The American Spectator

Dan| 11.17.08 @ 2:09AM

Remember when the media said Palin backed Buchanan in 96 because she wore a button to welcome him to her town when she was mayor? And remember how Robert Wexler went on national TV on such flimsy evidence to call her an anti-Semite and Nazi sympathizer? Turns out, as she explained to her local paper back then, she didn't support Buchanan - she was (as even the HuffPo observed - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/04/more-sarah-palin-comparis_n_124044.html) a Forbes supporter. Considering Forbes ran essentially on a single issue platform - the flat tax - its probably safe to assume Palin is somewhat supportive of such a reform. She has also fought her legislature to increase competition in the health care industry to lower prices by repealing the Certificate of Need.

That said, most of the Senators and Congressmen (and presumably the governors) at the top of the Club for Growth's rating list are also at the top of the National Right to Life's ratings chart. So we have some good options - and I think it is correct that such social and fiscal conservatives are our best hope for success - Palin, Jindal, Sanford (though he's not the most exciting guy), etc. at the gov. level.

ruth| 11.17.08 @ 2:22AM

I can't believe that I am actually posting a comment before Bob. He is usually up first to savage Governor Palin and take cheap shots at Conservatives. I like Sarah; she's plenty smart, has great values and a lot of charisma. I hope she uses the next four years to prepare herself for the national stage.

Trurl| 11.17.08 @ 2:34AM

You're kidding- Sarah supported Forbes?? Damn I love her. *g* Although I hope she looks into the Fair Tax as a better alternative to the Flat Tax.

Bob| 11.17.08 @ 7:21AM

Ruth, I don't have to savage Palin -- she's done a good job self-destructing herself as the polls timeline proves. Be careful of Jindal, he's governed to the center (like Schwartzeneggar) and not to the right even though he is pro-life. Anyone with half a brain is going to govern to the center. Pawlenty is also governing to the center -- he must as he is in a more liberal state like Schwartzeneggar and Bloomberg.

The problem is with demographic shifts in the electorate. The growth of Hispanics, blacks and the youth vote (who have grown up with MTV) make the Reagan coalition no longer able to get the 51% to elect a president. That will not change. You have to be a low information social conservative to believe that ideology will outpace demographic shifts.

Carl Rove is not a stupid guy. He's the one that realized you had to move to the center while placating social conservatives (and then not delivering on those issues). The evangelical vote was split this year between McCain and Obama. Evangelicals are no longer one issue voters -- they are now saying that poverty and the environment are as important as the life issue. No Republican in their right mind will follow through on the social conservative agenda or they will get the election results of Alan Keyes.

I can't wait for the Republican party to remain fiscally conservative while moving to a more libertarian social agenda. As Pawlenty, Schwartzeneggar, Jindal, and Bloomberg have proven, that is the winning strategy. Get the government out of our lives both fiscally and socially. Limit government to those tasks where is can pragmatically have a positive effect. Move away from ideology and towards pragmatism.

You can't run against the numbers, and the numbers just don't add up to the old, worn out, Reagan coalition. All that has done is make the Republican party one of old, angry, white men -- whiter and angrier than ever before.

Eric Dondero| 11.17.08 @ 7:43AM

You say it's a mistake to read the election results as a rejection of conservative/libertarian ideology. I'm not so sure?

Maybe the country has moved Left?

Figure, we've just elected the most Pro-Communist US President in history. The guy had a perfect US Senate record of 100 from the Marxist ADA. He was rated to the Left of open Socialist Bernie Sanders.

How can we not view his election as a rejection of Freedom & Capitalism?

Please convince me otherwise?

Eric Dondero| 11.17.08 @ 7:49AM

Sorry to violate AS decoum, and post twice in a row. But I couldn't resist responding to Bob.

Bob, RS will testify, I am "Mr. Libertarian Republican." I've served Ron Paul as his Senior Aide, for many years. I served on the Libertarian National Committee. I founded the Republican Liberty Caucus. I'm currently Editor/Pub. of Libertarian Republican blog.

Believe me, I know a "libertarian" when I see one.

Sarah Palin is not only a libertarian Republican, she is now essentially the leader of the libertarian wing of the GOP. (Witness Conservative Newt Gingrich going after her on the Sunday shows yesterday.)

Sarah exudes the social tolerance that you desire. In Alaska she was always viewed as a "libertarian." Then the national media got a hold of her, and tried to turn her into some sort of social conservative.

In fact, in Alaska politics the rap on Sarah was that "she wasn't really a Republican, but rather a libertarian." Gasp! Because she had attended a few meetings of the Alaska Libertarian Party and had made a few remarks seemingly pro-marijuana legalization.

You want a "fiscally conservative/socially tolerant" GOP for the future?

Sarah Palin is your man, um, er, woman!

Bob| 11.17.08 @ 8:22AM

Eric, you make some great points -- and initially her libertarian actions interested me. (I doubt whether Ruth and others on this board would like that aspect - but they are low information voters and would not have done the research). But as I dug deeper, I realized that she did this more to get elected than as a governing ideology. You can't get elected in Alaska unless you show some libertarian streak. Her actions in Wasilla were certainly not libertarian and that was just a few years ago. Her talent, IMO, is saying what the people in front of her wants to hear. She did study to be a TV announcer, you know.

However, her actions as a VP candidate started to bring out the real Sarah. She dropped her libertarian beliefs, and showed that she would do anything to win. Libertarians, as a group, study the issues. Sarah's knowledge left a lot to be desired. This led me to believe that her libertarian actions in Alaska were only used to get elected.

I am not a true Libertarian. I believe that government has more than a minimal role fiscally and in national defense. However, I don't believe that government should tell us how we should live our lives and thus I am quite libertarian when it comes to social issues. I am in the same boat as Schwartzeneggar, Bloomberg, Tom Ridge and Colin Powell. If the party moves so far to the right on social issues, then it cannot reliably win our vote.

WendyG| 11.17.08 @ 9:01AM

>>>As Pawlenty, Schwartzeneggar, Jindal, and Bloomberg have proven, that is the winning strategy.

Bloomberg is not a Republican. He left the party over a year ago. And he's circumvented NY law so he can run for another term. As for Schwartzeneggar, I doubt he could win reelection now. Colin Powell is all about his opportunities. He has no loyalties except to himself.

Bobby Jindal and Tim Pawlenty are pro-life. Bobby Jindal has a 100% pro-life voting record according to the National Right to Life Committee. No issue more defines so cons as that one does. They does not belong in your list, but Bob, you do have a habit of posting from the hip - making statements that I for one have a had pretty easy time debunking. Such as your claims that McCain has more "terrorist and anti-semitic ties than Obama" (you never responded when I proved you wrong) and that MSNBC was a big ratings winners lately (you did retract that one when I posted numbers to the contrary.)

It's amazing how obsessed the libs like you are with Sarah Palin. They just can't let it go. She's a very engaging conservative voice - and she'd about to land a 7 million dollar book deal. Boy they'll go crazy over that at Kos and Huff Post. :)

Notice the Dems did not get near gun control this year. They are terrified of such issues now. They know the country is conservative. Obama won because he acted conservative - and gay marriage LOST everywhere because we are a conservative nation. The GOP should never run from that - merely have a stronger messenger. Someone vital, and young and articulate. Match that with an improved, updated ground game, and we'll do just fine.

Even over the last 4 years, Democrats have won when they sounded like conservatives (Obama's tax cut for "95%" of Americans - which it's not.)

J David| 11.17.08 @ 9:37AM

The GOP has only had "knowing the difference between right and wrong", morally, as differentiating them from secular commie-lib Dems. If the Republican Party disses social conservatism under pragmatic RINOs' influence, then so-cons and their massive, solid bloc of voters will leave the party's referendum on its leadership, the presidential pick, and they will go elsewhere.

No amount of shouting, and blaming, and calling them names will influence those who DON'T have only this short existence, and who are responsible to an Almighty Creator. I don't, ultimately, answers to ANY human leader, and no pragmatic, secular, moral equivalence argument can sway me to support any who are not intending to maintain the cause of founding principles stated on the very money being confiscated from me for immoral purposes: "In GOD We Trust"

Bob| 11.17.08 @ 9:39AM

Wendy, you've taken my statements out of context -- which I expect from social conservatives with blinders. I said that I like Jindal because he smart and understands issues unlike Sarah. He is still young and needs some grooming, but I believe he will make good decisions. I'm against the anti-intellectual tripe you guys put forth that puts Bush, McCain, and Palin on a national ticket. Pawlenty does govern as a moderate or else he couldn't get elected in Minnesota. We'll see how Jindal develops over the next few years. I believe he will be the candidate in 2016, and if he develops as I surmise, I'll probably vote for him.

Regarding the comments about McCain, I was making the INTELLECTUAL argument that if you wanted to make a "guilt by association" argument, you could call him a friend of felons and an anti-semite. He palled around with convicted felons and anti-semites and was far closer to them than Obama was to Ayers. That is certainly a matter of judgement. However, I no more believe those associates make McCain dirty than those of Obama. For those of you with weak minds and hate in your hearts, you'll believe they have merit.

As far as Sarah's book -- all controversial characters can get money from both lemmings and haters. She is just a government version of Lindsey Lohan.

Regarding the Democrats running on centrist issues -- Obama is, above all, a pragmatist. He will govern in the same way as he wants to be a transformational figure like Reagan.

By the way, I'm betting that Jindal softens his position on social issues because he can read demographic trends and knows what it will take to get elected. He will not get the women's vote because of his positions and will have difficulty with Hispanics unless he supports immigration reform. If he does not get Hispanics, it's over for Jindal.

Bob| 11.17.08 @ 9:48AM

J David -- If you want to believe that your definition of right and wrong is the correct one, you certainly lack the humility prescribed in most religions. I prefer to believe there are good people in most religions and I am not in a position to judge them -- that belongs to a higher power.

The political argument is one of rationality -- not of belief. It has to do with demographic segments, their legislative concerns, and their long term trends. I believe social conservatives hurt the Republican party because, as you have shown, they are intolerant of the views of others and demonize their opponents.

WendyG| 11.17.08 @ 9:59AM

>>>I'm against the anti-intellectual tripe you guys put forth that puts Bush, McCain, and Palin on a national ticket.

Bob, there is a reason Adlai Stevenson lost, and Jack Kennedy won. Americans in general don't want eggheads in the Oval Office. Certainly Truman was very far from that. And the greatest Republican in my lifetime - Ronald Reagan - also never wore his intellectualism on his sleeve.

>>>Regarding the comments about McCain, I was making the INTELLECTUAL argument that if you wanted to make a "guilt by association" argument, you could call him a friend of felons and an anti-semite. He palled around with convicted felons and anti-semites and was far closer to them than Obama was to Ayers.

That is an untruth. Obama was FAR closer to Jeremiah Wright than McCain was to any of the associations that you pin on McCain (none of which you named btw.) Jeremiah Wright made very anti-American sermons, has made very ugly statements about Israel - and he officiated at Obama's wedding - and Obama attended his church for 20 yearrs. Oprah attended that church for a while too, but quit eventually due the inflammatory nature of the sermons. Obama stayed.

Name me anything in McCain's past like that. Name me one radical bomber McCain served on a board with. Name me one associate of McCain's who wife spoke of the Manson family with admiration.

Bob| 11.17.08 @ 10:14AM

Wendy, as I said before, I think that the Wright association is very valid. I don't think the Ayers connection is valid. I would have had no problem with the McCain campaign going after Wright -- but I did have a problem with Ayers.

In regard to McCain, here are some names since you can't seem to do your homework other than listening to right wing nuts:

John Singlaub
Charles Keating
G. Gordon Liddy
Richard Quinn
Pastor Hagee
James Fowler

Now I reiterate, any guilt by association of these people to McCain are as valid as the Ayers connection to Obama. Democratic strategists tried to convince Obama to use these connections, but Obama realized that this election was about the issues, not associations. People are so jaded by partisan politics that these attacks just don't work as well as they did a decade ago.

WendyG| 11.17.08 @ 10:32AM

Not good enough Bob. Lay out the case against McCain re: all the associations you listed. Show how they relate and/or compare to Obama's with Wright, Farrakhan, Rezko, Ayers, etc.

Bob| 11.17.08 @ 10:39AM

Geez, Wendy, can't you use Google or are you just lazy?

This appeared in Eons and summarizes the arguments regarding associations. Remember, I don't buy into this "six degrees" argument just as I don't buy into the arguments with Obama with the exception of Wright.

"Keep in mind John McCain's associations with S&L;kingpin Charles Keating and other historically tarnished creatures.

We've known for a while that McCain has befriended a convicted felon who advised his supporters on how best to shoot federal officials, used the money of a convicted criminal to help buy a house, befriended a radical anti-Catholic televangelist, befriended a radical anti-American televangelist, was a long-time associate of Charles Keating, and hired for his campaign the publisher of a Confederate nostalgia magazine who has described Nelson Mandela as a "terrorist." We also learned about McCain serving on the board of the extremist U.S. Council for World Freedom, where he worked alongside Iran-Contra figures, and a eugenics researcher studying "white superiority."

McCain sat on the board of a very right wing organization, the U.S. Council for World Freedom, led by a retired Army Maj. General named John Singlaub. The Anti-Defamation League allegedly called the CWF's parent organization a gathering place for racists and anti-Semites.

Other negative associations for McCain are his long-time South Carolina consultant, Richard Quinn, a publisher of a Southern heritagte magazine, and John Hagee, a pastor whose endorsement McCain solicited and later rejected. John McCain actively sought the endorsement of Pastor Hagee prior to the Texas primary, without giving two craps about who he was. Both McCain and his allies give speeches (see AIPAC and others) with Pastor Hagee.

Then there's McCains Buddy Gordon Liddy and McCain's association with Sarah Palin and her association with the Alaska Independence Party. Does Sarah really support the US if she supports Alaska independence? What does this say about McCains loyalties.

What about McCain's collaboration with Hanoi and his Russian interrogators?

McCain's associations, including the McCain campaign touting an endorsement from Leonore Annenberg, who helped created the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, where, wouldn't you know it, Obama and Ayers met. Keith Olbermann recently noted McCain having hooked up with a right-wing hate group called the Oregon Citizens' Alliance, despite warnings McCain received from then-Sen. Mark Hatfield, an Oregon Republican, about the radical nature of the organization.

While hanging out with the group, McCain heard speakers praise -- you guessed it -- domestic terrorists. McCain could have gotten up and left, but didn't.

Since McCain has been talking about tenuous associations lately... well, here's another interesting one that I haven't seen covered anywhere else, as reported by The Anniston Star (AL):

Presidential hopeful John McCain has a connection to a former Alabama state trooper charged with the murder of a man at the height of the civil rights movement, according to documents obtained by The Star.

In the early 1990s, Sen. McCain, R-Ariz., wrote a letter to the State Department regarding James B. Fowler, who was at the time imprisoned in Thailand on narcotics charges. McCain's State Department letter was dated Nov. 15, 1991. It briefly explains Fowler's situation and asks Assistant Secretary Elizabeth Tamposi of the Office of Consular Affairs to look into his case.

In 2005, The Star published an interview with James B. Fowler who admitted publicly for the first time that he shot Jimmie Lee Jackson during a melee in February 1965 in the west Alabama town of Marion. Fowler insisted it was in self defense.

You should read the whole story because it is a little complicated, but basically this guy - James Fowler - was arrested in Thailand for heroin trafficking and John McCain wrote a letter to the State Department asking what they were doing about it. Why would he care about this guy? As John Fleming reports, they had at least two mutual friends. Fowler was released from Thai prison in 1996 and has since confessed to shooting Jimmie Lee Jackson."

WendyG| 11.17.08 @ 11:11AM

Au contraire Bob. I am very good with Google, as apparently you are as well, which is why most of your posts are cut-and-paste jobs lifted from other sites. How Joe Biden of you. :) At least I make my own arguments and can therefore defend them.

There is absoutely nothing in that cut-and-paste job that in any way compares to Obama's close personal long-time relationships with Wright, Rezko, Farrakhan and Ayers. All sleazy characters, one a bomber, two anti-semites, one a crook awaiting sentencing.

Bob| 11.17.08 @ 11:26AM

That's the point, Wendy. While Rezco is borderline, I totally reject that Ayers and Farrakhan were close relationships. McCain had much closer relationships with Keating, Singlaub, and Liddy -- and has admitted to them.

P.S. - I use cut and paste because it seems you are adverse to research.

Rich| 11.17.08 @ 12:12PM

Who is this 'Bob'? Quoting nutjobs like Olby as authoritative? For the record, the Democratic investigator who "spent 18 months investigating" McCain has said repeatedly that McCain had nothing to do with Keating but was kept in because the Dems who were guilty wanted a Republican too, so that's a smear. John Hagee is a fanatical supported of Israel and Jews, another smear. The other connections are laughable, clownish. Michelle Obama and Bernadine Dorn met in '88 at a law firm they worked at. Ayers opened his home to Obama not as a stranger but as someone he knew and approved of in '95 to initiate his political career...it was a stamp of approval you do not extend to complete strangers you don't agree with. It was Ayers to reached out to Obama to head the Annenberg Challenge despite Barak's total lack of qualification and again appointed him to the Woods Foundation. This doesn't happen between strangers. Don't forget the Marxist/Lenninist/Maoist (Kronsky?) who shared Obama's presidential campaign website until his support for Mao's mass murder was discovered. What about Bob? Moron...

Bob| 11.17.08 @ 12:38PM

I could be quoting nut jobs like Rich! Regarding Keating, the Senate concluded he exercised "poor judgment". Regarding Hagee -- McCain ASKED for the endorsement which is far worse than being given a donation for possible future political favors (which is common for donations). Ayers gave Obama $200 -- that's huge. What a good friend to have.

What about Sinlaub -- I notice you don't even mention him but McCain had a close relationship with him.

Again, I don't think this guilt by association attack is meaningful nor does it work today. That's was the point -- and you certainly missed it because your hatred blinded you.

The point is that these associations of McCain could have been used in the campaign. The vitriol that you and other posters exhibit here is why the Republican party is in trouble. You win by being objective and realistic -- not far out as you demonstrate. All I'm doing is pointing out the other side. I want the Republican party to progress to the new demographic profile. It means that many of you reactionaries may be uprooted. Business is business and politics is politics. Be realistic and you enable a turnaround. Be ideologues and you will damage the party beyond recognition.

ruth| 11.17.08 @ 12:56PM

Well, I posted before Bob (shock!) but he certainly made up for it with his long winded savaging and cheap shot speeches. I must be psychic.

Rich| 11.17.08 @ 1:02PM

Keating...the report was a political document...his inclusion was politcal and it's conclusion about him was political, as the Deomcrat investigator has made clear repeatedly...drop it, it's a smear and you embarass yourself wallowing in it...quoting the Anti-Defamation League is laughable...Abe Foxman is a leftwing loon and the organization is a joke. Using him as a source makes you a lightweight. Witness using Hagee again, who has nothing to do with anti-Semitism, except he's a conservative and your shallow arumentation technique seems to be label something as "right-wing" which in your world equals anti-semitic. McCain seeking out an endorsement of a pro-Israel preacher is not the same as having a racist anti-semite as your personal preacher for 20 yars who baptized your kids. You are a bore and your arguments are Mickey Mouse. You've been dismissed with the contempt you deserve...go away, study up and come back when you're ready to do real battle...

Dan| 11.17.08 @ 1:12PM

This seems to be difficult for those who want the GOP to dump social conservatives to grasp, but the overwhelming majority of social conservatives are also quite pragmatic. As the economy is going into a tailspin, they're not going to get up on their soap box and rail against embryonic stem cell research, to take one example. That is why social issues played absolutely no role in the presidential election, save for one 527 group. In any other year, they might have, as we elected one of the most pro-abortion candidates ever to run for the office (not pro-choice, Obama is actively pro-abortion). But aside from a single speech Palin gave, you barely heard a word about social issues.

Palin is a socially conservative libertarian. She might personally be against abortion, gay marriage, etc., but it has never played a role in how she governed her state. She even vetoed a law banning same sex partners from receiving state employee benefits. Abortion has never come up, despite the desire on the part of some Republicans in the legislature to raise the issue.

Also, for those who have said that the Republicans, led by Bush, just used social conservatives and never delivered, I'll remind you of the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, partial-birth abortion ban and Born Alive, as well as Roberts and Alito. No realistic person is expecting the President to overturn Roe v. Wade. Bush did about all he could reasonably be expected to do on social issues, and when Obama signs the FOCA, I think social conservatives will once again realize that.

Dan| 11.17.08 @ 1:26PM

Gen. Singlaub is actually credited with moving the WACL away from its associations with anti-Semites and Nazi sympathizers.

Hagee is a guy who endorsed a presidential candidate - who later rejected his endorsement. Nowhere near equivalent to Obama's relationship with Wright.

Keating was an admitted mistake by McCain and he has spent more than two decades atoning for it by pushing for reform in politics.