-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 39 comments
-
DeMint's Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant...And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Daniel Larison, in response to Bill Kristol's suggestion that Palin campaign for McCain in the Arizona Senate primary, writes:
Were she to side openly with McCain in a primary against Hayworth, whose views match up a lot more closely with her supporters’ views, she would be seen as imitating McCain’s worst habits. She would be considered a worse sell-out than McCain. She would be doing exactly the opposite of what she did in NY-23. Her intervention may have failed to elect Hoffman, but rank-and-file conservatives generally loved her for it anyway. She would fritter all that away if she backed McCain. In exchange for the contempt and disaffection of the people who currently adore her, she would win the enduring affection of editors at The Weekly Standard. McCain seems to be satisfied with this, but I doubt it would be enough for Palin.
There is not much nuance to Larison's thinking here. It's completely absurd to compare the NY-23 Congressional race to the Arizona Senate primary, because beyond the broad outlines -- a race between an establishment candidate and a conservative insurgent -- there are few similarities. Scozzafava was not a moderate, she was a liberal who ultimately endorsed the Democrat anyway. It was not a matter of one issue -- she held liberal views on abortion, pledged to vote for "card check," and called the cops on a reporter who asked whether she would vote for a health care bill that raised taxes. McCain is pro-life. He has been firmly against "card check" to the point where he has actually blocked the nomination of Craig Becker to serve on the National Labor Relations Board (Becker is an SEIU lawyer who has written that "card check" could be implemented by the NLRB without Congressional action). He voted against the economic stimulus bill. And he has been adamantly against the health care bill. There's also the distinction between losing a single House seat and losing a Senate seat that could mean the difference between giving Obama a rubber stamp in the Senate or perhaps gaining a few seats next year to be able to effectively block anything major that Obama proposes. And while it was realistic to think that Hoffman could have a chance of winning, there's less reason to believe that J.D. Hayworth -- who couldn't win a Congressional race -- could win statewide. Now, I've had my share of issues with McCain over the years and am not going to argue that he's a perfect conservative. And for those who see immigration as such a crucial issue to them that they have to support Hayworth as a matter of conscience, I'm not going to tell them not to. But for Larison to sugeest that for Palin to keep in the good graces of her base, she has to back the more conservative candidate in every single race, no matter what other circumstances are in play, is totally ludicrous.
If there's one thing I've learned about Palin supporters -- especially when I've criticized her -- it's that they are generally very forgiving of her and willing to cut her a lot of slack. Ever since she burst onto the scene, I've been trying, to no avail, to argue that we shouldn't compare her to Ronald Reagan when he spent decades studying conservative philosophy and defending it and served two terms as governor of California, and she has a very slim governing record and it's unclear whether she's really a committed small government conservative. Even though I avoid the personal vitriol that has consumed much of the anti-Palin commentary and try to raise what I see as fair questions about her qualifications to be president, her acceptance of pork spending, her initial support for the "Bridge to Nowhere," etc., I'm brandished an elitist RINO who should shut up and go back to my brie and chablis. This is a long way of saying that it would take a lot more than backing McCain over Hayworth for Palin's supporters to view her as a "sell-out."
View all comments (29) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/11/21/mccain-is-not-scozzafava-and-p
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Herbert Hoover's Long-Awaited Magnum Opus
- The United Nations' Rogue Agency
- Background to the Financial Crisis
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
DrTomVoter| 11.21.09 @ 9:53AM
The elitism has nothing to do with wine and cheese, it's about you telling me how I would react.
Eric Dondero| 11.21.09 @ 9:55AM
You're right Phillip, Palin shouldn't be compared so much to Reagan. As wonderful as Reagan was, he was also a Drug Warrior, appointed adament Social Conservatives like Ed Meese to Cabinet level positions, allowed Draft protesters like libertarian Paul Jacob to be thrown in jail, and was weak on Spending Cuts.
Palin is a libertarian, more like Goldwater than Reagan. She's consistently libertarian, unlike Reagan, who was only 80% there.
As much as I loved Reagan, Palin is far superior in every aspect.
Pingback| 11.21.09 @ 10:06AM
Filing Tax - WESLEY SNIPES WANTS HIS TAX CONVICTIONS OVERTURNED - Showbizspy.com « Fi links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.21.09 @ 10:16AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : McCain is Not Scozzafav links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Bob| 11.21.09 @ 10:57AM
Philip, wear the "Elitist RINO" badge proudly. Palin backers are either opportunistic or unintelligent/uneducated. In any event, they are not rational.
And Eric, Palin is not really a libertarian. She doesn't know enough about the issues to be a true libertarian. Don't confuse what it takes to get elected in Alaska as libertarianism. True libertarians support gay marriage, pro-choice, and limited government. Goldwater was a heck of a lot more libertarian than Palin. When the going gets tough, Palin quits. Is that who you want running the country?
Truth to Power| 11.21.09 @ 12:20PM
Palin is not too friendly to gay marriage and 3/5 Bob is not too friendly to her. What a surprise. What a single issue troll. 3/5 Bob should be reading all the time trying to make up for what was clearly a wasted primary and secondary education.
Eric Dondero| 11.21.09 @ 11:24AM
Excuse me Bob, but what do you know about libertarianism? What gives you the right to judge who is and who is not "really" a libertarian??
You're speaking to one of the Nation's Top 5, if not Number One libertarian activist Bub, oh, scuze me, I meant Bob.
I've got 25+ years of hardcore libertarian activism under my belt, including working as a personal aide to two former Libertarian Party Presidential candidates Roger MacBride and Ron Paul, getting Ron Paul elected to Congress in 1996 as his campaign coordinator, going on to serve as his Senior Aide for 6 years in Congress, over 30 past Libertarian Party ballot drives, including petitioning in 7 States as the LP's TOP! Petitioner in 2008, two years serving on the Libertarian National Comm., Founder of the Republican Liberty Caucus, first RLC Chairman and first RLC Dir., over 50 Libertarian and Libertarian Republican campaigns, ect... ect... ect...
I don't recall running into you in Western Nebraska when it was 16 degrees outside collecting signatures for Property Rights initiatives.
I was there in 2006 in Anchorage when Sarah first won. I was right there, by her side waving a sign in 12 degree weather on a busy street corner 3 days before the election.
I remember establishment Republicans reluctant to vote for her cause according to them, "she wasn't really a Republican, but rather a closted Libertarian..." I remember her receiving criticism for having attended a couple Libertarian Party meeting in Anchorage as a candidate that year.
Don't you dare tell me that Sarah Palin is not a libertarian.
I get to decide who is and who is not a libertarian. Not Newbies armchair libertarian wannabees like you.
Now scoot... You're stinking up the place.
Eric Dondero, Publisher
Libertarian Republican
Bob| 11.21.09 @ 12:11PM
Eric, let me quote from the OFFICIAL Libertarian platform:
1.1 Expression and Communication
We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.
1.2 Personal Privacy
We support the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating "crimes" without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.
1.3 Personal Relationships
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.
1.4 Abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
So, is Sarah really a Libertarian????? She's much more of an extreme right wing, populist, anti-intelligence, fringe Republican, than a Libertarian. What are you????
SoCon| 11.23.09 @ 1:24AM
Bob is a liberal who loves abortion and pretends to be a republican. Bob is a troll, and a loser.
Westmiller| 11.22.09 @ 2:23AM
You were being paid to be in Alaska and you were charmed by a hug from a Beauty Queen.
Palin is libertarian???!!!
She supported billions of dollars in "excise tax" on all of the oil we buy from Alaska, then passed out $1,000 checks to Alaskan voters. That's two strikes against her on just one program. She quickly fell into line behind McCain in supported the bank bailout, global warming, and a dozen other positions that were so far from libertarian that you'd have to put her in a category with Al Gore.
Palin is a stupid hillbilly who couldn't put two coherent sentences back-to-back without a teleprompter. There are lots of reasons why her approval ratings have dropped by 30%, but the main one is that she moves her lips.
Beyond being a fickle, hairbrained TWILF who is everyone's favorite clown, she wouldn't recognize a principle if she tripped over it. You'd be better off rooting for a former New York cross-dressing Mayor than this Alaskan ditz.
Eric Dondero| 11.22.09 @ 8:28AM
Ahh, Westmiller, the elitists snob Los Angeles-based failed Actor who couldn't even bring himself to come to the last Republican Liberty Caucus National Convention in Jax last Spring, even though he was still THE FRIGGIN' NATIONAL CHAIRMAN OF THE GROUP!!! chimes in.
And he joins his fellow NeoCons like David Brooks and David Frum in bashing Palin, cause, well, um, ya know she didn't go to the "right schools," and talks with a funny "hillbilly" accent.
Yupper, NeoCon elitism, that's a sure winner for the future of the GOP. As everyone knows, the more you look down your nose at a potential voter, the more they're more likely to vote for ya.
You betcha!
Westmiller| 11.23.09 @ 12:40AM
LOL ... you can't even get your ad-hominem insults correct!!
I've never been a professional Actor; never been anything remotely like a NeoCon; don't like Brooks or Frum; and have never been called an elitist by anyone who knows me.
Of course, there's no doubt that Palin attended school, even five colleges (!!), but her grades have been sealed in granite. I doubt that she ever passed an English class, where you learn to speak in complete sentences.
Of course, you intentionally avoid commenting on her political positions, which make her a first-class (as though she had any class) statist.
Janie| 11.23.09 @ 1:28AM
Screw you, Westmiller; you lie about Palin being a statist. She's a muckraker who fought corruption in Alaska; including corruption in Big Oil. You're probably one of the cheats Sarah outed. LOL.
Dirtbag trolls like you are a dime a dozen and worth even less. Loser.
Westmiller| 11.23.09 @ 3:01PM
She used vague "muckraker" ethics rules to oust a Republican Party Chairman, but they came back to bite her 10 fold, and she's never stopped complaining about the rules SHE supported.
The only reason there is and continues to be "corruption in Big Oil" in Alaska is that the state "communized" all oil reserves, claiming that the state owned them "on behalf of" the citizens. That's Marxism and just as bad as anything Obama has proposed.
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.21.09 @ 11:45AM
Mr. Klein
Excellent balance there.
May I again go back to my time travel machine and hop us into a possible future?
Six months from now, we step out of the machine and check in on American Spectator. The article headlines read:
1. Extended Families all across America crowding under one roof To Share Costs.
2. Midwest and Northeast Experiencing critical fuel shortages
3. National Health Insurance Companies go "Mutual" Under New York Life Ins. and Mass. Mutual et al. ((Excess premiums returned in dividends.
4. Hundreds of thousands of American Doctors Take "Sabbatical" for further Training.
5. Food Riots in Major US inner Cities Prevent Food Deliveries
6. Tax Revenues Continue To Plummet
7. National Republican Committee Slogan "Repeal It All."
8. Terrorist Attacks Continue To Plague Public Gatherings
9. America Plunged Into Martial Law
10. Sarah Palin Addresses Emergency State Governors' Conference. Calls for Constitutrional Convention.
11. American Spectator Speaks Out for (zzzzzt)
SandyC| 11.21.09 @ 12:40PM
Mr. Klein- You seem to be forgetting that pesky poll that came out a little while ago claiming that 40% identify themselves as conservatives. I suspect that number will only increase as the Obama administration shoves socialism, bankrupcy and less freedoms down our throats. You mention the positions McCain holds now as being Republican positions, and, they are. Being up for reelection next year has pulled him a little more to the center, from his usual leftist ideas. There aren't many who are dumb enough to know that should he win reelection, he would run right back to the left of the aisle. If Palin backed McCain at all in his reelection bid, she would lose a tremendous amount of the support she now has. As to Billy, I've never predicted anything correctly, Kristol, he has seemed to be in support of Palin, but, has been conflicted between that admiration, and, his moderate RINO friends in Washington. She should remain on the outside and not involve herself in the AZ election. She owes McCain nothing, she would have gained popularity on her own, just at a time when the country is begging for common sense conservatism. The pendlum swings equally both ways, and, the only way it would stop in the moderate middle, is if someone puts their hand in front of it. Right about now, I just don't see that happening.
Interested Conservative| 11.21.09 @ 12:46PM
Mr. Klein is spot on - this is easy for Gov. Palin.
1 - Sen. McCain is much more conservative than most realize, even after last years exposure. His lapses are very obvious and almost as rare.
2 - It allows Gov. Palin to solidify the loyalty aspects of her appeal, showing it to her ultimate political sponsor, and a bonus when they compare their maverickness, which should be very appealing during the '10 races.
Finally, what are the downsides here - disgruntled Hayworth followers, "rogue" credibility, political compromise? None of the above.
Bob| 11.21.09 @ 1:11PM
Actually, IC, the downside is that Arizona's Hispanic population has grown dramatically and Palin will turn them off. McCain has always supported immigration reform to get this Hispanic vote. Without it, he and any other Republican might well lose. What is good in the primary may well be death in the general.
Eric Dondero| 11.21.09 @ 2:55PM
Bub, the Libertarian Party is the Libertarian Party. It does not represent the entire Libertarian movement. Much as Cato or Reason don't represent the entire movement. Guess you've never heard of the Republican Liberty Caucus, or the Libertarian Defense Caucus.
The Libertarian movement is vast and broad, and includes folks such as Pamela Geller, Geert Wilders and other hardline Anti-Islamo-Fascist Pro-War in Iraq and Pro-War in Afghanistan activists.
In fact, Rand Paul!!! just the other day issued a press release slamming Obama for his decision to bring 9/11 Terrorists to NYC.
Yes, that Rand Paul. The very same son of the famed Isolationist Ron Paul.
Oh, and Rand is working on inviting FELLOW LIBERTARIAN Sarah Palin to come campaign for him in his Kentucky Senate race.
Again Bub, you don't know Jack about us Libertarians, so stop trying to tell us Real Libertarians what our movement is all about.
Bob| 11.21.09 @ 3:36PM
Eric, do you just make these things up???? First, you called Palin a Libertarian and when I showed you that the Libertarian platform is not what she supports, you backtrack. Then, you call Rand Paul a "Libertarian". He doesn't even call himself a libertarian. Here is what he said in an interview:
Washington Wire: Do you consider yourself a libertarian?
Paul: I call myself a constitutional conservative. I see myself as sort of, part of this insurgency that’s out there, the way [former Florida state legislator Marco] Rubio is a conservative and fighting against an established moderate like [Gov. Charlie] Crist. Our race in Kentucky is going to shape up to be very similar.
Face it, Eric, you are not a true Libertarian -- you're a wannabe.... or perhaps a Republican who is a libertarian on a couple of issues. A true libertarian would be disgusted at both Democrats and Republicans as I am. They would be after the truth and not one-sided diatribes like Palin.
You've proven that you know less about true libertarians than you think...
Eric Dondero| 11.22.09 @ 8:34AM
G-damned you're dumb. Look, I'll say this again. Come closer to the computer screen so you might have a shot of actually comprehending what I'm about to say...
THE LIBERTARIAN MOVEMENT IS VAST AND BROAD AND INCLUDES MANY DISPARATE ELEMENTS!!!
Rand calls himself a "Constitutional Conservative." Great! That's well within the "libertarian" family. As are "Western Conservatives," Individualists, Ayn Randians, Paleos, Pro-War Libertarians, Libertarian Party members, Cato-ites, Reasonoids, Anarcho-Capitalists, Christian Libertarians, Pro-Choice Republicans, Log Cabin GOPers, 10th Amendment advocates, Glenn Beck-ites, Tea Party Patriots, Tax Protesters, Ron Paul Gold Bugs/Anti-Federal Reserve advocates et.al.
They all fall comfortably under the LIBERTARIAN umbrella.
SoCon| 11.23.09 @ 1:38AM
True enough, Eric; HuffPo Bob the Wonder 'RINO' is stupid as a stump! Ignore the old coot, he's a senile old liberal troll who has too much time on his hands. Bob has never figured out that it's impossible to be a social liberal and a fiscal conservative at the same time.
It seems to escape the old tard that only fiscal irresponsibility via massive tax hikes can pay for all of his liberal social programs. Like I said, stupid as a stump and never met an abortion he didn't love.
HuffPo Bob's a liberal who claims otherwise.
America, a Republic| 11.21.09 @ 5:04PM
Boy, are we in for a LONG struggle...
Pingback| 11.21.09 @ 9:16PM
Hosiery makes a comeback | Penn State News | Arts & Entertainment … | Lingerie Beauty links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
J.A. Kenyon| 11.21.09 @ 10:23PM
Hey Dondero, why don't you go back to your prostitutes? Ever learn the difference between a libertine and libertarian? I'll give you a hint: you are the former, not the latter.
Eric Dondero| 11.22.09 @ 8:36AM
And "libertines," are most definitely part of the broader libertarian family.
In case you missed it, we Libertarians support legalized Prostitution, Swinger's Rights, Uncensored Rock Music, Marijuana legalization and oppose Muslim stoning of Homosexuals.
Libertine = Libertarian
Carl| 11.22.09 @ 1:01AM
First, McCain is NOT, NOT, NOT a conservative. Anyone who asserts he is a conservative is oblivious to reality.
Second, McCain regularly scores points with the liberal media by attacking fellow Republicans, especially conservatives.
Third, McCain is for amnesty for illegal aliens. I know he is trying to dance around the issue, but, that is his position,
Fourth, he was the critical vote in the horrible TARP legislation. Without his support, it would have failed.
I could go on an on (I'm from Arizona), but, McCain needs to be defeated!
Dave Nalle| 11.23.09 @ 9:39AM
First off, anyone who thinks McCain is not a conservative is completely ignorant of his voting record. He's a social conservative and a fiscal conservative, he just has a very few pragmatic lapses, or in some cases conscious moves in a more libertarian election. Of course, Scozzafava was much more conservative/libertarian than she was portrayed as too.
As for Palin, she's not a doctrinaire libertarian. She's a conservative with strong libertarian leanings, and while that makes her appealing to some it makes her seem like a traitor to straight, hardcore libertarians. The fact is that for a libertarian to be electable or to function in a major public office like Governor of Alaska, they need to compromise on some issues, and that would describe Palin to a T. You're not liable to get an electable candidate much more libertarian than Palin is in the near future. Her shortcomings are more in the area of experience and competence than ideology.
Of course, no one is ever libertarian enough to satisfy true hardcore libertarians. If you follow these things, there's now a huge backlash against Rand Paul just because he said that maybe if we had a declaration of war we could keep some troops in Afghanistan. That makes him an instant neocon who worships Bill Kristol in the minds of the doctrinaire libertarians who have failed to make any progress in national politics for 30 years because of their complete ideological inflexibility.
Dave