The American Spectator

around the track| 11.28.08 @ 1:19PM

This is an excellent analysis. What we should remember is that Republicans achieved very impressive victories in 2000,2002 and 2004. These victories were not based upon campaigns in which Republicans argued for moderate/liberal ideas. Remember also just how great our expectations were, only to be greatly disappointed
by our president and Republican leaders who shifted to the middle/left, resulting in defeats of 2006 and 2008.

Brittanicus| 11.28.08 @ 2:06PM

IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WERE TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION ISSUE, NOT MANIPULATED HALF-TRUTHS BY THE NATIONAL MEDIA. Then Americans would realize how blatently obvious the cause of one of the destructive forces cause by the illegal alien invasion.
Of course the open-border zealots are intentionally engineering the crime statistics and also trying to empower the population of America with propaganda and actual lies. One only has to research the statistics across the country, on the Internet of individual states costs on supporting the illegal alien occupation at the state and county level where made available.

The liberal national press adds to this major problem, by denying the ugly truth on crime statistics and the death toll, caused by the mayhem of foreign nationals running amok in our communities. Just identify the under-divulged deaths of the 3 Bolgna family members in San Francisco, with an illegal alien gang member peppering their car with a AK 47. Or the repugnant death of Jamiel Shaw in Los Angeles, because his murderer though he was another gang member. Police offers have been shot to death in routine Traffic stops in Texas.

The list of thousands of innocent citizens and legal residents have been forgotten by a media, who are either frightened of being addressed as racists. Or a newspaper that sympathize for the criminal element found amongst foreign nationals.

So many crimes are happening across America, that usually do not warrant any national press report. The question is, has this been going on for decades? That only because we have the Internet, instant communication that everybody knows almost immediately? Or is it because the masses of illegal people entering this nation, without being screened has brought with them a third world mentality? If it wasn't for Independent Journalists like Lou Dobbs of CNN or O'Reilly from FOX, Glenn Beck, as the population of activists Americans would forever remain in the dark. Pro-immigrant zealots don't like it, because the average citizen or legal resident has a say in this explosive issue. Regular citizens have become the first line of defense of corrupt politicians and the special interest lobby, that remain in collusion with far-left judges and extremist groups which border on tyranny.

Americans do not have the financial backing of corporate farms, Foundations, business CARTELS of funds extracted from taxpayers without their knowledge. Funding anti-sovereignty, extremist entities like La Raza (the Race), Army of National Liberation and Mexicanos Sin Fronteras (Mexicans Without Borders, just to name two.

Those who steal across our perforated fence, includes the criminal element that think they above above US law. Each day citizens are slain on the roads of America, by drunk illegal drivers. This is far from isolated case, because these accident reports are not necessary revealed by the biased press. Pedestrians have become 'road kill' daily, especially when the victims are innocent children. Do not expect to read about this carnage in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times. You need to dig deeper in rural newspapers or the e-media on the Internet, to find the unsuppressed facts.

Then we have the violent street gangs protected by 'Sanctuary cities' like Los Angeles. The unsuppressed news reports will tell you about the child pedophiles, female assaults, murders, robbers and Social security theft that do not get wide press. Thousands of families are left to pick up the pieces of their shattered lives. The pro-immigrant zealots use the same mantra, that citizens and legal residents commit these crimes also...? But why when we have our own inmate crowding our prisons, should we need to support illegal foreign nationals criminals. Today we cannot even deport them and breathe a sigh of relief, because it seems like days before the return via the porous fence to violate our penal laws.

It seems like our 'Rule of Laws' are violated everyday, because the business empire demands cheap labor. Our corrupt politicians play games with American lives because they refuse to enforce immigration laws. The all encompassing is the Federal SAVE ACT(H.R.4088) that Speaker Nancy Pelosi is all but derailed along with the original two-tier border fence.We need 'zero tolerance' enforcement, that will give maximum arrest and detainment of predator employers of illegal immigrants. They are the main pariah in our society who should be locked away, as without work millions of illegal aliens will leave our country unable to make any income. LARGE FINES, CONFISCATION OF BUSINESS ASSETS AND PRISON TERMS should be heavily enforced.

Because the inaction to obstruct illegal immigration by the Clinton administration and somewhat the Bush gang we have been buried under a real epidemic of illegal foreign nationals. Whether illegally here by overstaying their visa, jumping a ship or just slipping past our undermanned border security, they have become a financial burden to every American taxpayer. Because of the incompetence of our sitting governments since 1986 the barrage of millions of illegal entrance hasn't stopped, so individual counties, have enforced their own immigration policies under the Federal law called 287 (g).

Under the supervision of sworn U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcementofficers. Under 287(g), ICE provides state and local law enforcement with the training and subsequent authorization to identify, process, and when appropriate, detain immigration offenders they encounter during their regular, daily law-enforcement activity. Many states have also enacted employer sanction law,but needs the added teeth of the SAVE ACT, which will strengthen its enforcement power. The E-verify system which was the original infant of the Federal SAVE ACT (H.R.4088) has been intentionally derailed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and other anti-sovereignty Democrats. However, in this year of a damaged economy the E-Verify enactment has been given a lease on life for five months.

A new AMNESTY is in the works from President elect Obama, McCain which will flood America with even more of poor, illiterate foreign labor. McCain is a 'dark horse' because his original stand with pro-illegal immigrant groups. How can we trust either McCain to seal our border, when he is a hard-core globalist? Most globalists are open border, free market zealots, whose agenda is the free movement of cheap labor in the North American Continent, which under Bush's Imperial rule has decimated America's industrial base. Hopefully Obama and his thrall will renegotiate NAFTA, CAFTA and any other free trade treaties. Perhaps this way, farmers and many poor from South of the border will return to their farming communities. If not being drowned by the corporate agriculture that has eaten up the small farms in this nation. Free trade agreements have had a major damaging influence on both sides of the international Southern border, that from Mexico millions have sought refuge from a corrupt government, from drug dealers and desperate poverty, which our parasite businesses exploit. Our nation has become the the safety valve for our Southern neighbors, because without it the Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala and other nations could explode into civil unrest. The wealthy of foreign lands for countless years have saved themselves from potential revolution, by using America a scapegoat. Although in many ways our own governments are to blame for this problem that isn't going away.

AMERICANS HAVE BECOME A CASH COW FOR THE IMPOVERISHED OF CORRUPT FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS.

OBAMA WILL HAVE A WAR ON HIS HANDS IF HE TRIES TO IMPLEMENT A PATH TO CITIZENSHIP, OVER HONEST IMMIGRANTS WHO FILLED IN THE FORMS AND WAITED PATIENTLY IN OTHER COUNTRIES FOR THEIR RIGHT TO BE HERE.

CUT OFF STATE WELFARE PAYMENTS TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. 37 million people illegal aliens here, according to Tucson sector Border Patrol union local 2544--NOT 13 MILLION, AS THE NUMBERS HAVE BEEN MANIPULATED BY THE LIBERAL NATIONAL PRESS AND SPECIAL INTEREST LOBBY. An additional half-million coming every year.

TELL CALIFORNIA'S TAXPAYERS TO PASS (H.R.1942), TO TERMINATE ALL FREE WELFARE HANDOUTS TO ILLEGAL ALIENS! The corrupt LIBERAL-politicians and judiciary stole your future away from you by pandering to illegal foreign nationals.
It is estimated that the cost to supporting illegal aliens is over a $1trillion dollars a year in government handouts.
Read about www.judicialwatch.org winning court cases against parasite employers, illegal immigrant groups and corrupt politicians.
www.numbersusa.com is your HQ, to find the ugly facts not lies. www.capsweb.org has different petitions to fight the illegal alien pestilence.
Read about the unrevealed war going on at www.americanpatrol.com

Our future free of OVERPOPULATION, is up to YOU?

NUMBERSUSA. LIBERTY POST, IMMIGRATION NEWS INDEXER, JUDICIAL WATCH, UNIPAC, GRASSFIRE, ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION JOURNAL These sites report the news, not to be found in the restricted corporate media.

Bob| 11.28.08 @ 2:49PM

RSM, you missed the point AGAIN!!! Whether you realize it or not, Bush WON in 2000 and 2004. Moderation WON in 2000 and 2004. To believe otherwise is traveling a "low information" course. Rove knew that moving to the hard right could not win the election because he needed to bring in moderates and conservative Democrats. Do you really think Rove is not a conservative?

You also make the mistake of assuming that limited government and fiscal responsibility doesn't, by itself, significantly separate Republicans from Democrats -- it does.

You must be arguing to "low information" voters since anyone with reasonable intelligence would immediately see the fallacy of your specious argument.

Independents are certainly not any more "low information" voters than social conservatives or the rural white Appalachian voters who were the only ones to increase the Republicans vote count over 2004.

Your argument lacks intelligence and rigor and is totally ideological in nature. There is no thread of statistical proof that independents will vote for a hard right agenda. And without independents, Republicans will always lose. If there were, Steve Schmidt would have moved the campaign in that direction.

So, RSM, my challenge to you is to find some credible polling data that is statistically accurate to prove your point. And please don't use that misconstrued information that most people think of themselves as "conservative" when asked an open ended question. Polling has indicated that those people will vote either way.

Bob| 11.28.08 @ 3:14PM

RSM, if you want a logical and thoughtful piece on GOP positioning, look here:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/28/to-rebuild-the-gop/

Hawkins is an ideological hack who doesn't understand competent analysis. Further proof of anti-intellectualism in the current Republican party.

Mary | 11.28.08 @ 6:34PM

I appreciate these regular counters to the voices that declaim social conservatism as a sort of poison.

There's no doubt that the moderate part of the electorate is low-info and malleable. Every election the independents are interviewed -going back as far as '92 when I first started to move closer towards conservatism- and every election they remain unimpressive when called to address the issues in detail.

When I first registered to vote, I did so as an Independent, but when I moved to another City and had to re-register, I registered as a conservative.

This whole election and what I see as the crumbling of the Republican party forced me to ask myself what I really knew of the intellectual forefathers and roots of conservatism?

Over these past few weeks I've been studying. I began with an overview of the great thinkers and personalities who delivered and sustained the conservative movement. I've also been studying Popper and his Open Society. It's my understanding that Popper's work influenced Margaret Thatcher.

Anyway, Burke is amazing, as is de Tocqueville. Both more parliamentarian than authoritarian, and both staunch defenders and prophets of the doom of a deracinated society, and lovers of both the past and the future.

C.S. Lewis wrote this way of the middle class in one of his Screwtape letters:

"the Middle Class, the class who were prepared to save and spend and make sacrifices in order to have their children privately educated. The removal of this class, besides linking up with the abolition of education, is, fortunately, an inevitable effect of the spirit that says I'm as good as you. This was, after all, the social group which gave to the humans the overwhelming majority of their scientists, physicians, philosophers, theologians, poets, artists, composers, architects, jurists, and administrators. If ever there were a bunch of stalks that needed their tops knocked off, it was surely they."

Lewis warned of the insidiously false self-esteem mentality way back when.

I don't think our middle class today represents that same hardiness that Lewis depicts. Lewis' middle class families did not carry on average a debt of $9,000. That's an enslaved class that has forced the hardier and more responsible class to rescue them from themselves. And no politician can even speak to this because he's forced or prefers to follow the polls, and dares not tell the truth even to "tell it slant."

Following in Burke's shoes, and understanding that those who would trade experience for theory represent a "grave and gathering threat" to liberty, W.F. Buckley let loose with his famous quip about preferring to be ruled by the first 200 people in the phone book than by the faculty at Harvard.

I'm not a party person and never have been because "sometimes party asks too much." I reject the recent advice from the pundit class with everything inside of me, and I hope my fellow conservatives do the same.

Someone who commented here a few weeks back referred to conservatism as a philosophy and not an ideology. I agree that it's not an ideology, per se, but I don't think it's a philosophy either. And in my recent reading it's been referred to as a temperament, and that seems right.

I have to confess to not really being a huge fan of Reagan, perhaps more accurately, the cult of Reagan. But part of that is due to the fact that when he was King, I was disengaged from politics, and he was so despised by the left that perhaps, however unwittingly, some of that criticism influenced my take on him.

The following quote about Reagan was written by one of his speech writers. Who it was doesn't really matter:

"The battle for the mind of Ronald Reagan was like the trench warfare of World War I: never have so many fought so hard for such barren terrain."

Reagan's funeral was one of the most moving things I've ever seen on television. The love that he and Nancy bore for each other was extremely moving. She made sure he never suffered from being exposed to the cruelty of those who would take pleasure in the demise of his mental health.

I would imagine that being a speechwriter draws you close to someone, as you search to give words and lift to his thoughts and his feelings.

The speechwriter who betrayed Reagan in that quote was made of an inferior substance: “a must to avoid.”

Churchill is a very interesting man, with a more complex character and outlook than I had originally thought. Here’s what he wrote in 1903, when accusing the Conservative party of embracing plutocracy at the expense of Tory Democracy:

“The old Conservative party with its religious convictions and constitutional principles will disappear and a new party will arise…like perhaps the Republican party in the United States of America…rigid, materialist and secular, whose opinions will turn on tariffs and who will cause the lobbies to be crowded with the touts of protected industries.”

The Republican party today may still fit that description, I’m not sure, but I think you can add to that list of ills a greater love of centralization than found expression in the party that Churchill writes about.

I see this time as a time of freedom for conservatives. It would be a mistake not to take advantage of it. And it would be a mistake to forget that our opponents want their view to prevail and not ours. They're no more tolerant than we are; they're no more open minded. And, again, they want their values to prevail. They seek to discredit us, and they want us to remain silent or speak as little as possible about what we believe, and we absolutely cannot allow that.

I see this time as a time of freedom for conservatives. It would be a mistake not to take advantage of it. And it would be a mistake to forget that our opponents want their view to prevail and not ours. They're no more tolerant than we are; they're no more open minded. And, again, they want their values to prevail. They seek to discredit us, and they want us to remain silent or speak as little as possible about what we believe, and we absolutely cannot allow that.

Mary| 11.28.08 @ 6:37PM

Sorry for the repeat. I rearranged paragraphs and didn't realize I had done so twice.

ana| 11.28.08 @ 6:50PM

Mary your comments are so very well written and full of history that is unusual on a blog comment.
I'm with you about the meaning of conservatism.
Ideas like de Tocqueville's should be popularized once more.
In grad school, and a couple of profs. that I had, tried to disparage and force students into taking a position agains his views.
Guess what, they were from...Harvard, both angry black women a la Michelle Obama.
I wonder if Ken Blackwell, Micheal Steele, or anybody else out there is a REAL conservative....let's hope.

Jeremiah| 11.28.08 @ 7:43PM

Ana --

Yes, because those angry black women "a la Michelle Obama" are behind all our problems.

What are they so angry about anyway, I wonder?

Maybe dimwitted losers make incredibly stupid generalizations about them behind their backs. Maybe shallow and mean people project their disappointments and frustrations onto them all the time. Isn't that possible at least? Or maybe it's because every once in a while -- not so often anymore, thank God -- they just run into an ugly racist jerk like you. Maybe that's why they're "angry."

Mary| 11.28.08 @ 8:22PM

Ana, thanks for the kind words. I appreciate them, especially coming from a grad-school girl.

One of my greatest regrets is that I dropped out of college. I did return a few years ago. I took a course in American History and Philosophy. It was a very good State school in that high SAT scores were required for admission. I was paying for the courses out-of-pocket (without matriculating) and they couldn't care less what my ACT scores were.

The first day of class my philosophy professor let fly with criticism and jokes about Reagan, and as I mentioned, he's not a person who has influenced me much. But I was so incensed by the sheer bigotry and stupidity of his comments that I locked horns with him immediately.

I ended up with a good grade, because he wasn't a total cretin or that dishonest of a man. He was Italian, and I am too, and that enflamed me even more. As an aside, your comment did not come across as racist, so don't sweat the criticism.

But the whole experience, along with knowing that I'm probably well past the age of belonging in school, left me with no desire to return.

Even the Nuns and Priests who taught me, even taking into account their love of the faith and authority and fastidiousness, were so much more open-minded and secure than this professor was. It shocked me because I had been away from school for so long.

Camille Paglia has been railing against the kind of mentality of your professors for a very long time now. But she's a genuine intellectual, and a genuine intellectual is joyful no matter where or how she meets up with good thinkers.

Ana, as conservatives, we have to stick together, so thanks for the note and the vote of confidence.

All the best.

ruth| 11.28.08 @ 10:41PM

As usual, the only nasty, intolerant blogger here is the liberal, Jeremiah. Just remember, Jeremiah, when you point your accusing finger at others, three of your fingers are pointing back at you. I'll say a prayer for you, you need all the help you can get.

ruth| 11.28.08 @ 10:46PM

Bob, you are a democrat! You don't belong in the republican party. You are just giving yourself hypertension by fighting a losing battle. Just leave; you'll feel better.

Eric Dondero| 11.29.08 @ 8:32AM

We will achieve victory in 2010 and beyond with a stronger, more organized coalition of the Rightwing: both libertarians and conservatives. We don't need the moderates as much, as some on the Left are so thankfully advising us to do.

Though conservatives and libertarians have made great strides in recent years, in combining our efforts, and working together, suspicion still abounds among most libertarians, of the Republican Party. Witness the abject cynicism from the folks at Reason.

Conservatives can help by actively reaching out to the libertarian cousins. RS McCain does a fanastic job at this, and provides an outstanding example of libertarian/conservatism.

But other conservatives take a "ho-hum approach" believe, "ah, those libertarians... who needs 'em anyway."

You all do, that's who. You've got two choices: You can go moderate, or you can go libertarian. You cannot win this thing on y'all's own. You need one of the two of us in a coalition, and we all know that your views are much closer to us libertarians, than they are to the Mods.

dad29| 11.29.08 @ 8:59AM

Consider, however, that the (R) Party has already left Conservatives in the ditch--meaning that a number of Conservatives are actually "independent."

Are you saying that such Conservatives are "uninformed" blobs?

Bob| 11.29.08 @ 10:19AM

Eric, "conservatives" call libertarians "moderates". That's the problem. Most libertarians believe the government should not be involved with our lives and are truly pro-choice. So-cons are intolerant and call these people moderates even though they may be more conservative on fiscal and military issues. The only reason conservatives and libertarians have combined is that the party has put forth either "compassionate conservatives" like Bush or McCain. The second the party moves towards a dedicated so-con, you'll see the party split.

Thomas| 11.29.08 @ 10:52AM

Bob,

You do realize that there is a Libertarian Party in existence, don't you? It might be a better bet for you than the Republican Party. More kindred spirits, don't you think?

J.C Eaton| 11.29.08 @ 12:48PM

Bob, thank you for your civil and gracious response to an earlier post. Unhappily, you woke up this morning with that same vestigial scorn for so-cons. I don't understand your utter antipathy for us. You say we're intolerant but we try to act as religious people and for our trouble have had to deal with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, and Jerald Nadler and now the most abortifacient president in American history. None of these folks have shown the slightest inclination to compromise with us, to cross any aisles to "come together". Rather they seek to crush our perspective like grapes and are not reticent in doing so. You say we so-cons are anti-intellectual. That is silly. We are not against truthful education and although I speak for only myself I suspect that all so-cons want their children and grandchildren to enjoy the benefits of competent and broadly comprhensive authentic education. I just happen to think that the Ivy League has no monopoly on the commodityand that turning over national governance to Harvard is foolhardy and has gotten us nowhere. Bob, you[and you are certainly not alone here]use the word "hate" much too much. My father and grandfather had a cross burned across from their home and that sir, is hate. Criticizing Powell, Weld, andthe like for what we perceive is their repellant pusillanimousness is not. I tend to agree with you that the Republican party is dumbing down. But I don't equate that with so-cons but rather an excessive desire to be "liked' rather than respected. Sort of like an incompetent and ineffectual parent. Bob, you say we must be pragmatic. As you know that is an old and overused word that has come to mean "win' but really means cause and effect. Perhaps you mean to use the term in its "practical" sense, but this is an unappealing request. So-cons believe abortion is intrinsically evil and being the bright and even-handed guy you are, you will not accommodate what you believe to be evil either, not if you can help it. Judicial canons prohibit me from joining a partisan political orgaization. I do not regret the prohibition, I'm glad of it. And I agree with you that the Republican party is self-immolating, but the blame does NOT lie at the feet of the so-cons. Best, Judge E

Bob| 11.29.08 @ 1:38PM

Thomas, Libertarians have an extremist view of personal liberties to the extent of legalizing drug use and taking government out of virtually all areas including the FDA, FTC, etc. I believe that government has a purpose, albeit more limited than most progressives. Besides, being a Libertarian is a useless exercise. We are a two party system and you know it. It would make more sense to become an independent, but then I would have less fun here.

Judge E -- the problem is that we differ on the ideology but agree on the result. I would like to see fewer abortions. However, you won't work with me because your ideology doesn't like some of my solutions and you call me a "baby killer". So your intolerance makes the common result less possible. I don't want to change your beliefs, and I don't want you to change mine. That doesn't mean we can't work together for a common goal. However, so-cons will not let this occur -- and that is my big problem with their intolerance.

Your father faced racial hate, and I've been on the receiving end of antisemitism. I know the racial hate spewed on blacks because I grew up in a primarily black community -- (hint: I'm not young).

I want a better world for my grandchildren, and the intolerance and language I see from so-cons borders on hate. Do you really tolerate calling Obama "the messiah" or a marxist?

You and I will differ on the merits of different schools. I worked primarily in Fortune 100 companies during my career and can tell you that which school the manager came from did have an effect on their competence. Of course there are exceptions, but it was mostly true.

So yes, I think the so-cons shoulder part of the blame for the dumbing down of the Republican party...

J.C. Eaton| 11.29.08 @ 3:06PM

Bob, Bob, Bob, my friend. You are correct..we will differ forever. W e can bask in that reality. I need to correct one misperception though: my folks were white, they suffered the cross-burning because they were Catholics...in central Wisconsin of all places. The Klan didn't much care for Papists either. Best, Judge E

Jeremiah| 11.29.08 @ 3:15PM

In a day in age when a man could walk into NY city with a hydrogen bomb in a suitcase, libertarianism seems like a quaint but ultimately silly political philosophy.

For while libertarians provide for the country's defense in their view, they don't seem to understand that this nation's ability to defend itself results from a complex network of overlapping webs and bridges of soft and hard power, as does our ability to recover should the worst happen.

Our only hope of preventing massive terrorist attacks here is smart, dynamic, lively, responsive government.

The metaphors of "big" government (which Republicans condemn but support) and "small" government are increasingly meaningless.

We need smart people in government. The best thing about this past election is that people who express contempt or hostility for the whole idea of government were largely marginalized. Conservatives have much to offer, of course, but only if they don't begin with the idea that government is some kind of necessary evil. That is a foolish ideology whose hour is past.

ruth| 11.29.08 @ 4:50PM

Mr. Eaton, my mother grew up Catholic in Dayton, Ohio and she also faced threats from the klan. She would always wear her Crucifix under her clothing and often there were cross-burnings in her neighborhood. She still carries a lot of childhood fear because of that anti-catholic hate. No one ever talks about this, but it did happen to many Catholics at that time, and may be it's the reason I have such little tolerance for bigotry.

Richard| 12.1.08 @ 3:22AM

Of course, the obvious rejoinder to Hawkins is one of perception: Bush has been a big spender, and a lot more moderate across the board in his second term than most people realize; but the perception of him might be that he's been a catspaw of theocrats (and Halliburton, of course).

Likewise, McCain might be a pro-amnesty moderate, but he ended up being perceived (so the argument goes) as being leader of a militantly anti-immigrant party, and shamelessly jerked to the right to win social conservative votes.

Probably perception was part of the equation, at least among some centrist voters. Especially perhaps with Hispanics, who stood the best chance of a comprehensive amnesty-inclusive immigration reform if McCain had won. But then again, McCain suffered similar drops of support across the board.

It was going to be a tough year to win no matter who ran or how they campaigned. Whoever leads the party the next time around must manage the perennial feat just the same: articulate a clear vision which will keep conservatives on board while also appealing to (or not scaring away) centrist voters. And it could be argued that a more conservative (albeit personally attractive) candidate will have more ability to do so since he'll have the maneuvering room to broaden his appeal in the general election that McCain simply did not.

Richard| 12.1.08 @ 3:26AM

"I worked primarily in Fortune 100 companies during my career and can tell you that which school the manager came from did have an effect on their competence. Of course there are exceptions, but it was mostly true. "

And then again, Bush has an MBA from Harvard.

Bob| 12.1.08 @ 7:34AM

"And it could be argued that a more conservative (albeit personally attractive) candidate will have more ability to do so since he'll have the maneuvering room to broaden his appeal in the general election that McCain simply did not."

No it can't. That logic doesn't make any sense. To wit, McCain said all of the right things to make social conservatives happy yet he was still targeted as a liberal Republican. A strong, social conservative won't be able to induce moderates to vote for them for the same reason. Once the reputation is set, it is difficult to change. McCain was a weak choice, not for his stands, but because he couldn't run a competent campaign and more importantly, chose a loser like Palin as VP. This is verified by the exit polls.

"And then again, Bush has an MBA from Harvard."

I know a couple of professors from the business school. Bush graduated in the bottom third of his class. Once the business school accepts you, they are loathe to flunk you out, especially if you are a legacy admit.

Michael Dooley| 12.1.08 @ 9:31AM

Nice try, Bob. John McCain may...MAY... have "said all of the right things to make social conservatives happy "; but he has a much longer history of "stickin' it" to Conservatives in general and social Conservatives in particular at critical junctures. He also has served as the media's "go-to" guy whenever it needed an "open-minded" Republican to rebuke the Party and work to salvage defeat from the jaws of victory in crucial instances. What is more, McCain has had the horrible reputation of pledging his support to a fellow Republican Senator only to vote against that Senator a few hours later. In other words, McCain was unpredictable and his word was unreliable.

It takes more than a few sweet-nothings spoken before election day to lend any confidence in what will be done afterward. Trust is built not given. A leader builds trust by holding to and believing in a "code" . He wins loyalty by the confidence his community has that he will uphold and live out that code in the face of all enemies and challenges. I think a few other Republicans have problems on this score beside McCain.

As far as that elusive chase for "moderates" is concerned, I believe "moderates" exist as much as I believe unicorns exist. Go out and catch one yourself then bring it back alive. While you are on the hunt, you'll leave us alone. After so many years you'll come back empty handed telling us that it isn't worth the trouble.

Bob| 12.1.08 @ 12:16PM

Michael, again your argument is intellectually inconsistent. A hard right conservative will have a history of behaviors just like McCain. My point is that you won't be able to reach independents with that kind of history.

Your ranting about "moderates" is just a creation of hard right conservatives. You would call me a moderate but I'd consider myself a conservative. It would be hard to go to the right of me on limited government, fiscal responsibility, affirmative action, individual responsibility, strong borders, strong military. However, I am socially moderate in that I am strongly pro-choice, believe that religion should be out of government, think that gay marriage is fine, and believe we must address issues of poverty and healthcare in pragmatic, not ideological, ways.

Again, moderates are easy to find if I utilize the definition of so-cons. But so-cons are extremists in their views and can't argue an issue on its merits. It always boils down to belief versus pragmatism.