-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 38 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
As I’ve said before, I totally understand why conservatives support ousting Sen. John McCain, but I don’t understand why any conservative would want to defend J.D. Hayworth. I hadn’t intended to say much more about the matter than I did last week, but in view of Quin’s continued defenses of Hayworth on the blog, I feel compelled to respond.
For one thing, Quin suggests that Hayworth is a “solid conservative” despite caving into the demands of the party bosses and voting in favor of Bush’s big government agenda. But I would argue that a key test of whether somebody is a true conservative is whether he is willing to choose conservative principles over the demands of the party. Yet as Matt Lewis summarized:
Hayworth’s support of Bush’s big-government polices included voting for the No Child Left Behind Act; the paperwork- and red-tape-friendly (and business-unfriendly) Sarbanes-Oxley Act; the pork-laden 2005 highway bill that included the infamous “bridge to nowhere”; and, most expensive of all, a Medicare drug benefit that created more than $7 trillion in unfunded liabilities. What is more, his support for a monstrosity known as the 527 Reform Act, which was intended to close “loopholes” in McCain/Feingold, and which was arguably worse for conservatives than the original article.
Quin argues that Hayworth’s lifetime ACU rating means it’s “case closed” as far as Hayworth’s conservatism is concerned. But I find such ratings fairly useless when evaluating candidates, because there’s a lot they don’t tell you. They won’t tell you, for instance, that Hayworth was the leading recipient of contributions linked to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Or that just after losing his House seat, he shilled for a company that offered seminars on how people could exploit the ballooning federal budget to get “free” money for government. (If you haven’t already watched it, you can see him featured in the cringe-inducing infomercial, here.) But the Hayworth embarassments don’t end there. He’s dabbled in conspiracies, calling for President Obama to produce his birth certificate on national television. Liberals have launched a campaign to define conservatives as extremists by trying to focus on fringe elements within the movement, such as birthers. The right will make that job easier if Republicans not only nominate Hayworth, but conservatives embrace him as one of their own. Though Hayworth subsequently said that Obama was born in the United States, the fact that he publicly flirted with birtherism on MSNBC, at the very minimum, does not speak well of his communication skills.
As far as the National Review’s decision to endorse McCain, I personally don’t think it makes much sense for national political magaizines to endorse candidates in Senate races, and think they should have stayed neutral. It’s hard to defend McCain as a conservative. If you want to argue, as Jim has, that Hayworth is a deeply flawed candidate, but one who may be worth supporting anyway just to send a message that conservatives won’t be doormats anymore, then that’s one thing. But I find Quin’s outright defenses of Hayworth rather unconvincing.
View all comments (54) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/07/02/hayworths-record-warrants-scor
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
darcy| 7.2.10 @ 1:50PM
The idea here, Mr. Klein, is not to shrink under the withering and dismissive glare of the democrat-media complex (as your birther paragraph suggests) but rather to show how bankrupt their ideas are (pun absolutely intended).
Your comments suggest that WE should take our cues from the Left -- whose primary object is to paint us as loons no matter what we do; in fact, the more normal our ideas are, the more they villify us. Nope. When the dmc goes after us I know immediately that we're doing something right; just call it my default position.
As for John McCain v JDH. It's not even close. Amnesty John is no friend of AZ, nor to the nation. I live in SoAz and I'm not the least bit tempted to give Johnny another chance after he showed his true colors in the 2007 push for CIR.
Go on over to NRO and read Andrew McCarthy's piece on JM, if you care to know how I and others like me think of 'ol Johnny boy.
A Balrog of Morgoth| 7.2.10 @ 1:56PM
Basically, we are choosing between two turds here.
Do the Rats have a viable candidate to oppose the one we decide not to flush?
Bruce | 7.4.10 @ 6:45PM
Which is basically why the GOP will continue to be the minority party until they wake up and smell the Tea brewing. We are TIRED of picking the better(?) of 2 evils.
Al Adab| 7.2.10 @ 2:04PM
McCain-Kennedy
McCain-Feingold
How does one explain that away? We followed him to defeat. Why follow him again?
Charles| 7.4.10 @ 12:23PM
because no matter which way you slice it, JD has far more to explain away...JD has more corruption, more big spending, more lies and deception then McCain could ever have. JD has such a poor record on spending and an even more poor record of ethics. Those focused on spending even a tiny bit of time researching politics before voting know that McCain is by far the best choice. I could spend my day listing JD's scandals!
Matt X| 7.2.10 @ 2:13PM
Michelle Malkin slapped down the Matt Lewis column that Klein and National Review are using as source authority on Hayworth, and a lot of the assertions that Matt Lewis made about McCain's just are not true.
The reality is...most of the anti-Hayworth guys are just worried about the birtherism thing, which I think they overstate, is going to do damage to the GOP. In other words, this election is more about an image than the issues.
I can't say that I'm surprised that a guy that incredibly said the liberal Washington Post was "spineless" in letting go a callow unprofesional blogger punk in Weigel is not so forgiving of J.D. Hayworth for his failings.
Margie| 7.2.10 @ 2:47PM
Kudos to Michelle Malkin once again. You can always rely on her to speak truthfully. As for the Left, and some so called conservatives and J.D. Hayworth~ as a general rule it goes like this: the more real you are, the more they hate you.
Go J.D.!
Matt Heath| 7.2.10 @ 2:18PM
From Redstate.com:
Let's Look at the Facts, Rather than Democrat Attacks
Posted by Brian Faughnan
My friend Matt Lewis pens a piece today about the coming primary between John McCain and former Representative JD Hayworth. I suppose it’s a preview of how McCain plans to try to split Hayworth from his conservative base. But if this is the best that McCain can do, then he’s headed for trouble.
First off, full disclosure: I have liked JD Hayworth since my days on Capitol Hill, and I had the chance to work with him and his staff (a little) on taxes and other legislation. I like JD because he tells it like he sees it, and he embraces conservative values down to his core. I respect and admire John McCain, and I appreciate the great work he has done for conservative causes at times in his career. However, I know - and anyone who has watched McCain knows - that if he is re-elected, he will at some point in the next 6 years work against conservatives and with liberals on energy taxes, free speech restrictions, or God-knows what other liberal cause suddenly consumes him. I believe that given the choice of a genuine conservative, and a conservative-when-voters-demand-it, conservatives should back the former - JD Hayworth.
Matt does not try to argue that McCain is more conservative than Hayworth, but that Hayworth isn’t ‘a conservative hero.’ It’s worth noting that Hayworth’s lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union is 98% - compared to 81% for McCain. And if you look at McCain’s ratings from groups like the ACU and others, you’ll note that in between elections there are years when his ratings drop considerably - because McCain is a maverick who has often worked against conservatives during his years in the Senate.
There’s an allegation that Hayworth is a big spender. Really? His rating from Citizens Against Government Waste is 89% while John McCain’s is 88% - a wash. Despite his rhetoric, John McCain is not without major spending problems. Consider his response to the economic crisis.
McCain voted for the $850 billion bailout bill that contained $150 billion in special interest earmarks. He called the bill “an obscenity,” but voted for it anyway, saying it was necessary. To make matters worse, McCain also proposed spending $300 billion to buy up every bad mortgage in America, a plan worthy of Barack Obama, and one the National Review called “a full bailout for lenders” that would let “reckless types off the hook” while putting taxpayers on it.
Who’s the big spender here?
And there was John McCain just yesterday on Good Morning America talking up tax cuts, worrying that the Bush tax cuts will expire, and reminiscing about the Gipper: “If you cut people’s taxes I think it stimulates the economy. We certainly found that out with President Reagan.” This sounds suspiciously like another election year conversion.
Two points here. First, John McCain voted against both the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, arguing that they were tax cuts for the rich. Second, McCain wasn’t always so fond of Reagan’s economic record. According to the Washington Post, “In December 1994, after his party swept to control of Congress on tax-cut promises, [McCain] challenged Ronald Reagan’s legacy when he warned, ‘I think we would be making a terrible mistake to go back to the ’80s, where we cut all of those taxes and all of a sudden now we’ve got a debt that we’ve got to pay on an annual basis that is bigger than the amount that we spend on defense.’”
Does that sound like a supply-sider to you?
Matt says that that Hayworth won’t buck his leadership because he supported the 527 Reform Act along with 208 of his Republican colleagues (just 20 voted “No”). (Let’s first note that there would have been no 527 Reform Bill if not for McCain-Feingold.) But how can it credibly be argued that Hayworth is too likely to go along with leadership in violation of conservative principle, when Hayworth was more responsible than anyone in Congress for defeating George Bush’s amnesty proposal?
No one in Congress did more to derail the amnesry than Hayworth - and he paid a price for his opposition. It is worth noting that when Hayworth publicly came out against McCain’s amnesty plan, McCain’s office responded by threatening to badmouth Hayworth in the media over Jack Abramoff. He could have folded, but he didn’t and all conservatives owe him a debt of gratitude for doing so much to defeat that effort.
And regarding Abramoff, Matt’s facts are off. First, it is simply not true that Hayworth was “heavily involved” with Abramoff; he certainly was less involved with Abramoff than McCain was with Charles Keating. And it is demonstrably untrue that he was the “largest recipient of campaign money from Abramoff.” That’s simply a phony Democratic talking point.
Hayworth has said he never had a meeting with Jack Abramoff. I’ve never seen an argument to the contrary. And Abramoff’s contributions to Hayworth’s campaign and PAC totalled $2,250 - nothing after 1999.
To me, the central question Arizona primary voters must decide is who is going to represent them better in the Senate for the next 6 years. Do they want to elect someone with a strong record of adherence to conservative values, or do they want to elect someone who seems to have been an adversary as often as he has an ally? As I pointed out earlier, Arizona conservatives who support John McCain know that if he is re-elected, they will regret their vote sometime in the next 6 years. Will it be because of cap-and-trade, or amnesty, or taxes, or Guantanamo Bay, or terrorist interrogation, or - who knows - traditional marriage?
Do Arizona conservative really want to play Charlie Brown, and fall for Lucy and the football… again?
Matt X| 7.2.10 @ 2:21PM
This Klein guy needs to go. He's a phony.
Davis Born| 7.2.10 @ 2:41PM
Thank you Matt X. I was waiting for someone to say that Philip Klein must go. I'm not sure if Reagan would fit in the American Spectator's big tent, filled as it is with large blowhards like Quin Hillyer.
Anyway, I hope that an intelligent writer like Klein will end up at an intelligent conservative publication like the Weekly Standard.
Oldefarte| 7.2.10 @ 2:45PM
I agree with Matt Heath, Red State and Quin. McCain is an honorable war hero but it's time for him to go. He's played BRING THE PIZZA/CIGAR with the Democrats too many previous times [like many other long time incumbents]. Arizonoans should elect JD!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Matt X| 7.2.10 @ 2:45PM
Intelligent people don't have friends like Dave Weigel. Just the way it is, guy. Weekly Standard is pretty much big government Republicanism these days, and Klein is no doubt a better fit over there.
Matt X| 7.2.10 @ 2:58PM
I must say that I laugh when some liberal or disgruntled liberal wants to tell me Reagan would not like a conservative like Quin Hillyer, or that Reagan would not be accepted by conservatives like Quin Hillyer. This is absurd. I think Reagan would have a lot of criticisms of McCain. It's amazing how shameless libearls and phony conservatives in using Reagan and Buckley as political props now that they are no longer around.
Davis Born| 7.2.10 @ 3:03PM
I wouldn't pretend to know how Reagan would feel about anything, and I'm quite sure he would have liked Quin Hillyer. I'm sure Quin is a good guy.
However, Reagan's '86 tax compromise with Bill Bradley, et al. would likely have caused today's conservative cybergeeks to demand his excommunication. Today's conservatives long for a purity that is incompatible with reality.
darcy| 7.3.10 @ 2:51PM
What a strange and schizophrenic comment, Davis, that "Today's conservatives long for a purity that is incompatible with reality," when conservatism itself is grounded in reality and is based on the wisdom and traditions of the past and informed by both natural law and natural right. Meanwhile, the Left is utterly utopian and seeks to throw out the entire notion of cause and effect, as in: unwanted pregnancy? get an aborton; too lazy to work? the state will provide; union pension obligations dragging down your business? the taxpayers will bail you out. Suspending the laws of cause and effect is what the Left is all about -- that's why modern liberalism runs countries into the ground.
What today's conservatives long for is for pols who are not conservative to stop claiming they are; what we long for is for conservative pols to be a foil to liberals -- not their bipartisan buddies, working together to rearrange the deck chairs on the sinking Titanic; we want them to demand that Captain Smith change course before it's too late.
The ship is sinking. That's the reality. All true conservatives acknowledge that reality.
James Tackett| 7.2.10 @ 2:59PM
It's fun to watch this spat between Klein and Hillyer, but we all know McCain will win. Only question is by how much. I wouldn't waste my time getting excited about "FREE MONEY" Hayworth.
Matt X| 7.2.10 @ 3:02PM
Do you get excited about tax hike McCain? Bailout McCain? Amnesty McCain?
Cliff| 7.2.10 @ 6:34PM
McCain has never voted for a tax increase.
Joe| 7.3.10 @ 4:05AM
McCain hack, stop defending the old a-hole.
James Tackett| 7.2.10 @ 3:15PM
If you're asking me, the answer is no.
Matt X| 7.2.10 @ 3:16PM
I'm pretty sure I don't need an Obama supporter like Davis Born telling me what we would do with Reagan. Right now, I would fricking vote for Lindsey Graham over Obama, so your "purity" talking point is stale and warmed over. It's not 2008, anymore, and people are sick of leftwingers like you. You like McCain because he was a loser. I understand that.
Davis Born| 7.2.10 @ 3:22PM
I'm not an Obama supporter, and I'm not a big fan of McCain. I just happen to think that J.D. Hayworth is unworthy of sitting in the United States Senate. For what it's worth, I'm guessing Arizona agrees with me.
Matt X| 7.2.10 @ 3:16PM
James,
Good to see you think about the issues from time to time. Keep it up.
Matt X| 7.2.10 @ 3:27PM
I always scoff when liberals trot out the "purity" talking point, given their hatred of Joe Lieberman, who is a down the line liberal outside of not hating Israel and his support for the Iraq war.
The same liberals and faux conservatives that use the "purity" talking point about conservatives are also the same ones that were using the "the GOP is irrelevant and will never win again" a year ago prior to Republicans win in VA, NJ, and Mass.
It should also be pointed out that I, and moost of McCain's critics, voted for him, despite the fact he's probably not even 50% pure on the big issues that matter to conservatives. We understand that you have to make a choice, and McCain would be far better than Obama, only because he's not Obama.
Matt X| 7.2.10 @ 3:29PM
Most Americans also voted for Obama. Most Americans now oppose his agenda. We are fickle, aren't we? I wouldn't stake my positions to what "the people" do. :)
James Tackett| 7.2.10 @ 3:33PM
I do think about the issues from time to time. While I disagreed with McCain on the Bush tax cuts, it's hard to argue his reasoning. Or, did I miss the spending cuts? And, no, tax cuts do not always pay for themselves. Even Arthur Laffer admits as much. The bailouts are too complicated for a comment section, but I will say that TARP was necessary and productive. We need immigration reform, but we're not going to get it, and until we do, I sympathize with Arizona.
Have a nice Fourth of July weekend.
Matt X| 7.2.10 @ 3:35PM
It's easy to argue with his reasoning, and Laffer did it himself in a recent column.
You are a liberal, just embrace it. No need to be insecure about it. Free country.
Matt X| 7.2.10 @ 3:39PM
Let's let Laffer speak for himself, since liberals and deficit hawks have grown fond of using him as a prop against tax cuts in recent weeks:
By ARTHUR LAFFER
People can change the volume, the location and the composition of their income, and they can do so in response to changes in government policies.
It shouldn't surprise anyone that the nine states without an income tax are growing far faster and attracting more people than are the nine states with the highest income tax rates. People and businesses change the location of income based on incentives.
Likewise, who is gobsmacked when they are told that the two wealthiest Americans—Bill Gates and Warren Buffett—hold the bulk of their wealth in the nontaxed form of unrealized capital gains? The composition of wealth also responds to incentives. And it's also simple enough for most people to understand that if the government taxes people who work and pays people not to work, fewer people will work. Incentives matter.
People can also change the timing of when they earn and receive their income in response to government policies. According to a 2004 U.S. Treasury report, "high income taxpayers accelerated the receipt of wages and year-end bonuses from 1993 to 1992—over $15 billion—in order to avoid the effects of the anticipated increase in the top rate from 31% to 39.6%. At the end of 1993, taxpayers shifted wages and bonuses yet again to avoid the increase in Medicare taxes that went into effect beginning 1994."
Just remember what happened to auto sales when the cash for clunkers program ended. Or how about new housing sales when the $8,000 tax credit ended? It isn't rocket surgery, as the Ivy League professor said.
On or about Jan. 1, 2011, federal, state and local tax rates are scheduled to rise quite sharply. President George W. Bush's tax cuts expire on that date, meaning that the highest federal personal income tax rate will go 39.6% from 35%, the highest federal dividend tax rate pops up to 39.6% from 15%, the capital gains tax rate to 20% from 15%, and the estate tax rate to 55% from zero. Lots and lots of other changes will also occur as a result of the sunset provision in the Bush tax cuts.
Tax rates have been and will be raised on income earned from off-shore investments. Payroll taxes are already scheduled to rise in 2013 and the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) will be digging deeper and deeper into middle-income taxpayers. And there's always the celebrated tax increase on Cadillac health care plans. State and local tax rates are also going up in 2011 as they did in 2010. Tax rate increases next year are everywhere.
Now, if people know tax rates will be higher next year than they are this year, what will those people do this year? They will shift production and income out of next year into this year to the extent possible. As a result, income this year has already been inflated above where it otherwise should be and next year, 2011, income will be lower than it otherwise should be.
Also, the prospect of rising prices, higher interest rates and more regulations next year will further entice demand and supply to be shifted from 2011 into 2010. In my view, this shift of income and demand is a major reason that the economy in 2010 has appeared as strong as it has. When we pass the tax boundary of Jan. 1, 2011, my best guess is that the train goes off the tracks and we get our worst nightmare of a severe "double dip" recession.
In 1981, Ronald Reagan—with bipartisan support—began the first phase in a series of tax cuts passed under the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA), whereby the bulk of the tax cuts didn't take effect until Jan. 1, 1983. Reagan's delayed tax cuts were the mirror image of President Barack Obama's delayed tax rate increases. For 1981 and 1982 people deferred so much economic activity that real GDP was basically flat (i.e., no growth), and the unemployment rate rose to well over 10%.
But at the tax boundary of Jan. 1, 1983 the economy took off like a rocket, with average real growth reaching 7.5% in 1983 and 5.5% in 1984. It has always amazed me how tax cuts don't work until they take effect. Mr. Obama's experience with deferred tax rate increases will be the reverse. The economy will collapse in 2011.
Consider corporate profits as a share of GDP. Today, corporate profits as a share of GDP are way too high given the state of the U.S. economy. These high profits reflect the shift in income into 2010 from 2011. These profits will tumble in 2011, preceded most likely by the stock market.
In 2010, without any prepayment penalties, people can cash in their Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), Keough deferred income accounts and 401(k) deferred income accounts. After paying their taxes, these deferred income accounts can be rolled into Roth IRAs that provide after-tax income to their owners into the future. Given what's going to happen to tax rates, this conversion seems like a no-brainer.
The result will be a crash in tax receipts once the surge is past. If you thought deficits and unemployment have been bad lately, you ain't seen nothing yet.
James Tackett| 7.2.10 @ 3:54PM
This op-ed doesn't address my point. Laffer has acknowledged that not all tax cuts pay for themselves. The top marginal rates of the Reagan years (70%) are a different world from the top rates of the Clinton years (39%), and as such, the cuts have far different effects. Cutting high marginal rates is good for many reasons, and in the case of very high marginal rates, can result in increased revenue. But, this argument breaks down as marginal rates come down.
By the way. While I like Laffer, and his friend Larry Kudlow, you could have lost a bundle of money hopping on their "Goldilocks" train around 2008 ...
Teflon93| 7.3.10 @ 10:52AM
Tax cuts paying for themselves depends on the time horizon. Libs like to pretend tax cuts have no salutory economic effects because they insist on Day One impact for tax cuts vs. an over-the-horizon timeline for nebulous "investments".
Tax cuts change incentives and foster growth in those areas which receive them. The magnitude may be less depending on marginal rates and other factors, but this is also true of tax increases. Jacking up taxes a fraction on a high marginal rate doesn't yield the predicted revenue because people respond to the incentive by lowering their tax exposure, and thereby the taxes paid.
The question is, "Do taxpayers feel overtaxed?" As the number of taxpayers dwindle while the amount they pay rises steadily, the answer is "Yes." We will therefore invest more effort in avoiding the tax pinch, resulting in less revenue accrued than projected and slower economic growth.
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. The liberal tax gravy train is imploding now and the blowback against government hack bureaucrats and constituent freeloaders is going to be enormous.
Jim Hlavac | 7.2.10 @ 3:44PM
The problem with such races, between T'dee and T'dum, is that there is no real, good answer. It's zugzwang, without a doubt. If each candidate is only 50% conservative, or liberty minded, than it makes no difference which one votes for. There's no way to be pleased with a pilot who only got 50% on the test. But what difference to the flight if the other option is the same sort of loser? You're still going to have a pilot. Same with these two.
And so thus it comes down to -- is the best message to toss ALL the bums out? Or keep some, perhaps in hope they'll see the light?
I think the message is toss them ALL.
The results won't really veer from what would have happened if the incumbent won. Then next go round, throw this new bum out.
Matt X| 7.2.10 @ 3:47PM
My point is why not give Hayworth a shot? You can't vote him out until he's elected, and there's always hope he won't be a bum? But he deserves our scorn....our hero Klein says so. But we are to bow down and kiss the feet of journalistic studs like Dave Weigel, who got sacked by the liberal WaPo for being an embarrasment even to them.
Kyle | 7.2.10 @ 3:56PM
I would vote for Hayworth, if for no other reason that the fact that the MSM won't give him air time to support Democrat premises and ideas while bashing Republicans when he feels it is appropriate, like McCain does regularly. Let us rid ourselves of the media's favorite Republican Senator. I'd rather have the media run story after story on what a lunatic they think J.D. is, then to have McCain give credence to liberal talking points. Which do you think is more damaging to the cause of liberty, Phil?
Matt X| 7.2.10 @ 4:00PM
Phi's the type of Republican that if you even mention Obama's birth certificate, even in a joke, he thinks you are worse than Hitler, or at least as kooky as 9-11 Truther. And for what, some people, no doubt engaged in some stubborn wishful thinking, about a frickin' legal document that would disqualify Obama? Klein and people like him think it's rooted in racism, which is bizarre, but it does explain how he could be friends with a hack like Weigel, no? Teh heh.
Matt X| 7.2.10 @ 4:04PM
If Obama was a Republican, is there any doubt that every Democrat in the country would be a "birther"? I know otherwise rational Democrats (for Democrats) that believe in the 9-11 Truther conspiracy, so don't tell me they wouldn't be all about Obama's birth certificate if he wasn't their guy. :)
Teflon93| 7.2.10 @ 4:26PM
Ironic given it was the Democrats who raised the birther issue against McCain---fatuously claiming that since he was born in the Panama Canal Zone he wasn't a natural-born American.
Teflon93| 7.2.10 @ 4:24PM
That J.D. Hayworth and his 97 ACU rating is pretty terrible---until you consider John McCain and his 82.
Not to mention Hayworth hasn't made a career of being the Left Wing Media's favorite Republican senator, much less committed the serial outrages against conservative McCain has.
But perhaps Klein considers it a shibboleth to criticize McCain as Dave Weigel wouldn't like it.
Matt X| 7.2.10 @ 4:29PM
Klein, if you going to quote me on Twitter, at least quote the whole thing:
"Intelligent people don't have friends like Dave Weigel. Just the way it is, guy. Weekly Standard is pretty much big government Republicanism these days, and Klein is no doubt a better fit over there."
Matt X| 7.2.10 @ 4:34PM
Do intelligent people say things like "my life is soundtracked to The Eye of The Tiger"? That screams Meghan McCain, no?
Cliff| 7.2.10 @ 6:36PM
Can I say the obvious: Matt X is OBVIOUSLY a Hayworth campaign lackey. Nobody would post this much on something like this unless he was.
Matt X| 7.2.10 @ 6:43PM
Cliff,
I don't know that much about Hayworth other than what I've read in recent days. Most of the conservatives attacking Hayworth are not that informed on his record....most of Klein's column was cut and paste from a Matt Lewis column. I'm anti-McCain, and I suspect your criticism of me is based on that....you like McCain. I could just as easily say you are getting paid by McCain's camp to attack me. Most of my criticism has been on the mark, and I have not said Hayworth is perfect. If Klein thinks Weigel is one awesome reporter....a liberal hack that only lasted 3 months with the liberal Washington Post before they fired him, why is he so harsh on Hayworth. If he was friends with Hayworth, would he let it go? If Hayworth admited he was an asshole like Dave Weigel did, would Klein come around?
Matt X| 7.2.10 @ 6:50PM
I think elections should be about where the politicians stand on the issues. I think McCain has done a good job throughout his political career making it about his personal story and attacking his Republican opponents on things that are either not true or are not relevant. Klein wants to sneer at Hayworth and dictate to conservatives that he deserves our scorn. I'm suggesting that maybe "conservatives" like Klein, who does support McCain, with asshole friends like Weigel might deserve our scorn.
bluecollarbytes| 7.2.10 @ 10:06PM
Kid Weigel aside, if Hayworth at his implied (imagined) worst is the one positioned to relieve McCain of his duty, so be it. Personality quirks? Establishment Republicanism? Those are as certain as death & taxes. Time to move forward with 'new blood' though.
Matt X| 7.2.10 @ 11:34PM
What I don't understand is hostile tone that Matt Lewis, the National Review editors that shall not be named for some reason, and Klein take when they criticize Hayworth, especially as it looks like McCain is pulling away in the polls. It's amazing to me that the very same guy that looks past Dave Weigel's character flaws wants to look down in contempt at J.D Hayworth. I don't care for McCain, but I don't think it would be persausive for me to tell other conservatives they must scorn him. You would think Hayworth was riding with the Klan or something, given Klein's hyperbole.
SoCon| 7.3.10 @ 3:58AM
As usual, Matt X, you hit the nail on the head. Kudos.
Lots of "mavericks" in our party, huh? It explains a lot--why the GOP always screws up when given the chance to govern. Bleak.
Teflon93| 7.3.10 @ 10:56AM
They're hostile because they want to keep up the Frummery---the notion that in order to get elected Republicans need to move Left.
This is what Fauxcons do---with predictable results as we saw in 2008.
darcy| 7.4.10 @ 3:46AM
"Fauxcons." I think we're going to be seeing this word a lot in the coming months and years. Very creative; shall we credit you with this neologism? I'd like to know as I am adopting it as of today and would like to remember if it came from Teflon93 or not.
SoCon| 7.3.10 @ 2:17PM
"Fauxcons" is exactly correct. It drives me nuts!
I'm not sure if some on the Right struggle with the courage of their convictions or don't have any in the first place.
chris| 7.4.10 @ 7:20AM
The American Spectator or this author: Another cino (conservative in name only) !?
Talking about obama's constitutional eligibility issue is taboo because that will mean you are 'fringe' to be attacked by the left?
If you think standing up for US Constitution article 2 (the natural born citizen requirement for the presidency) is fringe, you are no conservative. Actually you are worse than the leftists radicals progressives, for they are at least honest about the 'beliefs' whereas you are outright hyprocritical!
roadmaster| 7.4.10 @ 3:16PM
My wife and I had no choice but to vote for MuhCain in '08. Of all the possible candidates, he was absolutely at the bottom of the list of people we could get behind, but as mentioned above, we voted for him simply because he was not Obama.
This year we will not vote for him because he is not Hayworth, who we admire and agree with. Whatever MuhCain or anyone in the media has to say about JD, we take with big, grains of salt.
By the way, except for '08, I haven't voted for MuhCain after his disgraceful comments in a cozy, joint appearance with Jon Carry following Columbine. He's only given me more and more reasons not to support him in the interim.
james wilson| 7.5.10 @ 5:29PM
For a conservative to vote for McCain is to pay for his own misery. It is unfortunate that McCain did not indeed switch parties after losing to Bush in 2000 as he contemplated. Like Specter, once the deed is done we realize how improved life is. Should Hayworth win the primary we shall not see the rooster stop crowing.
With Republicans like these two, there is no reason to continue the democratic experiment. We've lost.