Non-aligned" voters turned heavily from Bush in '04 to Obama in '08;
3) Democrat turnout was even or up from '04.
All of which, it seems to me, was the consequence of a McCain campaign which targeted those 'non-aligned' people - a campaign of many messages, one of which was "Hey, I'm not with THOSE (crazy conservative) guys!!!"
The history of McCain's disdain for the conservative "base" goes way back. It was in all the papers way back in Campaign 2000 (if not before that); conservatives had years and years of McCain making it clear he had little use for them and their ideas.
All those years, McCain was the Democrats favorite Republican not just because they could count on him to publicly break with the party on a regular basis, but because they could also count on him lecturing his party as insufficiently moral and virtuous when he did it. With McCain, it was never "Look, I just happen to think this legislation is the way to go, that it will improve things for the country and they (the other Republicans) disagree." No, McCain had to grab a sheet of Democrat talking points music and push himself to the front for a solo.
Senator McCain's greatest failing is his pride. I know there is a decent man in there who has served his country admirably. His courage as an officer in the Navy is undeniable.
What he lacks is humility (as does daughter, but that's another story); he believes his view of justice and good is universal, which leads him to belittle those who disagree. One can disagree with John McCain in good faith and motive - but McCain's message (again, a Democrat song sheet message) is that the conservative base's disagreements with him are neither.
Ultimately, though, that's not what lost McCain the election, which was this:
Those cherished "non-aligned" types DID NOT WANT WHAT HE WAS SELLING.
And that's the problem with only minding 1/2 the store - when you devote all your energy to winning over people whose idea of what they want change drastically from election to election, you are (old cliche) trying to nail jello to a wall.
Until someone can propose a Grand Unifying Theory of Moderation which explains how a voter who supported George W. Bush in 2004 would support Barack H. Obama in 2008, I'm going to have to go with "there is no unifying, underlying ideology present in those votes."
Until someone finds the "Raging Moderate" (if there's more than one, it's a small herd - not denying they exist at all, just that I can't believe they're even a large plurality, let alone majority, in the "non-aligned middle"), we're still talking about folks who are largely disinterested in politics who, come September (plus or minus) of an election year, start thinking about how they feel about how things are going. While they take pride in voting "for the man", what it means in fact is they really don't care about tax policy, etc.
Mr. Kirchhoefer, worshiping at the altar of the wind is not sound electoral theory. A party that is ashamed of its supporters will lose and deserve it.
Final point:
It's funny - - there are some REAL NUTS in the Democrat coalition.
Spend some time digging through the archives & you'll find all sorts of outrageous things said and positions taken - often by ELECTED Democrats.
And yet - - - they almost never publicly repudiate or purge their nuts. Oh, they may back away from the position at the time (see, e.g., partial birth abortion), but those folks aren't marched out of camp at bayonet point.
But we do it - and not nearly enough, if you listen to the Frums, Parkers, et al.
Which, I guess, is why Republicans are the "Stupid Party", huh?
Pingback| 10.30.09 @ 11:14AM
‘chrysler commander’ on the web « annepaul links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pete| 10.30.09 @ 11:47AM
I understand and empathize with the principled responses, but for the love of God, are your principles worth what we are enduring now? My vote wasn't for McCain, it was against the evil, America hating, ass-clown who is now making a mockery of the office. I would have voted for a pet rock, a plant, a house cat...you get the point, to try to keep this lying dirtbag out of the WH. If you make the same mistake again in next presidential election, by the time you realize it, there may be no term limits any more for President; we'll just have Dictator Obama for the rest of our lives.
shoey| 10.30.09 @ 12:22PM
"I understand and empathize with the principled responses, but for the love of God, are your principles worth what we are enduring now?"
yes, and much more.
Nick| 10.30.09 @ 12:40PM
Pete,
Calm down.
Lefties learned a long time ago that they couldn't seize power in this country. They would have to chip away, bit by bit, at liberty and take what they could get.
To answer your question, YES, my principles are worth what we are enduring now, and could endure much more.
If you can't take what is happening now, what if things get really tough? Ever heard of Antitam? Valley Forge? What would you have done during WWII if you lived in Europe and had Jewish neighbors?
Principles, morals, rights, and Christian virtues are worth standing up for. And fighting for when necessary.
You say you didn't vote FOR McLame, but AGAINST B.O. This is precisely why he lost, even with Gov. Palin. Candidates don't win elections by getting people to vote AGAINST the other guy. They win by inspiring people to vote FOR something positive.
I voted for Jaun McShamnesty, by the way, on principle. I knew if B.O. was elected more unborn babies would die. That was more important than my other principles. But I also know that God allows evil to happen and brings some good out of it.
Be Not Afraid, Pete.
Jared Alexander| 10.30.09 @ 2:13PM
Nick,
I'm not afraid. Thankfully, Washington still has very little impact on my daily life. But, I must quibble. There are a whole lot of elections that are won because people are voting against a candidate or party. A good many of the Republican gains in the midterms will be won because people are voting AGAINST Obama. Happens all the time.
Nick| 10.30.09 @ 2:47PM
Mr. Alexander,
"[...] whole lot of elections that are won [...]"
Then you should be able to name a few, right?
If the GOP doesn't learn not to put up moderates and liberals when it is not necessary and give voters something to vote FOR in 2010, they will make no gains.
In '94, Newt and co. gave voters the "Contract with America", and at the time I gave them six years to prove they were not the same bunch of crooks I thought all politicians were. I extended it another eight years with President Bush. I was about to give up on McLame until he picked Gov. Palin. I thought she would keep him on Pro-Life path.
But for every voter like myself, there were probably two others who either voted for B.O. or stayed home.
Etiquette Man| 10.31.09 @ 12:26AM
This is very nicely put, even eloquent. To stand for what is right AGAINST what is really wrong, rather than to stand WITH what is slightly less wrong, by embracing the lesser of two evils, is indeed worth much.
Thank you.
orlandocajun| 10.30.09 @ 11:51AM
I agree with most conservatives here. By McCain losing there's been a clear contrast created between the liberal and conservative philosophy. Now that there's a clear distinction, and the GOP understands that conservatives will no longer support RINOs, perhaps we'll get conservative candidates to represent the GOP going forward. McCain, with a Democrat Congress, would have done as much damage to the country as Obama.
Mainstream Americans are beginning to see the difference between "Hope and Change" and conservatism. That never would have happened with McCain in the White House.
Nick| 10.30.09 @ 12:01PM
Mr. Kirchhoefer,
"Not surprisingly, [the Internet Freedom Act of 2009 is] being introduced by Senator McCain."
Not surprisingly? Are you joking?
Did you forget about McLame's attack on the 1st amendment with McCain-Feingold?
He is a man of few principles, and the only reason I voted for him was to keep the Mexico City Policy in place.
I figured it was probably 50/50 that McLame could appoint another Souter to the SCOTUS, thus making Roe stand for another 20 years.
Thomas| 10.30.09 @ 12:02PM
I see that the Republican leadership and their apologists have failed to learn the proper lesson from the 2006 and 2008 elections, in fact from the history of modern national election in this country. They are looking for ways to get Conservative voters to vote for liberal moderates. History has proven that this is simply a recipe for failure. Yet, still they continue. Foolish.
Whenever the Republicans run a candidate that has a track record of standing up for conservative values, especially in a national election, that candidate wins.
Now the GOP has a problem. Because of the lack of Conservative candidates being fielded by the party and the historical liberal shift in many of those elected to represent Conservative principles once they arrive in Washington, Conservatives are skeptical of the advertised conservative credentials of any candidate. They are getting tired of voting for someone with an R after their name, only to have that supposedly Conservative official repeatedly side with the liberal socialists of the Democrat party.
As I have pointed out before, winning strategy, for the GOP, does not depend upon convincing Conservative voters to vote for a Republican liberal because he is not as bad as a Democratic liberal. Garnering conservative votes is as simple as running conservative candidates.
shoey| 10.30.09 @ 12:18PM
"Nine months into the Obama presidency, it is clear that he and Senator McCain would have produced wildly different administrations. "
wrong.
McCain would be spending only slightly less, the bailouts and takeovers would still be happening, the economy would be no better off, except conservatives would be getting 110% of the blame.
I didn't vote for McCain and i won't vote for Huckabee or Pawlenty either.
Sheryl | 10.30.09 @ 12:37PM
I thought some parts of this article made some sense, but I am still puzzled by the sentence that explained that McCain opposed the Big O when it was needed and stood by him when that was needed. I'm still trying to figure out when The Prez did anything that required Senator McCain to 'stand by him.' I must have missed that. Opposition all the way would seem to be the only viable position for a Republican, conservative, or whatever we're calling them theses days. Giving in to, or 'standing by' liberals like Our Dear Leader are what has gotten us where we are in the first place.
Nick| 10.30.09 @ 12:47PM
Maybe he was referring to TARP.
Tim| 10.30.09 @ 12:41PM
THE RNC IS VERY DISAPPOINTED IN ALL OF YOU! You are hurting your party, the environment and golf scores across America.
Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 10.30.09 @ 3:08PM
But then again, Golfer's will always blame something for their bad scores. It's the Clubs, it's the Liberals, it's the Liberals in the Clubs.
Tim| 10.30.09 @ 4:24PM
The problem they won't admit to is that they can't find their balls...
Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 10.30.09 @ 11:26PM
That's because, they sliced them off into the woods on the Left. But it's the clubs fault!!
james wilson| 10.30.09 @ 12:58PM
It is a hard lesson that the lesser evil is the only way the greater evil finds its way in the door. McCain and his type are more essential to the Left than Karl Marx. When enough damage has been done once again, they will hand this rotting barge over to a Romney type to keep it afloat, and a lawyer like you to make it lawful.
Reagan Admirer| 10.30.09 @ 1:17PM
Oh please.
If McCain had won we'd be walking leftward toward statism, rather than running as under Obama.
And with McCain as titular head of the GOP the RINO faction would be even more active (and successful) in lurching the party further left.
Meanwhile, from a conservative standpoint the GOP in Congress has shown (as it also did under Clinton) that it's more effective as a minority opposition party than as the majority party.
With McCain, Graham, Collins, Snowe (and the gone but not forgotten Specter, Chafee and Jeffords) running the GOP, there's actually no reason for it to exist, other than as a prop to serve the Democrats so that they can pretend that there's a two-party system and pretend that elections matter.
Better that McCain lost. This provides an opening for a Republican renewal in 2012, instead of McCain's "reaching across the aisle" butt-kissing of statism.
Northern Rebel| 10.30.09 @ 1:30PM
I am heartened by the response of the folks replying to this article.
There is no way I would have voted for McCain, (AKA- Doddering old fool-"DOF") if not for Sarah Palin.
-Here's the list:
-McCain - Feingold
-Cap & Tax
-Illegal alien Amnesty
-voting against tax cuts
-His statement that "Hillary would make a fine President."
-Slobbering all over the liberal media, while being so naive, that he couldn't even see them undermining him, every chance they could.
The republican party would have been obligated to support him, as DOF put many of Obamma's policies in place.
As I said, I would have voted for Bob Barr, if DOF hadn't nominated, who I hope will be our next President:
Sarah Palin!
Tim| 10.30.09 @ 2:05PM
Obama beats him and he can't find enough nice things to say about him, yet as soon as the election was over he had his boys out spreading that "nutty and slutty" libel on his own VP.
cdc| 10.30.09 @ 1:37PM
Rather than a GOP revival how about a party split. There's plenty of talk here about real conservatives don't like RINOs, but those RINOs and moderates (they still have votes) did not like Palin and have little love to lose for the hard right.
Pingback| 10.30.09 @ 1:39PM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Elections Have Consequences [spectat links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Derek Leaberry| 10.30.09 @ 1:44PM
Obama's overreach provides future opportunities that a McCain victory would not have. Conservatives would have rotted on the vine with a President McCain. Conservatives have been brought back to life by President Obama.
Third World immigration is America's most important problem by far. Obama helps in two ways. First, Obama's policies will wreck the American economy for years, if not decades. The deluge of Third Worlders into the country should slow to a trickle. Second, the ever devious McCain, if elected president, would have worked with Democrats to pass the McCain-Kennedy-Bush plan on amnesty and demographic revolution. With Obama in the Oval Office, we have a man with much on his table with the caveat of being leader of dozens of Democrats in fear of their seats in 2010.
No, President Obama is very, very good for conservatism.
John II| 10.31.09 @ 6:02PM
Agreed. A good case can be made that the disastrous Carter administration was at least a necessary condition for the triumph of Reagan in 1980. And among the enduring achievements of Reagan was a shift in the national debate that made it impossible for conservatives any longer to be marginalized by a liberal media.
I anticipated that Obama too would be a disaster, but not so soon and so thoroughly--which of course opens the court to conservatives in a way that a McLame presidency could never do--and wouldn't in any event.
The keynote in the many lessons of the Reagan triumph, I think, is that when conservatives stick to their guns and articulate their principles clearly, they draw hugely greater numbers of independents, fence-straddlers, and disgruntled Demos to their side than do the RINO types. This nation has always been center-right in its cultural disposition, with most people generally apolitical. Hell, I think most humans are of that disposition everywhere.
The Obama machine got where it got partly by tapping into that disposition ever so discreetly. In other words, it lied. But the arrogance and narcissism of contemporary liberalism can't seem to stay disguised for long. Which gives conservatives the opportunity to remind Americans of what most Americans already believe.
Ca Independent| 10.30.09 @ 1:45PM
Mr. Kirchhoefer,
You seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room; the GOP gave us McCain, Newt, Bob Dole (now on the dole as an Obamacare lobbyist) Lindsey Graham, O.Snowe and the rest of the big government propagators and parasites in Lincoln's party.
This in turn gave us Obama, a man wholly unqualified by character, deed and a sense of entitlement and eliteism, to lead the country.
Does this not sound just like the Republicrats listed above?
John McCain is both a symptom and cause of what ails the one party system we have now and it's affliction on the American economy and way of life.
Your article fits into this niche nicely also in it's craven fawning, excuses and attitude of appeasement towards the destruction of a way of life and liberty.
In short, what a transparent bunch of drivel.
It is past time to start voting principles and speak "truth to power", as the White House loves to rail (while railroading the country).
McCain is totally incompetent and needs to retire for the good of the country, not just his so called "opposition party".
In a fight with these totally ruthless and unprincipled opponents men like you and McCain have quite possibly lost the war for the country's health and have certainly (in McCain & his ilk) aided & abbetted our inoxerable slide to ruin.
Enough already.
Northern Rebel| 10.30.09 @ 1:56PM
Electing "DOF", would've been like saying,
"Well honey, This school doesn't teach phonics, makes the kids read "My two daddies", and teaches them to sing songs praising a communist President, but the science, and athletic programs, are excellent!"
Would you send your child to this school?
Adheeb| 10.30.09 @ 2:05PM
It could have been different but isn't.
Northern Rebel| 10.30.09 @ 2:54PM
BRILLIANT!?
Pete| 10.30.09 @ 3:06PM
I figured my comment would start a shit-storm and it did. Again, I appreciate your points of view and agree in principle (Nick, I am prepared to do whatever is necessary, believe me), but you are making the assumption that there will be something left to salvage of the country after these liberal locusts are through and I am not confident at all that that will be the case. Therein lies the reason for my vote, and I stand by the logic. Only time will tell whether or not I was foolish.
shoey| 10.30.09 @ 3:36PM
the Founders told us that you must be willing to give everything or you'll never be free.
the Founders were radicals, rebels and malcontents.
i feel like the TEA partiers and what they stand for would be smiled upon by them.
many of the Founders hated that political parties were ever formed, they were right to do so.
the Founders all risked death, they all risked everything.
Martin McPhillips | 10.30.09 @ 4:07PM
Conservatives would have lost their identity completely trying to defend or get along with John McCain.
Better to stand and fight this awful thing, manifested in Obama, that has been looming on the Left for decades, or longer.
Damn the torpedoes, let's take it to them.
Zoroaster| 10.30.09 @ 4:13PM
(1) You have a moral duty to vote. Not voting is not an option. (2) The time to voice opinions about McCain or any other candidate was during the primaries. Just like the time to voice opposition to Iraq was during congressional floor debate, not on CNN once we had troops in the field. (3) Losing in the primaries does not excuse you from your solemn duty to vote in the final election for the candidate that you think will do the best job running the country. (4) There is no question that that candidate in 2008 was John McCain.
I don't know where any of this, we didn't like McCain so we didn't vote, comes from. If you didn't vote for McCain, you voted for Obama.
shoey| 10.30.09 @ 4:27PM
who said i didn't vote? I said i didn't vote for Juan McCain.
who I voted for is my buisness.
anyone can do write-ins.
Zoroaster| 10.30.09 @ 4:52PM
Shoey, not sure where you got the idea that I had singled you out, but if you voted for Ross Perot again, congratulations. I was obviously not referring to you. I was pretty clearly referring to the people who didn't vote. And apparently there were a lot of them.
Zoroaster| 10.30.09 @ 4:55PM
Actually, just got you're point. touche. I'll amend. If you didn't vote, you voted for Obama.
Although in my defense, there is a very good argument that if you voted for Ron Paul, you also voted for Obama, but I'm not going to make it. You voted.
shoey| 10.30.09 @ 5:04PM
i didn't vote for Ron Paul, and i won't be painted as a Paulian, i am a conservative and i vote for conservatives, which conservative i voted for is my buisness.
Bob| 10.30.09 @ 4:16PM
Instead of the right wing extremist statements, let's utilize analysis and facts to provide insight. Tracking indicates that at present we are at the lowest number of registered Democrats and Republicans than at any time in recent history (Gallup). The largest group of voters are "independents". You cannot win any national election without claiming a majority of independents. It is clear from the trends that more than half of the independents are former Republicans -- what this board calls "RINO's".
Thus, the issue is how you attract RINO's to vote for the right wing candidate. There seems to be two schools of theory on this. The ultra right wing (i.e., most of you) believe that you convince these people that true conservatism is the answer. You cannot utilize social conservatism in the argument because the vast majority of social conservatives are already registered Republicans. Thus, you must depend on fiscal issues and downplay the social issues to attract these people.
So one school of thought argues to MOVE these people to the conservative right. The other argument is to move the Republican party to the center.
In addition, you have demographic trends in which you will see the growth of young voters in addition to blacks and Hispanics. So, you cannot win without attracting these voting blocks.
This brings us to the analysis of the McCain/Palin ticket in the last election. It is clear that McCain lost all demographic segments with the exception of white men and seniors. The addition of Palin, in the end analysis, also hurt the ticket. While she gave an immediate 8 point bounce when announced (primarily from Clinton women), she ended up losing close to 12 points after the Gibson and Couric interviews -- the polling trend data verifies the this timing.
Thus, you could make the argument that moving the ticket to the right with Palin hurt, more than it helped. However, you could also make the argument that most people in the center and left saw her as a weak candidate who didn't know much and that it had little to do with her ideology.
So the real issue here is how you appeal to RINO's to either turn them into conservatives, or to get them to vote Republican. The Democrats accomplished moving to the center by running conservative Democrat candidates in conservative areas. While this worked in terms of election, it is hurting them in terms of governing as they will not agree with a party line vote.
There used to be a large group of moderate Republicans in the party. In fact, as late as 2000, almost half of Republicans were moderates. As the moderates have become independents, we now have a party that is only 30% moderates and declining.
In my opinion, moving to the far right will not work in getting RINO's to vote consistently for Republicans and may, in fact, turn them off. We've seen that as a trend in the Northeast where the only real Republicans left are people like Snowe.
People are attracted more by personal alignment and their pocketbooks than by issues. That will be even more true in the future as our educational system continues to decline. (Only 23% of high school seniors knew that Washington was the first President). Thus, will moderates align with social conservatives? Not likely. Will they align with the Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity crowd? Limbaugh only reaches 4% of the U.S. and all of Fox about 8% of the U.S., so this is unlikely.
So, in my opinion, the real issue is whether the Republican party can come up with a candidate that doesn't scare moderates/RINO's even if that person is conservative. These people do exist in personages like Jindal, Pawlenty, Ryan -- but are they exciting enough to attract votes. It is clear from current polling that people like Palin and Huckabee will lose by a landslide. If Romney weren't a Mormon, he would have a better chance.
That said, Reagan had a much lower approval rating than Obama during his first couple of years. But the economy turned around and voters gave him credit. I think that independent votes will go to the Dems if the economy turns around by the 2012 elections and to the Republicans of it does not. Since I also think that government has little to do with economic growth, it is highly likely that we will see some economic growth over the next couple of years.
Remember that people primarily vote their pocket books -- and this is especially true for independents.
Nick| 10.30.09 @ 5:46PM
Don't waste your time with 3/5 Bob folks.
In case you didn't know, until recently (last June), 3/5 Bob thought that blacks had 3/5 of a vote under the U.S. Constitution, as originally written.
He also doesn't know when biological HUMAN life begins because he is not sure when "ensoulment" takes place.
He is a pseudointellectual, ignore him.
Etiquette Man| 10.31.09 @ 12:34AM
Nick,
Do you think "3/5 Bob" qualifies as a real "Blow Me Ben" type troll, or should he remain in his own category?
Hmm . . .
Best,
EM
Ca Independent| 10.30.09 @ 6:28PM
Bob,
You sound just like Lindsey Graham & Newt.
You deliberately distort reality in your opinion of the vast majority of the posts here as extreme.
The extreme point of view is yours and is no different from the drivel at Huffpo or Kos.
In fact you sound very much like one of Bertha Lewis's new hires designed to shift public opinion to the left with your thoughts. The same thoughts that have created a malignant cancer in the Replicrat party and allowed those with political ambitions to run on the ticket regardless of competence or any kind of real understanding of conservative values.
Mike Huckabee is another prime example of this.
PCP Smoker| 10.31.09 @ 3:50AM
"moving to the far right will not work in getting RINO's to vote consistently for Republicans and may, in fact, turn them off"
You write as if right wingers were running the party in the North East. They don't and they have not for as long as the late 20s (Calvin Coolidge). Prescott Bush , Lodge, Wicker, Chafee, Snowe, Collins, etc, were all RINOs to one degree or the other
Chris Shays, Nancy Johnson (?) from Ct, never part of the hard right as you described it, got trounced in 2006. Linc Chafee, one of those who despised the right, got killed by some lib in Rhode Island.
The point is, what did being RINOs get them? Other than being reelected a few times, what did they do for the cause of limited government and fiscal restraint?
You can keep blaming the right on the subject, but even WFB ended up opposing RINO John Lindsey and causing the defeat of Wicker.
Your approach of giving up before fighting is pathetic and not worth following, worst of all, it's been a proven failure.
shoey| 10.30.09 @ 4:30PM
"The largest group of voters are "independents". "
wrong.
the largest single, self-identifying group are conservatives.
we go for conservatives and the moderates will follow, moderates always follow, i think that's what they exsist for.
shoey| 10.30.09 @ 4:34PM
liberal =20%
independent =36%
conservative = 40%
Gallup just released a poll...
jr| 10.30.09 @ 4:46PM
Kirchoefer, you got some of our attention. A support-McCain-Snowe article. Cross-over is a term used to identify Republicans joining hands with one or more Dimocrats and singing Michael Jackson songs, like We Are The World. Elsewise, it could also mean that "I voted for it before I was against it." What are the principles that people operate from and speak? Is it political bull or what one believes in? Give-me-a-mic and point me to the camera McCain has no morals and his judgment stinks. Yes, he was for the war in Iraq and that stinks. Jorge Bush invaded a country without provocation and got mired in a mess that still stinks and paved the way for the Messiah to get elected. That is what would defeat and Republican who ran against BHO, and that only.
Everly Waverly| 10.30.09 @ 4:51PM
The true test of John McCain is if and when republicans retake power. If McCain reverts to his, here let me bend over for ya MO, what good will his temporary acquisition of a set of testicles achieve. John McCain is a proven capitulater, there's no advantage his party can gain that he won't give-up through some compromise. McCain would have had to win the election or republicans would have to retake power in congress and that wasn't in the cards, never in a 1000 lifetimes. As much as I hate to say it democrats had to win the last election, no one could have defeated Obama. Democrats have to be proven incompetent, that's what swings elections, a cyclical thing and it appears they will prove their incompetence beyond all doubt. It won't be much longer and Obama will drag the democrats below the depths of anything the republicans achieved.
Everly Waverly| 10.30.09 @ 4:51PM
The true test of John McCain is if and when republicans retake power. If McCain reverts to his, here let me bend over for ya MO, what good will his temporary acquisition of a set of testicles achieve. John McCain is a proven capitulater, there's no advantage his party can gain that he won't give-up through some compromise. McCain would have had to win the election or republicans would have to retake power in congress and that wasn't in the cards, never in a 1000 lifetimes. As much as I hate to say it democrats had to win the last election, no one could have defeated Obama. Democrats have to be proven incompetent, that's what swings elections, a cyclical thing and it appears they will prove their incompetence beyond all doubt. It won't be much longer and Obama will drag the democrats below the depths of anything the republicans achieved.
RRNC| 10.30.09 @ 5:03PM
Geez - you people throw the word communist around an awful lot. Always cracks me up to hear the pinheads declaiming how their county is being turned into a communist state. None of you would survive 5 mins in a real totalitarian state. But by all means keep on squawking to each other about how terrible life is.
shoey| 10.30.09 @ 5:08PM
it's not that it's that bad now, but because of the course we are on, have been on for years, life will become terrible, i don't want that to happen, time to change course for real, not just pols yackety-smacking about it.
Bydand76| 10.31.09 @ 5:27PM
Shut up Commie!
The Last Man| 10.30.09 @ 7:06PM
You people are a piece of work. We got a guy who says that we ought to vote for the most conservative guy on the ticket and you cast aspersions at him? You, the Pure, cannot be asked to vote for anyone other than your perfect candidate, supported by the Perfect Party? Who was that in the last election, exactly? Thompson was feckless, Romney was Mormon or a flip-flopper, Huckabee was more populist than conservative, Giuliani has lefty social values, McCain stood for no one but himself, so who?
What children. What spoiled, clever, rationalizing adolescents you are. There's a galling, general lack of logic, knowledge of how the world works, much less American government, or wisdom. You, who are more interested in punishment than progress. You, who are more angry at your party than you are in love with this country. You may all be right. (You're not.) But you are those who with smugness and self-satisfaction, will watch the cathedral burn rather than pick up a bucket. You delude yourselves into thinking a more pure structure will be erected in its place. From whence such confidence?
But it's fun seeing you all work yourselves into a lather now that Mr. Kirchhoefer hit you where you live. It seems, in this vapid, hallowed monastery of Republicanism, self-congratulatory masturbation isn't forbidden. Jerk away, jerk-offs.
BD57| 10.30.09 @ 8:34PM
Last Man, we have this thing called "Free Speech" in this country. Granted, it only restrains government ... as a matter of ethic, though, we all kinda sorta agree that if you want to enter a debate, you debate the ideas rather than call people names.
You want to debate the premise of those critical of the piece? That'd be great - first, though, you'd have to understand it.
And here it is:
By and large, electing McCain would have us on the same road Obama wants to take us on. There would be differences, no doubt, but in the grand scheme of things, McCain would have us on the same patch at a slower speed but with 'bi-partisan' cover. And that would be a bad thing.
But by all means, don't let it get in the way of patting yourself on the back - or whatever it is you're doing with your hand - for being so intelligent and reasonable.
Etiquette Man| 10.31.09 @ 12:39AM
Dear Person-Who-Read-Thus-Spake-Zarathustra-Years-Ago-but-Never-Really-"Got"-It,
So Nietzsche's "Last Man" turns out to be a genuine, authentic "Blow Me Ben" type troll.
Who knew?
Toodles!
EM
Bydand76| 10.31.09 @ 5:16PM
Whatever Last Man,
Your pedantic little temper tantrum rings hollow sir!
In the vein of sounding somewhat smug and more than a little self-satisfaction I would have to say, you have completely made yourself look a fool.
Now that Dede is taking herself out of the race in NY-23 because she lost the support of us "spoiled, clever, rationalizing adolescents " I guess your point is somewhat redundant now isnt it?
You sound like a typical blue-blood, Rockefeller Repeblican, Last Man and YOUR vapid, weak and vascilating version of Conservatism is dead in the water. Take notice, Sir! The Cathedral is already being built by those whom you choose to insult in this forum.
Yes, it is true Last-Man. You and your ilk are unwanted, unneeded and unclean. You have the stink of Liberal about you! The time for picking up a bucket is long over. The fire is already raging and it has started to cleanse the back stabbers and liars from a party that desprately needs it.
In your decision to insult rather than advise or support a position, you reveal a lack of integrity that points to exactly why there are so many angry Conservatives across the country. It was exactly those people who choose to run in the last presidential election that angered so many. This perhaps points to a lack of logic and knowledge on how the American people work. maybe you could enlighten us with your apparent superior psuedointellect that you are so obviously proud of. Please, Last Man educate us ALL on how the American goverment works. I for one really would like to hear how a self-righteous ass such as yourself would bloviate on such a subject.
Libera nos a malo, per omnia saecula saeculorum!
Thats Latin for "spare me from the idiots" and yes Last Man, I am talking about you! Jerk!
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.30.09 @ 8:19PM
McCain broke my heart during the campaign. When he said one little sentence, "they broke me" while he was in prison in North VietNam.
They did break him, evidently.
...But ladies and gentlemen...isn't it a sad...sad...state of affairs in this great country when the only person that speaks truth when it brings the blood...is a lovely young mother from Wasilla Alaska?
DAMMIT! What in the hell is wrong with this country?
WHERE IN THE HELL ARE MEN OF COURAGE AND CHARACTER?
I AM GETTING FRIGHTENED NOW!
Are there any men left?
shoey| 10.30.09 @ 9:11PM
being a man scares away the moderates, any progressive will tell you so.
(hang in there, we're almost to the tipping point)
don't be silent, speak your mind, don't back down.
Anthony| 10.30.09 @ 9:19PM
Yes Ken, there are, and you are one of them. Be of good cheer, this too will pass, albeit not without a nasty fight. Good men will eventually rise up, but some are still a bit timid. Those who lead the charge are the first to get cut down. Heros are a rare breed.
The problem is the entire political class has been hijacked by the concept of statism. Leftists and RINOs have the same mind set, have you noticed? Failed policies are repeated in various forms, and when they continue to fail, as inevitable as gravity, it's the fault of not enough money or time. Those who oppose these inane policies are called bigots, racists and rightwingers. McCain is a statist, so are Graham, Gingrich and the rest. Statists have one thing in common, their egos insist that only they are the salvation of mankind. This disease becomes malignant with a sclerotic, entrenched ruling class in Washington, that insists on passing legislation for its own sake. The ruling class is not content with stewardship, they are obsessed with change for its own sake. You've heard the mantra of these morons, "Doing nothing is not an option".
Washington needs a complete overhaul, one poster said an enema. We need term limits. We need government in the hands of those who don't really want to be there, but see it as their duty for a brief time. We used to call these folks citizen legislators. Now they're career politicians. That is why Sarah Palin scares the status quo crowd.
So Ken, not to worry, sometimes it takes a woman to bring out the real men. That's my next bumper sticker: REAL MEN WANT SARAH PALIN.....in 2012.
Pingback| 10.30.09 @ 10:00PM
Elections have consequences « Heard in D.C. links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Northern Rebel| 10.30.09 @ 10:05PM
Last Man:
Read my first post on this subject, and note the list I provided of McCain's (DOF) accomplishments, goals, and opinions, and tell me how they differ from President Anti-Christ's.
America is a conservative country, and people want a leader with conservative values. The people who think otherwise, listen to network news, or Keith Olberdork.
Conservatism, is like abstinence: it works everytime it's tried.
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.30.09 @ 10:10PM
Anthony, Shoey
Thank you.
I founded T.E.A.M. AMERICA with some truly splendid folks, men and women. We are working at the ballot box.
Nevertheless, we SHALL take our country back, bywhatever means.
(Heh, that might get me shot or dissappeared)
But!
Someone must point the way back to freedom.
I have had a wonderful life. I could swap my life for the lovely folks who don't quite get it...yet.
The bastards in the whitehouse, and their congress-critter fellow travelers, do not quite understand they are in a "killin' fight" now.
I can take a bullet for America, and not flinch. That doesn't make mke a hero!
I'm a pretty good sniper. That is not as important as my insight and guidance at my age.
Folks,
We gotta' get smart, and sneaky. We have a would-be communist government now.
I shall keep hanging my hiney out to remind each of you of what is coming, and they will get rid of me when they can.
For our children and grandkids, hang tough and smart.
The ironic thing.....if they win...the true MESSIAH comes...both for Jews...and Christians.
...and all these liars and their buddies...are swept away...and history comes to an end.
Either way..."We hold these truths self evident..."
God bless
Ken
S.L. Toddard| 11.2.09 @ 7:36AM
T.E.A.M. America theme song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZdJRDpLHbw
bob karafin| 10.30.09 @ 11:22PM
If you go back the last several election cycles, you'll notice the Republican argument boiled down to something like "We're not really what you're looking for, and we'll sell you out when your back is turned, but if you don't elect us, you'll get the OTHER guy and he'll be even worse".
Well, that argument has been used too many times and it just won't work anymore; we're sick of having our choices be between lousy and even worse.
Personally, if I'm presented with this kind of choice from now on, I'd rather HAVE the other guy! At least I'd KNOW he was the enemy and could actively work against him, instead of a fair-weather friend I would grudgingly support; knowing all the while that he would knife me the first time it wouldn't cost him the next election.
Jim O'Brien| 10.31.09 @ 1:12PM
Four questions: 1) Of those who voted for Obama, how many wish they hadn't? 2) Of those who voted for McCain, how many wish they hadn't? 3) Of those who stayed home, how many wish they hadn't? 4) How many people will wake up and vote for a conservative in the next Congressional of Presidential elections?
Nick| 10.31.09 @ 1:17PM
Hey 3/5 Bob,
DID YOU HEAR?
Dede "RINO" Scozzafava dropped out of the NY-23rd race! TEE-HEE!
Nick| 10.31.09 @ 1:17PM
Hey 3/5 Bob,
DID YOU HEAR?
Dede "RINO" Scozzafava dropped out of the NY-23rd race! TEE-HEE!
Flash Hole| 10.31.09 @ 1:25PM
Now is the time to reflect and learn -- and then to move on.
The only lesson that this post (and a few of the responders) is trying to teach is that if the Republican Party hands you a crap sandwich, it's your duty to eat it.
Ronald Kelley| 10.31.09 @ 1:27PM
Just wondering why articles like this elicit more comment than anything else on this site. What is it about RINOs that makes everyone so crazy? I think this author makes a very good point. Many of the comments here are stupid, sophomoric, and homophobic. There seems to be a real celebration of vitriol and stupidity. It's kind of sad, and serves to confirm many of the stereotypes that uninformed people use against conservatives. Can the discussion be elevated a bit? Mr. Kirchoefer deserves better.
Bydand76| 10.31.09 @ 5:25PM
Mr. Kelley,
Is this a serious post or are you trying to be funny?
John II| 10.31.09 @ 6:48PM
"What is it about RINOs that makes everyone so crazy? I think this author makes a very good point."
Actually, I think Mr. Kirchoefer makes several good points--e.g., McCain is a sure-enough war hero, McCain is putting up some resistance to some of the Obama imbecilities, etc. The trouble is with the main point, that we would be "better off" with McCain. That point MAY be true if it turns out that America is less resilient than we all hope. But the argument running through most of these responses is that we're probably better off with Obama because a McCain presidency would have pursued many of the same policies under cover of a more restrained and respectable persona.
I can't answer for the others on this thread, but what drives me crazy about RINOs is their frequent shortage of principle. Mr. Kirchoefer is rather too up-front about it all in his stated preference for "pragmatism" over principle and his identification of principle with "ideology." My impression is that he's never looked into or reflected on such matters very deeply, which may account for the infuriatingly lukewarm demeanor he projects through his prose.
And didn't someone once say something about vomiting the lukewarm out of his mouth?
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.31.09 @ 2:41PM
Ronald
Hello. I am writing from my economics 201 class.
(Sophomore economics that is.) I truly am stupid. The idiot in the leather elbow sports coat is selling socialism and keyneysian stuff today, and I will surely fail his quiz.
PS:
This guy behind me keeps pinching my hiney. He keeps slipping love notes to me as well, but after the first one, I don't read them any more, and it makes him cry.
Now,
If I were "homophobic" I would have to kill or seriously disable him. Instead, I just smile sadly and whisper a thanks to God that I am attracted to females. ( See, I draw a sexual line at anything that hurts or smells funny.)
I am slender and tall, (six-two), and quite willowy you see, and blond/blue...but I throw a world class fastball, curve, and knuckle-ball....got a pro-contract to prove it, so he thinks I am sexy and would make a great hood ornament.
I did vote for McDoofus. I felt Sarah would kick the snot out of him if he strayed too far from reality.
Alas.
We shall never know.
OK Now I am going to "elevate" the discussion.
(quote myself) "We are in the last 'ditch' of a constitutional republic that treasures the individual rights and responsibilities granted by a loving Creator.
I am a stereotype. I have earned the society and riches you children enjoy today. Folks here are venting too much 'tis true, but God help you when they stop!
The next thing you know...we dumbbunnies will "sit down strike".....and you, young man, will go very very hungry...perhaps to starvation and death.
Enjoy your supercillionesses (sic), then......idiot.
Bydand76| 10.31.09 @ 5:41PM
What in the name of the great king Ira is a Conservative Stereotype?
Ken (Old Texican) your killing me man.
That was too funny! Hey do you know where Bedia Tx is? We have some clan over that way.
I might be moving down there to your part of the country when I re-deploy next year!
San Antonio area or there abouts....I think.
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.31.09 @ 6:01PM
Hi Bydand
Ken here. You know, over the years we have had a huge migration of service people come here during a posting, and loved Texas so much with the friendliness etc, that they got back here to build their lives. We look forward to welcoming you.
Please get off post and visit small town cafes and get a feel for the folks.
Mike| 10.31.09 @ 6:46PM
This is a disappointing article for American Spectator. First, what is the point talking about what could have been? It is academic. Second, Republicans nominated the wrong individual. Sen. McCain, despite his notable courage and honor as a person, is out of touch with mainstream America. Sorry, I do not accept the premise ... Obama was not the correct choice and neither was McCain. We can only hope for better days next time around.
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.1.09 @ 2:55PM
Mike
They need to do less
"spectating" here...and a lot more "expectorating".
Phil Byler| 10.31.09 @ 6:55PM
Mr. Kirchhoefer's excellent column is absolutely right. It saddens me that so many posters don't get it. A McCain Administration would have been a very, very good one in contrast to what we are facing today in a socialist, appeasement-minded Obama Administration.
I have two sons in the military, one a decorated U.S. Army Captain who has served two tours of duty in Iraq and one a U.S. Marines Second Lieutenant presently states-side but headed for Afghanistan. I have no patience for anyone who does not understand that a terrible mistake was made in November 2008 -- McCain would have been an outstanding Commander in Chief, but in Obama we have a dangerous incompetent. McCain knows foreign policy, military matters and national security like few others in and out of Government. Unlike Obama, John McCain's commitment to his country cannot be questioned; he is the son and grandson of US. Navy Admirals and he served his country during the Vietnam War as a Navy combat pilot conducting bombing raids over North Vietnam braving North Vietnam's tough air defenses and as a P.O.W. who endured real torture at the hands of North Vietnamese guards. As for Obama, his years as community organizer did not prepare him to make war and peace decisions confronting the nation.
Importantly, Mr. Kirchhoefer is right about how John McCain has handled the domestic issues of today. McCain voted AGAINST every Obama bailout bill. McCain voted AGAINST every Obama deficit spending bill, denouncing the multi-trillion dollar deficit spending as "generational theft," a phrase thereafter used by Sean Hannity and by Rush Limbaugh. McCain voted AGAINST the confirmations of tax cheat Geithner, radical pro-abortion advocate Sebellius, leftist Kagan and transnational legal theorist Koh to their respective positions in the Obama Administration. McCain voted AGAINST the confirmation of Sotomayer to the U.S. Supreme Court. McCain’s OPPOSITION to ObamaCare has been so vociferous that the New York Times has accused McCain of “throwing bombs” on the subject. McCain has also introduced legislation to protect the internet from Government control and announced opposition to this year’s Democrat cap and trade bill. It is time for all conservatives, and that particlarly includes Rush, to recognize that John McCain is on our side.
Further, McCain's votes this year are fully consistent with his historic fiscal conservatism and support for judicial strict constructionists. A McCain Administration would have sought out and may have been able to entice blue dog Democrats to support a fiscally conservative economic program. There would have been no effort to impose Government ownership of banks, car companies and health care; there certainly would not have been ruinous trillion dollar deficit spending.
Finally, there was and is a big, big difference between Obama and McCain in a larger dimension. Obama was and is a self-seeking narcissist who waffles in the face of evil. Remember Saddleback Forum? McCain was the one who talked about defeating evil. McCain is a patriot. McCain's campaign motto was "Country First," and he spoke of serving as President with a servant's heart.
John II| 10.31.09 @ 7:29PM
Thanks, Phil. I probably would have just stayed off this thread if Kirchhoefer had made his case with the same emphasis and passion. It's also occurred to me that Obama is so bad that he's turning McCain himself into a no-nonsense conservative.
Nick| 10.31.09 @ 7:46PM
Mr. Byler,
Thank your sons for their service from me, please.
But just because someone courageously serves their country does not mean they will make a competent C-in-C. Or even a good senator.
Here are some things you left out of McLame's record:
He voted for TARP. He believes in the global warming hoax. He supports cap-n-tax in priciple. He thinks waterboarding is torture. He gave us McCain-Feingold. He tried to force amnesty down our throats.
He would have been worse than President Bush.
John| 10.31.09 @ 8:03PM
Hey Nick. Thanks for the counter-jostle. Could somebody find me a fence to sit on?
Bottom line: During the presidential debates, I found myself beyond cringing at McCain's performance. All I could do was stare numbly while the Smug Know-it-all ran circles around McCain and without saying anything of substance.
Why did McCain jump on the feeble pretext to take the nomination? Why didn't he have the grace and self-knowledge to see that almost any of the other Republican candidates would have been a stronger contender?
Nick| 10.31.09 @ 8:29PM
John,
I don't know what to tell you. I could never be a politician.
But after watching them closely for the past 16 years, I have come to some conclusions.
There are politicians who don't just speak conservative, they live it and breath it and can explain it. And there are politicians who know what not to say or how not to get trapped by a reporter's question.
I want a candidate who can do both.
When I see a politician pause, looking for the right words to use, to answer a common sense question, I also want to cringe. The same when they give the P.C. answer. Speak with conviction.
I'm a big fan of "B-1" Bob Dornan, but I don't know if he ever could've been president. He told it like is too often.
Well, there's my Halloween rant.
Take care.
Phil Byler| 10.31.09 @ 10:21PM
Nick, the choice was between McCain and Obama. George W. Bush could not run again. While I disagree that McCain would have been worse than W, it is beside the point as to the matter of who would have been better: McCain or Obama? Clearly, pro-military, pro-life, pro-America, fiscal conservative John McCain.
To be sure, prior military experience does not necessarily mean that the person will be a good Commander in Chief. But McCain brought much more to the table that his war heroism. His knowledge of foreign policy, military matters and national security was built on decades of experience addressing such issues in the Senate. It was that knowledge and experience that enabled McCain to be correct about the Iraq War; he called for more troops years before the implementation of the "surge" (counter-insurgency "clear and hold" with an increase in troops). It was that experience and knowledge that enabled McCain to see Putin as KGB. It is his knowledge and experience that McCain is calling upon in advocating the implementation of proper counter-insurgency efforts with increased troop levels in Afghanistan. In contrast, Obama's years as a community organizer did not prepare him to make war and peace decisions for the nation.
In my view, McCain would have been superior to Bush as a Commander in Chief. McCain would have also been superior to W on the matter of federal spending. McCain has always been a tightwad. Bush spent far, far too much. In contrast, Obama has launched the country into wildly reckless multi-trillion dollar deficit spending.
Now, as to the issues you raise:
TARP: McCain did vote for TARP the first time and supported the Bush Administration based on the representations of Bernacke and Paulson that the TARP bailout was necessary to avert the collapse of the financial system -- representations that caused Dick Cheney to support TARP. McCain, however, voted against the second release of TARP monies in the last days of the Bush Administration. So, in a match up between the socialist Obama (whose Administration has taken over banks and car companies) and McCain (who voted against the bailouts), what does McCain’s first vote for and second vote against TARP tell you who would be better: Obama or McCain?
Global Warming: McCain has expressed belief in global warming. So has Newt. (At least McCain did not make a TV ad with Pelosi about global warming.) So did a lot more American believe in global warming than do today. McCain, who comes from a western state, has a concern about environmental protection. So do those of us who live in Teddy Roosevelt land. But we are not environmental wackos like Al Gore. So, in a match up between the socialist Obama (who uses global warming to justify world wide governmental controls) and McCain, what does McCain’s belief in global warming from a concern about environmental protection tell you who would be better: Obama or McCain?
Cap-n-tax: McCain does not support cap-n-tax. That is one reason why he opposes this year’s cap-and-trade bill. So, in a match up between the socialist Obama (who uses cap-and-trade to impose higher taxes and governmental controls) and McCain, what does McCain’s opposition to this year’s cap-and-trade bill tell you who would be better: Obama or McCain?
Waterboarding: McCain does classify waterboarding as torture, but his view is entitled to respect, as he endured real torture at the hands of the North Vietnamese captors. McCain’s perspective is framed by the fact he is a U.S. military man trained to adhere to the Geneva Conventions and by the belief that this country cannot use torture except in emergencies as a matter of principle. The question is where to draw the line between aggressive questioning and torture. McCain and W could and did reach common ground. Obama, however, has gone around the world apologizing for America and proclaiming that this country does not torture any more under his Administration. So, in a match up between the appeasement-minded Obama who demeans this country and McCain who is a patriot who has endured torture in service of the country, what does McCain’s classification of waterboarding as torture tell you who would be better: Obama or McCain?
McCain-Feingold: McCain was a sponsor of an effort at campaign finance reform that did not work, but was voted for by most Republicans (including Fred Thompson) and signed by George W. Bush. McCain was and is concerned about the undue influence of money on politics and officeholders not serving properly the public. Think about AIG and Democrat Senator Dodd. Contemplate George Soros and his money. Think about all the money that fueled the Obama campaign. The intent was more than understandable on McCain’s part. So, in a match up between the corrupt Obama-led Democrats and McCain, what does McCain’s sponsorship of campaign finance reform really tell you who would be better: Obama or McCain?
Amnesty: McCain always said he did not support amnesty, that the 2007 proposed legislation (supported strongly by George W. Bush) was not intended to provide for amnesty. If the law enforcement provisions in that 2007 bill were enforced, then there would not be de jure amnesty. The problem in immigration, however, dates back to the Reagan era immigration reform legislation, the law enforcement provisions in which were not enforced. McCain came to realize that the majority of Americans did not believe the law enforcement provisions in the 2007 legislation would be enforced and backed away from supporting the legislation, saying that law enforcement would have to come first. Obama, on the other hand, sees providing citizenship to illegal aliens as a way of making more Democrat voters and will push for outright amnesty; this is a point in Dick Morris’s book Catastrophe. So, in a match up between the outright amnesty supporting Obama and McCain, what does McCain’s views on immigration tell you who would be better: Obama or McCain?
You have listed all the worst “sins” of McCain, but those “sins” did not in November 2008 make Obama a better choice than McCain -- not even remotely -- and do not justify not recognizing McCain today as a conservative.
Nick| 10.31.09 @ 11:33PM
Mr. Byler,
Either you haven't been following McLame very long, or you are just an apologist for him.
I'll just take these in order:
TARP: No one should have been for TARP. I don't care who else voted for it. It was not conservative, it was liberal. This shows he isn't committed to free-market principles.
Global warming: Again, I don't care if Newt believes it. No one should. It is a hoax. This shows he is either to stupid to understand the data or not intellectually curious enough to find out what the truth is.
Cap-n-Tax: Just because he doesn't support Kerry-Boxer, doesn't mean he is against cap-n-tax. It was part of his campaign. Google "McCain cap and trade" if you don't believe me. This shows he would needlessly tax cheap energy based on a hoax.
Waterboarding: This may sound harsh, but just because he was tortured does not mean he gets to define what torture is for the rest of us. I'm also against torture. Based on the dignity of the human person as a creature made in the image and likeness of God. To paraphrase a supreme court justice, "Reasonable people know torture when they see it." Pouring water over someone's head multiple times by trained personal, without the intent to inflict pain, is not torture and never has been. Neither are stress positions, hot and cold, or sleep deprivation. This shows he will tow the P.C. line to look "reasonable" to the mushy middle.
McCain-Feingold: Was un-Constitutional. Period. I don't care who voted for it, they were wrong. You can try to dress it up, but this was nothing but incumbency protection. This shows he is not an originalist.
Amnesty: McLame and Grahamnesty pushed GWB's amnesty legislation. Remember his crack about picking lettuce for $50 an hour? He wasn't serious about enforcement. He didn't want the fence. This shows how he panders to Hispanics.
McLame is just another politician, my good friend. Ha-ha!
I wasn't trying to imply that he would have been worse than B.O. I just don't think he would've been all that much better, that's all. Even on the Iraq war. Yes, he was calling for more troops for years. But until the Sunnis saw what AQ was really like and were beaten on the battlefield, it still could've taken as long as it did. However, it's hard to argue hypotheticals.
At least now most Republicans are fighting this stuff. If cap-n-tax were being offered by President McLame, most of the GOP would vote for it, like they did for the prescription drug "benefit". And he wouldn't cut the budget either.
When I wrote he would be worse than GWB, I wasn't implying President Bush was that great. He was bad on a bunch of things. So would've McLame.
John II| 11.1.09 @ 12:53AM
"This shows he will tow the P.C. line to look 'reasonable' to the mushy middle."
The stylists complain about the demonstrative "this" in broad reference to a preceding predication, but in the present context, I think "this" works just fine, since it can refer to all manner of things in the antecedent listing.
I honestly hate to say so, and I can't pretend to understand why, but I believe you've touched on the main trouble with McCain. He behaves like a man who wants to be liked by as many people as possible, even if the ingratiation involves a kind of insouciant treachery. The global warming business, for example, is not just a hoax; it represents a gravely unjust assault on the integrity of thousands of climate scientists who have nonetheless found the courage to speak out against the fraud and the attendant politicization of science. McCain's public support of the fraud is not just an honest error or political miscalculation; it is a serious lapse of moral judgment.
God knows why or what, but I think there is just too much evidence to avoid the impression that something is seriously off about the man. The fact that he is clearly a better man than Obama does not of itself argue that he would make a much better president.
Nick| 11.1.09 @ 1:24PM
John II,
I believe you have read enough of my posts to know grammar is not my strong suit. English was my worst subject.
I did receive as a gift a couple years ago "The Trivium" by Sr. Miriam Joseph Rauh. And I've started it a few times, and I will get through it someday.
I only wish I had the gift of writing you and Mary Louise possess.
Happy All Saints Day, God Bless.
Phil Byler| 11.1.09 @ 7:41AM
Nick & John II:
I have been following McCain, and I am not an apologist for him. I think that at times McCain has made ill advised statements. But I also think that the arguments made against him are overstated and that some conservatives are blind to the virtues that McCain does have. That some conservatives say that McCain would not have made a better President than Obama is a reflection of how totally out of kilter the attitude is of those conservatives toward McCain.
The assertion that McCain would not have made a better President than Obama is the sheerest nonsense. It is not just that McCain is a better man than Obama. Obama is a socialist bankrupting the nation with reckless multi-trillion dollar deficit spending, empowering radical leftists as czars in the Executive branch and pursuing an appeasement-minded foreign policy that will bring on terrible crises at some point. McCain would have pursued different policies than Obama and would have brought to bear McCain’s knowledge and experience in foreign policy, military matters and national security.
You say no one should have supported TARP? TARP began as a Republican Bush Administration program based on Paulson’s and Bernacke’s statements that without the TARP bailout, the financial system would collapse. McCain (and others) relied on those representations in supporting TARP the first time -- when it was the program of a sitting Republican President and McCain was the Republican Party nominee. McCain voted “no” the second time to TARP when Bush was still President and has voted against all Obama bailouts.
Global warming? Personally, I never believed it and am concerned about its use to justify Government controls and redistribution. But a lot of Americans have believed it for the same reason McCain did -- an exposure to what was incomplete science on global warming and a Teddy Roosevelt inspired belief in environmental conservation. That is still a world apart from what Obama and the transnationalists want to do in using global warming to justify redistribution of wealth on a global basis.
Waterboarding? You are at a disadvantage to McCain if your test is we know it when we see it. McCain went through real torture -- such as having his arms broken, then being tied with his arms upraised and being beaten. Granted, waterboarding is not what McCain experienced or mutilation or electric shock to the groin. But a very reasonable argument can be made that waterboarding is torture within the meaning of the definition of torture in the international treaty, signed by the U.S., against use of torture (“UNCAT”). The argument for waterboarding really is that its use on a few of the worst terrorists in our captivity was very effective in eliciting critical information and that its effects are temporary. Our military guys never use waterboarding, and al Qaeda now trains its operatives to withstand being waterboarded. In any event, the contrast is McCain’s defensible position on the classification of waterboarding with Obama’s un-American apology tours that include the statement that America does not use torture any more.
Campaign finance reform and immigration reform? You did not respond to what I wrote, so I refer you to it again.
Iraq War? There were a number of factors accounting for our success (for now), including the Sunni Awakening. I recommend reading Bing West’s “The Strongest Tribe” for an account of the Iraq War. West is co-author of the Army-Marine Counter-Insurgency Manual. The fact is that we needed to implement a “clear and hold” counter-insurgency strategy that required more troops. McCain understood that point from his frequent trips to Iraq and his discussions with lower level military officers. McCain understood the situation from an on the ground assessment that he could make. McCain was right about Iraq because he really does know his stuff concerning foreign policy, military matters and national security. That is why in the 2008 Republican primaries, McCain was the favorite among the Republican foreign policy and national security establishment.
You don’t like McCain’s restraint and are unhappy about the manner of his speaking? It is not a matter of McCain wanting to be liked. There are three other factors at work. One, McCain came back from Vietnam to a destructively divided country and genuinely has sought to bridge gaps. Two, McCain is an old fashioned guy who sometimes functions as if we could recapture the time when Democrats and Republicans by and large shared a common foreign policy and most Democrats weren’t socialists. Three, McCain is essentially a military man, and like many military men, he speaks with restraint and operationally without eloquence. Eisenhower was a very intelligent and capable man, but ever see a video of Eisenhower and see him speak extemporaneously and fracture the English language? Stevenson was like Obama in being a far, far better speaker. Yet, the truth was that Eisenhower was much, much more intelligent and far better read than Stevenson (who rarely read a book). Similarly, McCain is more intelligent and better read than Obama. There was a reason why McCain so dramatically overshadowed Obama at the Saddleback Forum.
Nick| 11.1.09 @ 11:02AM
Mr. Byler,
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Again, thank your sons for their service, from a veteran of Operation Desert Storm.
John II| 11.1.09 @ 4:52PM
All good points, Phil. I especially like the analogy with Eisenhower--and by the way, Reagan himself was prone to be tongue-tied, so that's not an issue for me.
What I'll never understand for sure, though, is why McCain couldn't project the same persona in the debates as he did in the Saddleback Forum. I've been disappointed by election results intermittently more times than I have fingers to count, but the last presidential election was the only one so far that left me feeling downright queasy and vaguely heartsick.
I don't and can't know for sure, but perhaps McCain's military and senatorial careers, however admirable the former, have left him blinkered in some ways that he wouldn't be aware of himself. To put it bluntly, I think it may be significant that McCain has been on the government payroll all his life, including his most formative years as the son of a Navy career officer.
In the second debate, for example, I found his plug for "Joe the Plumber" to be unpersuasive, and not just because of the inarticulate delivery. It was as if he was suddenly out of his depth, so that he seemed to be speaking more out of pro forma political commitment than out of passionate conviction.
In my own passing two-year draft stint in the military during the Vietnam years (McCain is only a few years older than I), I met quite a few admirable and brave patriots among the RA's (Regular Army: the career officers and NCO's whom the rest of us called "lifers"). They were providing good and necessary service to their country, sometimes beyond the call, but every job has its occupational hazards, and aside from the obvious hazards of military duty, there seemed to me to be a constant moral hazard in that line of work--I mean, the danger of living all your life as, basically, a ward of the state.
What we've come to call the "private sector" is principally what the American experiment is about--and all our civil arrangements and defense allocations, properly understood, are ordered to the service of that aspect of our lives, beginning with the family--and not the "individual," by the way, pace so-called libertarianism.
Of course, Obama and the hardcore 15 percent or so of the population that he and his kind represent reject all this: they are statists. But I wonder if McCain himself, far better man though he be, really has the deep personal conviction needed to resist the statist temptation effectively in the public square. Such conviction comes more from how one has lived one's life than from argument and purported political philosophy.
John Navratil| 11.1.09 @ 8:56AM
McCain certainly has his strengths and his weaknesses. His disqualifying weakness is that if you handed him a copy of the Constitution he would think it was toilet paper.
shoey| 11.1.09 @ 10:37AM
thread winner!
90 % of our congresscritters would think the same, that's the real problem, lack of respect and intentional disregard for the Constitution.
Nick| 11.1.09 @ 3:37PM
I second the motion.
Anthony| 11.1.09 @ 11:35AM
I used to buy into what Last Man and Mr. Byler were selling. No longer. These guys think like leftists, no amount of evidence or proof will dissuade them from their dogma.
We tried the ultimate Manchurian Moderate and he got his pathetic, D.C. insider run campaign, ass kicked. Even Colin "Lucy"Powell couldn't resist yanking the football after telling ole "Charlie Brown", McCain , not to worry, this time is for real. Yet Last Man & Byler tell us to do more of the same. Only Gov. Palin offered some real hope and look what McCain's staffers did to her.
Principle is all that we have. If it's abondoned in the name of expediency and politics, it's still abandoned.
Obama & McCain are just two slightly different captains of the Titanic. While Obama tacks hard left at full speed towards the iceberg, McCain's approach is to tack slightly to port, slow the ship down and proudly proclaim that his approach to ramming the iceberg was more deliberate and better executed.
Bottom line, both Obama & McCain would have and will, sink us all. Sorry, no more of Ship of Fools for me. Oh, captain my captain is Sarah my Sarah.
Phil Byler| 11.1.09 @ 3:46PM
Anthony:
I happen to believe that the Republican Party needs to be conservative, not moderate.
I happen to believe that Colin Powell ought not be considered a Republican: strike one was when he was Secretary of State not telling Bush and Cheney that his (Powell's) man Richard Armitage was the source to Bob Novak about Valerie Plame Wilson while Bush and Cheney were being pillioried in the the press about the "leak" of Plame's identity (she was not a covert agent); strke two was endorsing Obama at a critically bad moment in the 2008 election and giving people the false impression that Obama could be Commander in Chief; and strke three was earlier this year saying Republicans should support higher taxes and bigger Government.
I happen to believe that McCain unwisely pulled his punches during the 2008 campaign. There were a lot of problems in the election that were not McCain's doing -- a financial crisis creating economic uncertainties that helped Democrats; a Bush Administration bank bailout that blurred the differences between the parties; media bias that amounted to day-in,day-out propaganda for Obama; Obama money (some of it illegal). But pulling punches about Obama's radical ties did not help.
I also believe that people like you should realize that the Sarah Palin you like so well was brought to prominence by John McCain.
I further believe that your comment reflects that you are listening to Rush's old paraodies and not taking the time to think for yourself -- McCain's voting record this year is as conservative as any.
Finally, the notion that pro-life, military war hero, fiscal conservative, foreign policy hawk McCain and radical socialist, prolifigate spending, community organizing, appeasement-minded Obama are only slightly different is not a rational belief. Sorry, but it just isn't.
Bydand76| 11.1.09 @ 6:22PM
Mr Byler.
I respect your opinion and agree somwhat with you in regards that McCain did not run an effective campaign.
However, I would say that the biggest reason Sarah Palin WAS brought on board as the V.P was to capture and bring the conservatives back into the picture. Look how the McCain people reacted after the campaign was over. The MSM really went after Sarah Palin and McCain instead of rising to defend her left her out to the wolves. Disgraceful behavior from such an honorable man right?
"McCain's voting record this year is as conservative as any."
For this year, but what about past years Mr Byler? Are you telling me his past record is something that we as conservatives should point to as a shining example of how a conservative career politician should be? McCain-Feingold should have been enough to dispell this myth.
I think Rush is right on the money in this regard to be honest with you. At least you can say Rush is consistent. Something that cannot be said for the Hon. Senator from Arizona.
I would agree with you that McCain and The Ameoba (PeBO) are very different. But this is somewhat redundant now as McCain did not get elected due to his inability to seperate himself from a radical left leaning tele-talker.
I have mad respect for Sen. McCain and I beleive that he is a good man at heart. I just think that he has taken the route of being a career politician or his principles and his priorities are out of alignment. He cares more about his position in other words.
Just my 2 cents is all.
Pro Libertate!
darcy| 11.2.09 @ 3:41AM
"McCain's voting record this year is as conservative as any."
Hmmm. As conservative as any other of his voting years? or as conservative as any other voter this year?
No matter. He happens also to be up for re-election in 2010, and I personally believe that his right-ward votes are politically motivated.
Others here have done nicely, cataloguing McCain's myriad failures to man-up to the blows from statists; he too often prefers the via media (and all the PC praise that comes with it) to the real work of thwarting despostism -- and our republic suffers for it.
He's a politician -- not a statesman, IMO.
Oh, and this Arizonan will not be voting for him next year.
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.1.09 @ 3:13PM
Anthony
I pulled "publisher's rank" at amazon.com and got a confirmed overnight shipping of the first printing of Sarah's book. (yaaaaay!)
I literally am waiting like a kiddo for Christmas!
I honestly pray that her book is an absolute "game changer".
The PRAVDA media is desperately trying to get a copy in order to trash it before release, but so far...amazingly enough...security has held up.
I would bet there was a catastrophic "secrecy clause" she demanded in her contract.
IF ANYBODY HERE KNOWS ANYONE IN VIRGINIA, NORTHERN NEW YORK, OR NEW JERSEY...PLEASE PLEASE CALL THEM AND BEG THEM TO VOTE TUESDAY...FOR SOME PRETTY DARNED GOOD CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATES.
Thank you. http://judgeroy.wordpress.com
Christopher Holland| 11.1.09 @ 9:57PM
McCain went out of his way to tell conservatives that he didn't like them, he didn't need their votes and he didn't want them. He got what he wanted - what is he complaining about? And he waits until now to oppose big government! Why didn't he do that in the 8 years of the Bush administration?
McCain today is the same McCain of yesterday - a waste of time with no judgement who can't be trusted with responsibility.
Michael Dooley| 11.2.09 @ 7:44AM
I am not going to say one damn bad thing to say against McCain. Is he even close to be my candidate? No. Do I think he fell for the praises of the mass media as a "different kind of Republican"? Yes. Have I been angry with him for rescuing defeat from the jaws of victory many times while in the Senate? Hell, yes. Is McCain personally a great guy? Hell, yes. Is McCain a patriot? One of the best.
All that said, there should be clear lessons the Republican Party should finally learn--lessons Conservatives could have taught them long ago if they only would have listened. 1.) Kissing up to gain the favor of the media has no payoff. The media will end up backing the usual suspects anyway. 2.) The pitch that Republicans can run Democrat programs cheaper has no appeal. 3.) By and large, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow called "moderates" doesn't exist. 4.) There are two different visions for America before the public: Liberalism and Conservativism. Fudging the difference is foolish if not dishonest. 5.) Conservatives have a love/hate relationship with the Republican Party. Just because the Party drives up to the house and honks the horn doesn't mean they'll come out. Getting out of them car, respectfully and politely knocking on the door will go a long way. 6.) The day that the Republican Party becomes the Conservative Party without apology marks the day the Party will stop sending money to candidates whose only virtue is that they have an "R" behind their names. 7.) For all their huffing and puffing, "moderate" Republicans (RINOs) don't deliver. They fail elections. They don't bring in the votes. They don't bring in the money. They don't bring in the grassroot volunteers. 8.) RINO's will stab the Party in the back--especially when it counts the most.
Derek Leaberry| 11.2.09 @ 1:20PM
As this thread has shown, the military vote is an unacknowledged power in Republican politics, rivaling the economic conservatives, social conservatives and neo-conservatives, whose policies they are closer to. It was the military vote that brought McCain primary victories in South Carolina and Florida which ensured his nomination. The woodenheadedness of the Military Right in supporting military intervention in obscure parts of the world while the nation falls further and further in debt astounds. And a question for McCainiacs- why support intervention in the Middle East at the cost of American blood when John McCain engages with Ted Kennedy and the Democrats in supporting open borders and demographic revolution in this country? Why die for a government which is cutting your own throat?
Peabody| 11.4.09 @ 12:16PM
What a bunch of drama queens.
Vote for the Republican on the ticket next time.
Pingback| 1.9.10 @ 1:11AM
Old Senators Never Die | Orange Juice links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
poptropica | 4.8.10 @ 11:21PM
thanks you very much for your information
Poptropica
Poptropica