RSS Feed MenuOn Tuesday, Redstate.com’s Erik Erickson penned a piece calling on “real conservatives” to take another look at whether or not they really want Mark Kirk to get the GOP nomination in Illinois: “ Kirk is not a conservative. The question is: is Mark Kirk the most electable guy the Illinois GOP can put up in 2010?”
The short answer to this question is yes – and for exactly the reasons that make Erickson so dubious.
Erickson proposes that:
conservatives who are happy to ‘grin and bear it’ with Kirk may at least want to consider the following:
Kirk voted against the Defense of Marriage Act.
Kirk voted against the partial birth abortion ban.
Kirk opposed the Iraq War surge strategy.
Kirk has an “F” grade from the National Rifle Association.
And let’s not forget TARP, Cap and Trade, etc.
Erickson’s list is not quite accurate. Kirk did cast a vote in favor of a February 2007 non-binding resolution opposing the Iraq surge. But whenever his vote was needed to support the money and men for the surge strategy, Kirk voted aye.
Now then: here are a few more facts to add to the equation
- The GOP has lost 9 of the 10 last Illinois Senate Races
- In 2004, Barack Obama won the Senate seat currently up for grabs by a margin of 70% to the meager 27% that Republican nominee Alan Keyes commanded.
- In 2008, Dick Durbin won a third term in the Senate, commanding 67.84% of the votes
- In the 2008 Presidential race, then Illinois Senator Barack Obama beat John McCain 61.92%-36.78%
- In the 2004 Presidential race, John Kerry defeated then President Bush in Illinois 55%-44%
- In 2000, Al Gore defeated then Texas Gov. Bush 55%-43%
- In 1996, President Clinton beat Senator Dole 54%-37%
- Democrats control both houses of the Illinois State legislature
See a trend?
Now more:
Mark Kirk is the best vote-getter and fundraiser that Republicans have in Illinois. He won outright majorities of the vote in his North Shore district in 2006 and 2008 – despite a 61% Obama landslide in his district.
Erickson concludes: “given those dynamics, Washington, D.C. conservatives may want to take one more look at Patrick Hughes before getting into bed with a man they all admit will knife them in the chest with a smile once he gets to D.C.”
The key phrase here is “Washington D.C. conservatives.” Illinois conservatives should have a better grasp of political realities. The nomination of Patrick Hughes – or a bloody primary fight that divides the party and weakens its nominee – will leave smiles only on the face of Illinois Democrats and the Obama administration.
CentristNYer // Dec 17, 2009 at 4:11 pm
franco 2 // Dec 17, 2009 at 12:21 pm
“McCain was everything moderates wanted. What happened?”
McCain ceased to be a moderate after he lost in 2000. In the run-up to 2008 he proceeded to kiss a lot of religious zealot’s asses — like Jerry Falwell’s — and tacked right during the primaries. Then, in his ultimate betrayal of his moderation, chose a complete no-nothing as his running mate. (Plus it didn’t help that he was running against a far more skillful, far more appealing candidate who stole most of his independent base.) Game over.
celticmajic // Dec 17, 2009 at 4:35 pm
I am from IL and I vote. Mr. Kirk is less than exciting. He is from Northern IL and the real bastion of conservatism in our state is down south. If Mr. Kirk were to work down state voters I think we could overcome Chicago but I doubt he will. Finally Mr Kirk’s stand on the RTKABA will repell many down state voters and delight Mayor Daly
mthen // Dec 17, 2009 at 4:44 pm
I agree with the basic premise of this article. Run Repubs appropriate for the area. We should avoid running against our own. Do I buy this article coming from this site? No. This site all but endorsed Daggett in New Jersey and will never speak against KBH running against a sitting GOP gov in Texas. Hypocrites.
CentristNYer Ive heard that laughable claim over and over. McCain has been the darling of the left for so long because he was constantly putting his thumb in the eye of the right. When he won the nomination he was no longer amusing to the left so he was cynically recast as practically a modern day George Wallace. What is amusing to me is that the reverse is happening as we speak. Joe Lieberman, once the hated other half of “Sore/Loserman” is now poking corneas on the left and the right loves him for it.
CentristNYer // Dec 17, 2009 at 5:09 pm
mthen // Dec 17, 2009 at 4:44 pm
“McCain has been the darling of the left for so long because he was constantly putting his thumb in the eye of the right. When he won the nomination he was no longer amusing to the left so he was cynically recast as practically a modern day George Wallace.”
No matter how you choose to explain it, the McCain of 2008 was not the McCain of 2000. There was a whole lot less straight talk and a whole lot more ass kissing of the base. There were still flashes of the old Johnnie Mac (such as when he reprimanded Reverend Hagee or assured a woman at a rally that Obama was not a Muslim), but too often he was willing to kowtow to the angry white fringe of the GOP, as his selection of Palin demonstrated quite ably. Plus, he was dealt a very bad hand in having to defend many of Bush’s policies. He just wasn’t the same guy that independents fell in love with eight years earlier.
He also suffered from seeming less energetic and nimble than his earlier incarnation — such as when he attempted to cancel one of the debates at the last minute — and Obama got the better of him by reminding voters that a president has to be able to do more than two things at once.
There are many reasons why — to go to franco’s original point — McCain’s moderate credentials didn’t lift him to victory in 2008, but the most critical was that he had largely abandoned them.
gmckee1985 // Dec 17, 2009 at 7:29 pm
McCain lost because he was an inept, inarticulate candidate, the economy was tanking, and because his campaign team was abysmal. Not because he was too moderate, or too conservative. Just a bad candidate.
franco 2 // Dec 17, 2009 at 7:48 pm
McCain is and was a moderate AND he really didn’t have any principles which can get you into trouble in politics as surely as having them will. The claim that McCain turned into some right-wing zealot is patently false.
franco 2 // Dec 17, 2009 at 7:55 pm
And this claim that there is an “angry white fringe” is just pure, unadulterated racism. If you are white you can’t be angry and if you are angry you can’t be white. That is basically what you are saying.
franco 2 // Dec 17, 2009 at 7:59 pm
CentristNYer
“complete no-nothing”
hilarious
The correct spelling is “know-nothing”
I’m arguing with morons here. Bye.
grackle // Dec 17, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Just for your information I’m NOT a social conservative.
No, of course the commentor isn’t a social conservative. He’s something else(which he doesn’t define) but who just happens to agree with every social conservative issue. Glad he cleared that up.
This really isn’t an argument between so cons and the GOP (although that is part of it) It is really about how much the GOP will give in to leftward drift.
The assumption in the above is that “leftward drift” is defined as a desire to de-emphasize social conservative issues in order to raise legitimate political issues(a free market, limited government and a strong defense) to their rightful place. But he’s NOT a social conservative, mind you.
That is what I’m worried about and most of the tea party movement is too. Big government is the primary threat and there are some in the GOP who are perfectly happy with big government when they are running it from the inside. These are the pols I abhor.
It’s difficult to know exactly what the commentor is driving at. Coherency is NOT his strong point. Who ARE those in GOP “who are perfectly happy with big government,” those dastardly “pols,” and just how did their love of “big government” manifest itself? The comment does not see fit to be specific – so we readers are left to wonder.
And if the leftists DO gain power, you fail to see how that affects America, so trapped you are in your belief that your philosophy (such as it is) is inherently wrong.
It’s a bit puzzling to see folks who might not have voted for McCain, or if they did, did so only with much bitching and doing their best to throw cold water on the GOP nominee’s campaign, worry so much about the “leftists” gaining power. What did they THINK would happen if McCain lost?
Yes that’s right. You actually don’t really believe in capitalism because you don’t fight for it. You let them chip away endlessly until there is nothing left. Constantly appeasing the left and deathly afraid you will lose one election.
In effect, hasn’t it been the SoCons who have, if not having appeased the Left, at least placed the reins of power right into the Left’s hands? I enthusiastically campaigned and voted for McCain/Palin, one reason being that I realized what would happen if McCain lost. So, I did MY part in the “fight.” What did the SoCons do? They whined. They mopped. They bitched. And still do, endlessly. And a lot of them did not vote – or maybe even followed Ann Coulter’s advice to vote Democrat. But the rest of us are apparently reluctant to “fight,” are letting the Left “chip away endlessly,” because we are “deathly afraid” we will “lose one election.” Very interesting logic.
Americans are finally waking up and you guys are trapped in the past. I have news for you. Losing this last election just SAVED America …
Now the commentor even justifies his behavior by claiming the SoCons’ adolescent attitude, their snit because a pure enough GOP candidate did not win the nomination, actually(hold on to your hats) “SAVED America.” On one hand they decry the rise of the Left – on the other hand they make grandiose claims of … what? Victory? Self-fulfilling I-told-you-so self congratulations? There are many varieties of gall.
… at least for now, since it woke up independents to what the Democrat party is really after. Now the GOP has a better chance to gain seats by highlighting differences.
Wouldn’t it have been better if the GOP hadn’t lost those seats that the commentor is so sure of re-gaining in the mid-terms in the first place? Let me see if I have this straight: It was good to lose those seats so we could wake up the independents and get the seats back. My, my.
Now these dolts can actually see the socialism being imposed rather than denigrating conservatives who have seen all along what leftism really is about.
Another thing about many of the SoCons: Those who disagree are always “dolts.” The independents which almost ANY politician needs to win an election are “dolts.” It seems to never occur to them that those you hope to win over should perhaps not be contemptuously labeled. Hey, you “dolts,” do what I want you to do if you know what’s good for you, you dumbasses.
If we have candidates who don’t understand these abstractions they can’t fight them and they are roiled into the whole milieu of default leftism.
I’ll forgive the misuse of “roiled” and the awkward use of “milieu” if the commentor will forgive me for being a “dolt.” I’m one of those independents, you see.
Citizens are rapidly losing their freedom in this country and statist Republicans are doing NOTHING to help, so I have no sympathy for these cretins.
Yes, contrary to those vexing “statist Republicans,” the commentor is offering the REAL help. Remember, readers? His claim is that, “ Losing this last election just SAVED America …” The defeat of the GOP was actually for our own good, to teach us “cretins” a good lesson.
Better let the leftists steal all your money, maybe then you will begin to understand that they are your enemy not people you can negotiate with. Hell, they are like the terrorists and you guys are like the lefties.
Here the commentor indulges himself with a couple of equivalencies: “We,” who are not defined but I assume to be independents, Republicans who are not SoCons and other “cretins” and “dolts,” are equivalent to “lefties” and the Left is equivalent to “terrorists.” Simplicity itself, is it not?
You can’t see them undermining you. You think you can compromise with them and give everything away and then they will like you, or that things will be OK for a while and you will be safe.
The commentor goes in for a bit of mind-reading: We “think” this and that. We are just poor dolts who are being slyly hoodwinked by the enemy.
You are not safe. There is little we can compromise on anymore. We have already given away 40% of the store. It isn’t as if we are starting from zero here. We are starting at 40 points down in a race to 50. That is, we already have Social Security, Medicare Medicaid and all manner of state welfare both individual and corporate. We have bloated government bureaucracies that are little more than paid SeiU thugs.
There’s a penchant for exaggeration. A bureaucrat is just a “thug.” Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are beneath contempt, and by implication just examples of mere corruption.
Once the tipping point is reached, we are done. No more compromises, no more two party system.
It’s again difficult to divine the commentor’s meaning. But I think the commentor is threatening a third party. The Democrats are probably rubbing their hands with glee at such a wonderful prospect of easy victory that a third party would surely guarantee. But not to worry, the commentor has already assured us that those seats given up as a lesson to the Independents will be re-gained. Right?
The only way you will be able to get power back is to take up arms. Go ahead pretend it’s not real. Be in denial and elect more squishes to appease the leftists – we got about 10% more to go till it’s over.
The commentor forecasts dire consequences if more “squishes” are elected. Yes, barricades will be thrown up and a vengeful citizenry will “take up arms.” If we do not believe this insurrection will happen, well, then we are in “denial.” Oh, there’s some denial going on, THAT’S for sure. The reality is that one squad of Marines and the would-be insurrectionists would be pissing in their pants.
gmckee1985 // Dec 17, 2009 at 10:07 pm
”
McCain is and was a moderate AND he really didn’t have any principles which can get you into trouble in politics as surely as having them will. The claim that McCain turned into some right-wing zealot is patently false.”
Yeah, McCain was a weak ass candidate, and pretty moderate. But his being moderate isn’t what caused him to lose. He just sucked. Not very passionate about anything, and didn’t really have a coherent philosophy or vision.
What Republicans need more than anything is a leader, with character and solid vision for the country. It’d help if they had some core conservative principles, too.
The McCain and Doles of the world are disasters.
CentristNYer // Dec 17, 2009 at 11:28 pm
franco 2 // Dec 17, 2009 at 7:48 pm
“McCain is and was a moderate …”
I don’t care how many times you repeat it, the facts don’t support your argument. McCain’s positions on a whole range of issues changed between 2000 and 2008, always shifting to the right. Furthermore, you’re deluded if you think an authentic “moderate” would have given the vice presidential spot to a woman who doubts evolution and believes that our Iraqi involvement is a mission from God.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck…
mthen // Dec 18, 2009 at 8:08 am
The only difference between the McCain of 2000 and the McCain of 2008 is that in 2008 he won the nomination. That was his great crime that turned the left against him.
franco 2 // Dec 18, 2009 at 9:14 am
grackle,
You have just proven that you don’t see a threat.
First you can’t imagine that someone might not be a So-con and hold a small government philosophy at the same time. Where do you get your information, political cartoons? What are the social conservative positions you claim I have agreed with? “but who just happens to agree with every social conservative issue….”
“The assumption in the above is that “leftward drift” is defined as a desire to de-emphasize social conservative issues in order to raise legitimate political issues(a free market, limited government and a strong defense) to their rightful place. But he’s NOT a social conservative, mind you.”
I don’t understand this. (And another difference between us is that when I don’t understand something, I don’t jump to convenient conclusions) What assumption, on my part or others?
An assumed definition? I don’t get it.
The method of argument that demands specifics on every point is missing the forest for the trees and implies someone is either incapable of abstract thought or is vainly trying to degrade his opponent by claiming his arguments have no merit since there are no specifics.
Being against big government is not an indication of social conservative but comes from the libertarian strain of ideas, and/or the classical liberal Founding Fathers mindset who wrote the Constitution. (They wee also So-cons BTW but that is another argument as times were decidedly different)
Another nuance that may be lost on grackle; one can be sympathetic to a movement while not being primarily animated by the fundamental causes of said movement. Social conservatives have a right to believe what they believe. An example of this kind of thinking would be that most pro-choice people understand that it would be unfair to make pro-life people fund abortions through their tax dollars.
“Who ARE those in GOP “who are perfectly happy with big government,”
I recognize that your ignorance of the facts can cause my simple statements to seem “incoherent” but others here know full well there are GOPers who are quite happy with growing government.How about our most recent President, G.W. Bush? Now if you ask Bush directly “do you want a bigger government” he would probably say no, however his actions, whether out of compromise, fear or as some Paulians and leftists believe, greed, he advanced legislation which helped to create bigger government. I recognize that politicians have to compromise sometimes, but we ARE running out of room, since government only adds programs and never subtracts programs.
And he did this all with the help of other Republicans, and of course, Democrats. The prescription drug plan. The farm bill, No child left behind, TARP, TARP and Tarp. Even the tax breaks he promoted are not permanent. There are many R Senators who actively participate in the raping of taxpayers through pork. Is this too difficult for you to comprehend? I have to spell out what everyone knows for you?
“I enthusiastically campaigned and voted for McCain/Palin, one reason being that I realized what would happen if McCain lost.”
I can understand that you realized what would happen. Near term. In a near-term strategy it is perfectly reasonable to fight for each election. However, I have to tell you I had an epiphany during the primaries, and it was from the actions of John McCain himself and the GOP indirectly. You see, I wanted Romney. Oh, I had my doubts about him, but fewer than with Guilianni who I thought would lose, McCain who I also thought was an extremely weak candidate for many reasons and didn’t think he had any real political principle (he has some personal principles), Huckabee – now there is a “big government” so-con if I’ve ever seen one – hated him. Thompson, not bad but too old and a loser in the general.
I watched every primary debate and followed very closely and I saw some things that were very unsettling. I saw how Romney was treated in the media. The media decided he was the biggest threat and they worked overtime to discredit him, mostly his religion and flip-flops and they tried to tar him as being “elitist”. Now this was a red flag for me because the last people who understand elitism are the media and in fact they usually admire elites, so they were actively trying to denigrate him, clumsily and out of charachter for them as an elitist. If you understand where they are coming from, know some history and apply logic it is pretty clear who they like who they don’t like, and who they fear. Now despite Romney’s background, I didn’t find him to be elitist at all – not in his thinking and political philosophy at all. Many people who could be seen as having superficially elite credentials aren’t elitists at all. And I find it strange the media doesn’t seem to care about Democrats who flip-flop. Often the Democrats in the media merely swipe at each and every Republican candidate, but they had a particular need to go after Romney. Certainly I was wary, but when the media attacks someone in the Republican primary with such vehemence, there is an agenda and it is fear.
In this context, John McCain was perfectly happy to allow this, and quite often fueled it along with his co-conspirator Huckabee. I found it interesting how friendly McCain and Huckabee were, both personally and politically, even though they hold positions that are radically different and by all logic should have been at odds. Huck is a social conservative big time.
Bottom line, Huckabee was a stalking horse to drain away so-cons from Romney. And I believe the GOP bosses (ok this is a conspiracy theory, so what?) were in on it. Actually I believe Bush made a deal with McCain saying he would pull strings for McCain in 08 in return for not challenging him in a primary in 04. Think I’m wacky? There is a helluva lot of circumstantial evidence for this.
Then McCain said something like the So-cns will HAVE to vote for me – they have no choice. This was infuriating to me (and I’m not a so-con… nuance my friend nuance heh, heh) . Machiavelli meets John McCain. OK then, let’s play Machiavelli.
First, Romney was the ONLY candidate who had a chance of winning the general election. In retrospect, he would have been THE GUY that was most clearly qualified to handle the economic mess.
Then McCain found that he wasn’t going anywhere without someone who conservatives like on the ticket. You don’t have to be a McCain hater to see how this man simply does what is politically expedient, and has done so for a very long time. I like Palin, but she wasn’t ready and also the McCainiacs mis-handled her. So this is exactly the kind of politician who screws up, having to continually adjust his positions to please this group, doesn’t really have a plan, doesn’t understand underlying abstractions then ends up making too many flawed and inexplicable decisions. This is exactly how he would have governed, by the way. If he were truly a moderate and thought he could win, then he should have stuck by his principles. But he didn’t. He lurched right and quite clumsily made an over-calculated decision (picking a woman, as if that would charm the Hillary voters)
McCain is a moderate out of a political algorithm, not for any other reason.
Romney was articulating every small government philosophy I agree with and was an excellent communicator. He exuded competence, and he was a nice guy – almost to a fault.
But the GOP bosses wanted McCain. They didn’t see he was a loser, they just had to put him in.
I knew that no matter what, McCain would lose. This was a bitter pill to swallow, to have an essentially unprincipled old man who relied far too much on his ancient war “hero” credentials, an old Senator who was inarticulate except when it came to attacking Republicans and defending Democrats, a man who would hire every Republican hack from the last century. And quite frankly ,damaged goods from a psychological standpoint. That is what the GOP elites foisted upon us.
But we were stuck with him…but wait, enter Niccolo M who asks:
Would John McCain would win a second term?
Answer: No
What will you get in 2012?
Answer: a left-wing Democrat like Obama or worse.
Will it be a landslide victory given the kind of President and the built up rage from the left on the war etc ?
Yes
Would the Democrats pick up seats in Congress in 2010?
Yes, most definitely.
Would McCain have capitulated for 4 years to leftwing ploys, demands and mauevers ?
Yes.
Would the 4 year debacle of unemployment, deficits and debt be blamed wholly on Republicans despite the fact that it may have been somewhat less dire? (see they would never know how much worse Obama would have been…remember what the media was saying about unemployment under Bush at 5% ? So what would they be saying when McCain manages to have 8.5% unemployment absent Obama’s 10% unemployment? See what I’m sayin’?)
Yes.
Ok now, what are some of the fundamental philosophical problems going on in this country? The biggest problem we have politically is that too many people think Democrats are uniters, innocent do-gooders who govern from the middle. Look at how many independents believed Obama was a centris,t despite all the alarm bells of Rev Wright Ayers and his Chicago friends. Those are the “dolts” I’m talking about.
How about the wars? Even though the war in Iraq and Afghanistan were essentially bi-partisan efforts, the Democrats were having it both ways. The negatives of the wars were getting laid at the feet of Republicans while the Dems denied any responsibility. The anti-war movement was nearing eruption and another 4 years of a Republican like McCain would have further polarized the country no matter what he tried no matter how nice he was to them and no matter how many legislative gifts McCain could give to them (see Bush). Time to let the public see what it is like when Democrats are in charge.
I also knew that Obama wouldn’t couldn’t pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
It’s tough love.
Look at the present state. Now independents are moving toward the R party – at least they are supremely wary of Democrats now that they have a taste of their governance, and Republicans can make the case for “doing nothing” which used to be impossible because the default logic was “you have to DO something” .
Now for example, a majority of voters prefer doing nothing than passing this Health Care Bill. That is a HUGE breakthrough. They could not have been convinced of this without seeing the alternative.
So I had no problem sitting out this election. John McCain is not who I want representing the Republican party and under the circumstances the USA needed some reality of consequences.
So if one is looking at the situation long-term, things are pretty good politically. Our (my?) philosophy is vindicated for years to come. We have a very real chance of taking back the House and getting more Republicans (and stronger Republicans) in the Senate. And in 2012 we can have a good Republican President. Again the alternative was worse on the whole.
The result of a McCain Presidency? Bigger majorities of Democrats in congress. More blame of essentially Democrat policy failures on Republicans and loss of the Presidency for 8 years in 2012 to 2020. And a full blown leftwing takeover of the USA.
Analogies are not “equivalencies” . Again you are either unaware of the distinction of these words or you are willfully trying to score cheap debating points with those who are sloppy thinkers.
“There’s a penchant for exaggeration. A bureaucrat is just a “thug.” Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are beneath contempt, and by implication just examples of mere corruption.”
There is a penchant for reductio ad absurdum. When he wants, he just makes things up that sound good and reduces arguments to whatever he wishes.
The fact that this man believes that these social programs and government bureaucracies are wholly benign – that I am somehow exaggerating when I claim that Social Security is a scam reveals real naivete and/or dangerous ignorance and denial. The context is pretty clear. Beauracrats are essentily powerful people. They have government power behing them . They are not producers and they are unionized, thus the characterization “thugs” is warranted generally.
I said , “Once the tipping point is reached, we are done. No more compromises, no more two party system.”
Gackle responds,”It’s again difficult to divine the commentor’s meaning. But I think the commentor is threatening a third party.”
The tipping point means, and it really isn’t difficult to divine if you look at the context, that the government, that is Federal, State and local ALREADY control about 40% of the economy and once it gets to 50% that is the “tipping point” whereby the government will be able to control every aspect of the economy and thus our lives.
I am not “threatening” a third party. By “no more two party system” I mean it will be a ONE PARTY system with the government in control. The context is pretty clear.
grackle I will conclude, does not recognize the threat from the left. This is exactly why those who can’t see this reality should be kept from power as they unwittingly play into their enemies hands. This means John McCain and others quite high in the GOP. They also don’t support winners. The GOP with it’s nomination of McCain blundered and lost to a man with zero experience. The campaign staff were afraid of any overt challenges to Obama.The campaign did not recognize their opponent for what he was.
Until the GOP can fight back… not just posture, there is little point in following them because we ALL will lose.
franco 2 // Dec 18, 2009 at 9:50 am
gmckee1985
“Yeah, McCain was a weak ass candidate, and pretty moderate. But his being moderate isn’t what caused him to lose. He just sucked. Not very passionate about anything, and didn’t really have a coherent philosophy or vision.”
You are kinda making my point. What exactly is a moderate? Moderates, almost by definition, lack passion and vision because their positions are derivative the primarily differentiate themselves from others views, rather than have a integrated philosophy. They have to defend cognitive dissonance on many issues.
For example, it is completely understandable that someone is pro-choice. The philosophy is, while the fetus is in the mother’s womb, the mother has absolute jurisdiction. This is philosophically defensible. The other position, life begins at conception and the fetus is a singular, individual entity, is also a reasonable philosophical position.
But, on the scale of gestation it becomes difficult for pro-life arguments that a newly fertilized cell is “an individual”, likewise,toward the end of gestation that an 8 1/2 month fetus is not a “being” at all. Intuitively both sides understand the other has a point in the extremes. The lines are drawn not from a philosophical basis but from an acceptable political compromise. But how precisely do you make an impassioned argument in the middle here? You really can’t. But this is the distinction of a compromise that both sides can live with (the result that there should be no late-term abortions) and the idea that one person, one politician can argue that the fetus is a meaningless group of cells, up until one day, and then around 7 months, it is not.
Compromise is a political RESULT but it is not where the staring point should be, because it is basically philosophically indefensible. Politicians can play the middle ground and survive, but the underside of this strategy is the erosion of reason, and weakening the muscles of debate from atrophy, and an electorate that can’t really respect someone who won’t take a position.
I’d rather a politicain who has positions and can defend them who can compromise than a politician who simply compromises as a modus operandi.
gmckee1985 // Dec 18, 2009 at 1:43 pm
As someone who backed Romney in the 08, I may be a bit biased, but I don’t think there’s any doubt there was a calculated effort to keep him from getting the nomination. Does anybody really think Fred Thompson was serious about being president? He, Huckabee, Giulani all were backing McCain to the detriment of the Romney campaign.
Certainly hope Romney gets the nomination in 2012. His skillset is needed.
gmckee1985 // Dec 18, 2009 at 1:47 pm
“Compromise is a political RESULT but it is not where the staring point should be, because it is basically philosophically indefensible. Politicians can play the middle ground and survive, but the underside of this strategy is the erosion of reason, and weakening the muscles of debate from atrophy, and an electorate that can’t really respect someone who won’t take a position.
I’d rather a politicain who has positions and can defend them who can compromise than a politician who simply compromises as a modus operandi.”
Yeah, I agree with that. A “moderate” position should be reached through compromise, it shouldn’t be the starting point. I’m pretty conservative on most issues, including abortion, but I also know you have to be pragmatic and compromise at certain points to get things done in government.
Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich are good examples of people who aren’t viewed as “moderates”, but who reached what some would view as moderate compromises on certain issues.
McCain is a political opportunist who “moderates” for the sake of media coverage and his ego.
franco 2 // Dec 18, 2009 at 3:40 pm
gmckee1985,
Yes, it is pretty obvious about Romney (I believe it was really just McCain and Huck) and that REALLY alienated me from the GOP. Not only did they force McCain upon us, they have the gall to get angry when we rebelled. And McCain was blatant in his contempt for conservatives. It seemed McCain didn’t really want to win. Did he throw the election to Obama? It is a possibility. He simply did not have the wherewithal to run an effective campaign. He couldn’t debate and he couldn’t find a place to stand to oppose Obama. His knee-jerk code of civility and decorum kept him from challenging Obama. He couldn’t even get his “good friend” Chuck Hegel, ostensibly a “Republican” to endorse him. And these dolts in the GOP blame conservatives for all their troubles? My God these people are delusional.
I want Mc Cain out in AZ. And what kind of man stays in the Senate forever well into old age well past when ordinary people retire. It is not as though he needs the money. He is dangerous for the GOP and they don’t even know it!
In Defense of Mark Kirk « Red Dog Republic // Dec 18, 2009 at 4:47 pm
[...] Forum’s Jeb Gonklin wants to remind Republicans tempted to dump Kirk of the current state of the GOP in Illinois: Erickson’s list is not quite accurate. Kirk did cast a vote in favor of a February 2007 [...]
grackle // Dec 19, 2009 at 1:08 am
grackle I will conclude, does not recognize the threat from the left.
On the contrary, I DO see the threat from the Left and much more clearly than the commentor. I see that factionalists, believers in the fantastic, SoCons who have elevated their societal, quasi-religious pet peeves above the legitimate political issues of limited government, free market and strong defense to the detriment of the GOP and those who did not vote for McCain or who did so while simultaneously badmouthing McCain – isn’t it THEY who have handed the Left the power the Left has always craved but was always denied until the last election.
It was not I or those of my ilk who stayed home on voting day like a bunch of whining adolescents because their favorite did not win the nomination, who bad-mouthed McCain all during the general campaign, who even now have the gall to baldly state with unbelievable unction that they are happy about Obama’s victory because it will teach all us “cretins” a good lesson.
What are the social conservative positions you claim I have agreed with …
The commentor’s implied agreement is illustrated by just about every attitude he exhibits. But let me pose a simple question: Which Social Conservation issue does the commentor oppose?
Is it the SoCon tendency to demagogue on immigration? Is it the well known hatred of McCain? Is it the derisive labeling of every Republican who disagrees on some point or another with the SoCons as RINOs? Is it the stated SoCon goal to outlaw abortion? Death penalty for murder conviction? Same sex marriage? Civil unions? Child adoption by gays? The Birther nonsense? A religion based moral template for political candidates? Yes, by all means, let the commentor tell us all where he disagrees with the SoCons.
The method of argument that demands specifics on every point is missing the forest for the trees …
No, insisting on specifics is a way of not allowing someone to hide behind vagueness and implication.
Being against big government is not an indication of social conservative but comes from the libertarian strain of ideas, and/or the classical liberal Founding Fathers mindset who wrote the Constitution. (They wee also So-cons BTW but that is another argument as times were decidedly different)
The above is a straw man. It’s not that SoCons are against Big Government, it’s that their quasi-religious fervor serves to put legitimate political issues such as limited government, free markets and strong defense over in a corner where they are dusted off and trotted out only near election time when they don’t fool the voters a bit. A Republican could be a staunch supporter of limited government, free markets and strong defense but would still be labeled a RINO if he did not support all the SoCon pet peeves.
Another nuance that may be lost on grackle; one can be sympathetic to a movement while not being primarily animated by the fundamental causes of said movement. Social conservatives have a right to believe what they believe. An example of this kind of thinking would be that most pro-choice people understand that it would be unfair to make pro-life people fund abortions through their tax dollars.
Who ARE those in GOP who are perfectly happy with big government? I ask this question and the commentor gives me Bush, a man no longer in politics, who wasn’t even running in the last election. But since Bush is the example the commentor chooses, let’s see what he says about Bush. The commentor cites the prescription drug plan, the farm bill, no child left behind and Tarp.
First TARP: Does the commentor remember that the WORLD was and still is faced with an economic crisis? Does he remember that there was a very real fear of a total economic collapse? I had and still have savings in the Bank of America. I am glad as HELL that Bush did not allow the banks to fail – and they were definitely in danger of failing. Does the commentor have ANY comprehension what happens if the basic financial institutions fail? What would the commentor have done if he were President? Nothing?
Next, No Child Left Behind: Bush tried to do something about the abysmal performances of low income schools. Ooh, that BAD, BAD Bush. BTW, most educational experts agree that the program has been successful.
http://tinyurl.com/y8ugkkj
Next, the Farm Bill: The commentor needs to do a bit of research before spouting. In actual fact Bush VETOED the Farm Bill.
http://tinyurl.com/yb79off
Finally, the prescription drug bill: Here the commentor may have a valid point. The program WAS costly. Not even one percent as costly as what the commentor is gleefully contemplating allowing the Democrats to foist on the nation, gleeful because he believes one of his ‘points’ will be proven, but no matter. Scale, matters of degree and other common sense methods of measure seem to mean absolutely nothing to the commentor, indeed, seem to be beyond his comprehension.
But what I really don’t get is the basic logic: Bush was somewhat of a spender for a Republican, therefore it is OK to trash McCain and other Republican politicians, even to the extent of electing a Democrat majority in Congress, even to the extent of electing Obama, even to the extent of bragging about it and lamely trying to justify it afterwards.
I said earlier: I enthusiastically campaigned and voted for McCain/Palin, one reason being that I realized what would happen if McCain lost. In response from the commentor we get a long, rambling justification for the commentor’s betrayal:
… I had an epiphany during the primaries, and it was from the actions of John McCain himself and the GOP indirectly. You see, I wanted Romney… [blah, blah, blah]… I watched every primary debate and followed very closely and I saw some things that were very unsettling … how Romney was treated in the media … he was the biggest threat and they worked overtime to discredit him … [blah, blah, blah] … In this context, John McCain was perfectly happy to allow this, and quite often fueled it along with his co-conspirator Huckabee … [etc., blah, etc.]
The media was after Romney, the commentor’s favored candidate. So who does the commentor blame for this? Why, McCain and Huckabee, of course. The evidence? McCain and Huckabee were “friendly.” The commentor seems to have a very involved theory about all this, involving a deal between McCain and the evil Bush. Elsewhere, the commentor cites “circumstantial evidence” but as usual does not get down to specifics.
Also, it is claimed by the commentor that McCain said something to the effect that “the SoCons will HAVE to vote for me – they have no choice,” and this was infuriating to the commentor. The commentor hastens to assure us that the fact that he was infuriated by this alleged statement by McCain in no way indicates he is a SoCon. Oh, no, not him.
McCain’s alleged infuriating statement is not quoted, placed in context, linked to, nor is any other proof or clarification offered. The readers are left wondering if it is like Bush’s passing of the Farm Bill – something that never really happened.
Lastly, he offers the opinion that it was the “GOP bosses,” not the voters in the primaries, that got McCain nominated. Then he goes on another tact:
I knew that no matter what, McCain would lose.
Very nice. Hate McCain with a passion. Invent weird conspiracy theories about the nomination and election process. Do every kind of badmouthing and stay home in a snit on election day to assure McCain does not win. And when the inevitable happens claim it was a foregone conclusion – that it was bound to happen. It’s a common, self-fulfilling SoCon narrative.
Next the commentor gets out his crystal ball and gazes deeply, intoning endlessly on what he sees there:
Would John McCain would win a second term? Answer: No. What will you get in 2012? Answer: a left-wing Democrat like Obama or worse. Will it be a landslide victory given the kind of President and the built up rage from the left on the war etc ? Yes … [blah, blah, blah] … So what would they be saying when McCain manages to have 8.5% unemployment absent Obama’s 10% unemployment? See what I’m sayin’?) Yes.
Below we are treated to the commentor’s Unified Field Theory of American Politics:
Ok now, what are some of the fundamental philosophical problems going on in this country? The biggest problem we have politically is that too many people think Democrats are uniters, innocent do-gooders who govern from the middle. Look at how many independents believed Obama was a centrist despite all the alarm bells of Rev Wright Ayers and his Chicago friends. Those are the “dolts” I’m talking about.
How about the wars? Even though the war in Iraq and Afghanistan were essentially bi-partisan efforts, the Democrats were having it both ways … [blah, blah, blah] … Time to let the public see what it is like when Democrats are in charge … Now for example, a majority of voters prefer doing nothing than passing this Health Care Bill. That is a HUGE breakthrough. They could not have been convinced of this without seeing the alternative.
Look at the present state. Now independents are moving toward the R party – at least they are supremely wary of Democrats now that they have a taste of their governance, and Republicans can make the case for “doing nothing” which used to be impossible because the default logic was “you have to DO something.”
Yes, we know by now, don’t we readers, that it’s all for our own good, to teach an object lesson to those of us who don’t toe the SoCon line? The commentor decries “Big government” but is perfectly willing to countenance a huge takeover of the medical and insurance industries, as is very likely to take place, seemingly just so he can have the satisfaction of seeing one of his points being ‘proven.’ He seems actually HAPPY that the Democrats are probably going to pass this pile of crap they want to pass
It never seems to occur to the SoCons that the election result might not have been due so much to the independent voters’ preference for Obama as much as a revulsion toward the SoCons’ social intolerance and their sway over the GOP. There were many prominent voices who could have supported McCain – Megan McArdle, for one – but who did not. Why?
I submit that you are not likely to identify with a party whose base refers to you as “dolts” and “cretins,” and who are openly anti-intellectual. This type of disparaging reference is all too common among the SoCons. It reflects an utter contempt for the opinion of anyone not rigidly in the SoCon quasi-religious rut.
So I had no problem sitting out this election. John McCain is not who I want representing the Republican party and under the circumstances the USA needed some reality of consequences.
In the above he actually congratulates himself for helping Obama to the Whitehouse.
So if one is looking at the situation long-term, things are pretty good politically. Our (my?) philosophy is vindicated for years to come. We have a very real chance of taking back the House and getting more Republicans (and stronger Republicans) in the Senate. And in 2012 we can have a good Republican President. Again the alternative was worse on the whole.
And again in the above we are treated to this curious logic that it is better to lose elections in order to win elections.
The result of a McCain Presidency? Bigger majorities of Democrats in congress. More blame of essentially Democrat policy failures on Republicans and loss of the Presidency for 8 years in 2012 to 2020. And a full blown leftwing takeover of the USA.
What in God’s name does the commentor think is happening NOW? Are the Democrats and Obama not taking over the banks, auto industry, health care and the insurance companies NOW? A sixth of the economy, PLUS the banks, PLUS the auto industry, PLUS the mortgage companies, PLUS investment institutions, PLUS the insurance industry – but the commentor’s NOT worried a bit – he’s still waiting for that “full blown leftwing takeover” to happen sometime down the road. It would be comical if it wasn’t so sad.
Analogies are not “equivalencies” . Again you are either unaware of the distinction of these words or you are willfully trying to score cheap debating points with those who are sloppy thinkers.
Analogies were apparently what the commentor was attempting; equivalencies are what he actually accomplished, false equivalencies.
The fact that this man believes that these social programs and government bureaucracies are wholly benign – that I am somehow exaggerating when I claim that Social Security is a scam reveals real naivete and/or dangerous ignorance and denial. The context is pretty clear. Beauracrats are essentily powerful people. They have government power behing them . They are not producers and they are unionized, thus the characterization “thugs” is warranted generally.
No, readers, I do not believe “bureaucracies are wholly benign.” But Social Security is far from a “scam.” An agency that has been politically abused and is in need of overhauling is NOT a “scam.” I’ve known many bureaucrats in my time, perhaps you have, too. None of them were “thugs.” But the commentor is in love with hyperbole. He writes about nuance but never applies nuance.
The tipping point means, and it really isn’t difficult to divine if you look at the context, that the government, that is Federal, State and local ALREADY control about 40% of the economy and once it gets to 50% that is the “tipping point” whereby the government will be able to control every aspect of the economy and thus our lives.
Here the commentor has a valid point – which is why I can’t understand why he sat out the election and his apparent glee at what has been happening since Obama was elected. There’s a severe disconnect between what the commentor claims to believe yet what he purports to favor at various points. Obama is bringing disaster – yet HE SAT OUT THE ELECTION! And is proud of it! The Democrats gained control of both houses – yet THAT IS A GOOD THING BECAUSE IT WILL TEACH US “DOLTS” A LESSON! Amazing.
grackle I will conclude, does not recognize the threat from the left.
Readers, it is not I who is contently gloating while the Democrats and Obama dismantle the best nation the world has ever seen. It is not I who righteously brags about assisting Obama’s elevation to the highest office. Yet the commentor claims it is I who does not “recognize the threat.”
This is exactly why those who can’t see this reality should be kept from power as they unwittingly play into their enemies hands. This means John McCain and others quite high in the GOP. They also don’t support winners. The GOP with it’s nomination of McCain blundered and lost to a man with zero experience. The campaign staff were afraid of any overt challenges to Obama.The campaign did not recognize their opponent for what he was.
Until the GOP can fight back… not just posture, there is little point in following them because we ALL will lose.
Again the weird logic that claims to lose elections is to win elections; that to lose influence is to gain influence. It reminds me of certain parts of Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four.”
franco 2 // Dec 19, 2009 at 11:52 am
It is really pretty simple gackle. My contention is that America generally doesn’t understand leftism and doesn’t see it as a threat. McCain is the poster boy for this mentality and he gives into leftists when there is no more wiggle room to do so.
If we are drifting slowly toward leftism, (which I believe you are agreeing to) and if McCain allows us to drift closer to the tipping point, regardless of which other things he would (or would not ) do that I would agree with, in 2012, we would have a leftwing President and likely a VERY Democrat House and Senate with 8 years to complete the job of Socializing America.
If you throw a frog into boiling water he will jump out. If you put the frog in warm water and gradually turn up the heat, the frog will never notice become lethargic and ultimately die. Please note: I am not making an “equivalence” between Americans and frogs. Americans are not frogs. This is an analogy.
My long-term strategy you simply cannot comprehend, and you imply that I’m being false or insane. I am merely looking beyone ONE election, and McCain gave me many reasons to do so. I also knew that Obama would overreach ( I didn’t even think he would go this far) and be a disaster. I do not wish disaster on my country, but I also do not want our country as we know it to become another Venezuela, so I’ll take the scalding of Obama over death.
If you are angry at me for sitting out the last election I really don’t understand. Even if I was a so-con why should you care? Why, exactly should I vote for a John McCain? He didn’t convince me that he would, in the long term, be good for America. And in that context, I decided that America would, , be better off in the long run with Obama who would turn up the heat.
I believe my theory is already being vindicated by polls and by how the debate is shifting.
You do not have to accept my views. You do not have to believe I am what I say I am, a libertarian leaning conservative. An American who believes in our Constitution. You are free to believe whatever you wish, however I don’t think your post exposes me (to the three people still reading this) as a So-con.
As to name calling. The gop and their supporters here and elsewhere call conservatives all kinds of names. And having voted Republican for 30 years,and lived abroad, I have developed a pretty thick skin having been called all sorts of things. Worse then name calling to me is these folks being bigoted and judgmental in their attitudes toward conservatives. They really believe that Christians or people of faith are total idiots. It is quite unbecoming. And I will stipulate that some of these people ARE wacky about some things, but generally they are predisposed to things that I (and you) agree with.
So you can try to run from these folks and put them down, it won’t help you elect Republicans.
I don’t believe the GOP can make up from ranks of so-called independents and moderates what they lose when they alienate conservatives. Of course this is the central debate here at FF.
Frum wants to cut them lose, he is embarrassed by them when he has to defend Republican ideas at cocktail parties in DC. I know the left – they will always call the GOP the party of Religious Fundamentalism regardless to what the pols do. It is just like the “racism” charge. It doesn’t matter what the GOP does, says, nominates… the case is closed. So from a purely practical point of view, given the nature of the opponent, you are stuck with conservatives, like it or not.
AND those so-called “moderates” will always break 2-1 for Democrats …because they are LYING. They hold the conceit that they are independent thinkers (it really is an overcompensation) but they nearly ALWAYS vote Democrast because that’s who their default beliefs and assumptions are with.
If YOU want a Republican President and Congress, YOU will have to go along with some, perhaps many, conservative ideas, just as sometimes conservatives have to swallow hard and vote for moderate Republicans. I say SOMETIMES because in the case of McCain and all I said it was a deal breaker.
Had Huckabee won the nomination, I would not blame you or disparage you for staying home. In that case, I probably would have not stayed home. I would have voted for Obama! Because Huckabee would have done worse than McCain to the R party and America.
So I gave you my best and you don’t have to buy it, I’m just calling them as I see them.
grackle // Dec 20, 2009 at 1:53 am
It’s called rationalization folks. When you’ve done something really stupid, like sitting out an election en mass in a snit because the candidate you favored wasn’t able to win the nomination, even though this annoying candidate’s opponent was and is TEN TIMES WORSE, then you start inventing all kinds of convoluted, tortured rationales that attempt to justify your very silly and very damaging behavior.
You begin to make the rounds of like-minded blogs, picking up fantasies here and there from your fellow betrayers: McCain would have been worse. It’s better that Obama won because now the country will see how bad Leftists are. It’s good to teach those evil RINOs a lesson every once in awhile because maybe those RINOs will get religion after being screwed by us SoCons. The GOP itself needs to be taught a lesson – it’s just run by a bunch of elitists, you know. And those that don’t see things our way are just dolts and cretins anyway. The national situation isn’t just as we would have it so we’ll try to make things so bad that it will create a crisis, etc., etc. blah, blah, blah, ad infintum.
And as the candidate you ALLOWED AND ASSISTED into office with the aid of his cohorts in Congress and the MSM step by step begins to dismantle the greatest nation this world has ever seen some of these same folks compound their error by actually GLOATING and incredible as it may seem, BRAGGING about their perfidy.
More realistic folks know that winning is ALWAYS better than losing. They know that the entitlements now being created and the economic sectors being taken over will probably NEVER be returned to their original free and robust conditions. They know that what is being created now is nothing less than a European-style economy and society that will ultimately doom America to be as weak, jaded and decadent as France, Italy and Greece.
Do the SoCons see any European citizens in the streets of European cities rioting for LESS entitlements, demonstrating for SMALLER governments or agitating for STRONGER national defenses? According the SoCon rationale they should be, indeed, the citizens of Europe should have started the riots, demonstrations and agitation for a more capitalistic existence YEARS ago! After all, Europe has been spiraling deeper and deeper into socialism since the end of WW2.
According to the SoCons’ favorite crackpot theory, allowing Obama and his cohorts to institute a high degree of socialism will force America to see the error of the socialism path and turn away from socialism. If they had ever bothered to read history they might have realized that it just doesn’t work that way.
It seems that once THAT “tipping point” is reached, where the nation begins in earnest to descend into a socialism-driven decadence, that the people NEVER demand their government turn back into the old self-reliant capitalistic ways. There’s not one example of it anywhere in history.
franco 2 // Dec 20, 2009 at 7:49 am
It seems that gackle is quite unhinged. Sorry dude! Sorry your guy didn’t win. Sorry the GOP nominated an unmitigated LOSER to run against a ZERO.
You claim I’m making this up after the fact. Ok…… that would be kinda weird, but tell me, genius, how come YOU didn’t know McCain was a dud? Most politically astute people knew he was. And you didn’t get the memo that the entire media wanted him nominated? You apparently don’t understand the media’s goals and priorities. Another dupe in the GOP, just what we need.
The only question was, he was up against an unknown who had no experience, so you poor deluded GOP drones thought he had a chance. I have to admit, even though I knew McCain was a horrible candidate, I didn’t think he would be as bad as he was and lose as badly as he did. And you drones have the answer, the very convenient answer you cling to buttress your delusions. Palin! No other introspection needed. Hmmm, got it.
I went through the illusion stage myself. I remember when I thought Dole had a chance in 1996. I voted for him. Well, I’m older and wiser now, and I’m just trying to educate gackle here but he is a bit too snarky and oblivious to warrant civil treatment.
When the GOP nominates these complete losers, like Dole and McCain, you have to wonder what is wrong. I also voted for W TWICE (finally not a loser and someone who was somewhat conservative in 2000).
But he lost ME in 2006. I wouldn’t want to take back my vote but the bloom was off the rose when it came to lotsa stuff Bush tried in his second term. I defended him for 6 years at dinners cocktail parties etc. And then he started with his statist putsch.
It seems you will vote and work for any idiot the GOP puts in front of your face. THAT is exactly how we got here, and you are too stupid to see it.
All the Specters the Powells The Hegels The Chaffees The Snowes and the Collinses. You’ll take them in for the illusion of a “majority” that vaporizes in one or two election cycles. People like you, so desperate to win and concede whatever you thought necessary in the debate and appease the left while attacking right-wing, that is, capitalist, NON-socialist principles in the media. And when you “win” WHAT do you win? A majority? A Majority of what?
And you actually think you know what you are doing. Like an addict you can’t go cold-turkey, one more fix for the next election… and I’M rationalizing?
Instead of blaming the GOP and people who promoted John McCain or even McCain himself for having the gall and idiocy to think he was capable of winning, you blame little old me! One voter!
And your feeble mind can’t get beyond the label “so-con”. Apparently your brain doesn’t have room for any other category or label. Yes, I’m insulting you because you are in effect calling me a liar. At least be overt about it, you pussy. I can take it. You obviously can’t – it will hurt your little self-esteem affirmation to be called “a name” but you refuse to take my word that I’m not some label you want me to be. And you want civility?
You are bringing out some real gloat. You won’t stay home when a real conservative is nominated, ..or will you? I have my doubts. So we have a game of “chicken” going on in the GOP and you guys are going to jump first, because you are pussies. If you give in to Democrats so easily you will give in to us.
See ya.
grackle // Dec 20, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Franco, I’m going to do something I usually don’t do – which is speak to you directly – because I believe that you are sincere and care about your country. I realize that few people are still reading but I don’t care. I would do the same if we two were waiting for a bus and no one else was around. Conversations are important. Ideally, we will both walk away better people, knowing more than when we first began speaking.
All your objections and resentments against Bush, McCain, the folks who were ‘fooled’ by Obama, the GOP leadership, etc. are overblown.
First, McCain, who was not my first choice, either. Here’s one of your statements:
I have to admit, even though I knew McCain was a horrible candidate, I didn’t think he would be as bad as he was and lose as badly as he did.
McCain lost because he was painted as a second Bush by the MSM, the Democrats and Obama. And the MSM and the Democrats had just spent the previous 8 years making Bush into an evil and ineffectual bumpkin. There were other factors of course – but the above was the main problem.
The thing about propaganda is that even though folks KNOW it’s happening, many of those same folks will fall prey to it. A constant bombardment of negativity WILL inevitably take its toll. I think that’s what happened to you and the SoCons. But of course you had to invent your own SoCon-like reasons to hate Bush – that’s the way it works, thus the “statist putsch” remark. No, what Obama is doing is a “statist putsch,” NOT what Bush did – or what McCain would likely have done if he had won. If you can’t realize the difference then I can only feel sorry for you.
Sure, McCain made some campaign errors. Campaign errors are inevitable. All candidates make campaign errors – it’s a law of politics. Obama made some errors, too. Yet, with the frosting applied by the MSM, the Obama folks were able to swallow those errors and enthusiastically pull the lever on election day. Those of us on the other side? Well, it seems that many of us subconsciously wanted that sugar-coating, also – and when it wasn’t forth-coming, because it’s NEVER done for the GOP candidate, we just couldn’t manage to swallow the cake.
And you also seem to have forgotten how politics works. In any nomination process many folks are going to be disappointed. It’s in the very nature of the process. Whoever emerges victorious after the primaries is usually not the first choice of many if not most of that party’s members. Here’s where party loyalty and common sense are expected to come into play. Most voters are necessarily selecting the lesser of 2 evils. The expectation is – and the reality has been most of the time in past campaigns – that those disappointments will be laid aside and a sincere effort will then be directed toward making sure the nominee wins.
Remember the disappointed Hillary supporters? They didn’t let themselves be distracted by disappointment; they swallowed hard, got behind Obama, and their party’s candidate won. Your first choice was Romney, it seems. If McCain had won Romney might now be in McCain’s cabinet – in a position of influence and able to affect policy. Wouldn’t THAT be better than the nightmare that America is currently experiencing?
I don’t know if you’ve ever seen the movie, “The Caine Mutiny.” The ending is a real mind-expander. The viewer is made then to realize that the Captain really wasn’t all that bad – that if he had been given a bit of loyalty, something all leaders MUST have – he probably would have been OK. And more than that, the viewer is brought to the conclusion that even with all his faults, which weren’t so bad after all – we ALL have our quirks, the Captain DESERVED the crew’s loyalty, especially the loyalty of his officers. But certain officers set out from the very beginning to undermine and ridicule the Captain and thus the Captain was ultimately doomed.
Franco, there will be another election in 2012. This time I beseech you, for the good of the nation, make an effort to drum up some enthusiasm and campaign for the GOP candidate. If the Progressives win again America as we know it may never recover. It may already be too late but we must resist with all our will. The millions who have died to keep us free, the ones who are dying even now, demand that we do no less.
franco 2 // Dec 20, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Ok gackle, now we are talking.
OK but there is some real naivete in the GOP. The MSM set us up for McCain , and Mc Cain and many in the GOP were blindsided thinking the MSM would be sympathetic to Johnny Mac, maverick Senator from AZ , but as I predicted they turned on him. It is sad and ironic that so many in the GOP went for MC Cain thinking he would be treated differently, and meanwhile all McCain’s disparagement of more conservative GOP pols was in vain and translated into zero “credibility” and zero goodwill on their part.
It wasn’t just errors by McCain. It was WHO HE IS. He is old. He relied too much on his status as a POW. He has been in the Senate too long to have debating chops or even be in touch with regular Republican working class voters. He has ALWAYS been too deferential to leftwing nuts and gives them too much credit. He even said that America “has nothing to fear with an Obama Presidency” Huh???
You know how bad Obama is. I know how bad Obama is, but our candidate says stuff like THAT??!!!
This is not who I want representing me and the only party that has a chance to thwart Democrats.
Lots of Hillary voters were turned off to Democrats. I personally used that divide in discussions with Democrats and it woke a lot of Dems up as to how radical their party has become. Many Dems stayed home too.
I also am a strong believer in being mindful of alternative realities, which so many people miss. For example, one argument I never hear about the Iraq war is; OK if we didn’t do that we would still have troops in Saudi Arabia, we don’t know if Sadaam could have fired scuds and killed even more troops than died in the 8 year war. We would have overextended ourselves anyway with thousands of troops in Saudi and Afghanistan. Sadaam was a wild card, a rogue player and he had to be dealt with. Had we not invaded Sadaam would still be in control in Iraq and we really don’t know what the situation today would be, but we know that he was getting around sanctions and he wanted nukes and was playing with terroists. I also think Bush tried perhaps vainly, to give the Middle East a chance to get a real Democracy ,and stop playing games with dictators which we had been doing for years and which contributed perhaps more than anything else to radicalizing element in the ME. I don’t know why the Bush administration didn’t articulate some of that better and defend themselves against the reams of propaganda. They really were in an ivory tower on those issues. They really thought that it diddn’t matter if people impugned their motives and they tried to dumb down the reasons for going into Iraq (WMD – which the left KNEW they were just using this as shorthand instead of more difficult arguments and used it against them, and ultimately got them on it)
What would happen were McCain elected. really I ask you to contemplate what the MSM would be saying about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, what kind of fire MCain would be under for the unemployment and Tarp fallout and whether MCain would be pushing immigration reform in part to appease the left who would love a few million more Democrat voters for a permanent majority. And then what would be the natural consequence of 8 years of Bush and 4 years of McCain. The political tectonic plates would erupt and it wouldn’t be pretty. I view Obama’s 4 years – and I really think he will lose to just about any Republican in 2012 as having a sobering effect on the entire electorate moderate R’s and Dems alike and will pay off for a long time.
You can’t hold the Presidency forever and this time given the way it played out and McCain was a loser anyway, I had a lot of time to think. As soon as he won the nomination I was crestfallen. I can’t emphasis that enough. It isn’t just that it wasn’t “my guy” it was far beyond that.
Now I believe what is important is for the GOP to recognize and compromise with conservatives and they need to clean house vis-a vis voting for pork and politics as usual. The days of dismissing tea parties and Palin supporters as idiots should be over. They don’t have to become total Christian bible thumpers and moralists, just heed to tax and the big government pleas and have a spine with Democrats especially LEFTIST Democrats. And stop worrying about being called names. It is now meaningless, they call everyone racists now, and with 95% voting for Obama it is beyond minute to get their vote.
The Republican Party DOES have some problems believing and often capitulating to the left’s assumptions. This site is full of “we can run the government better” and “our government programs are better” This is a loser, not just politically but because government is way too big already. We need to shrink it or freeze it. We need to BE the party of NO MORE. Not the party of other statist solutions. We just don’t have any more leeway before the country is a huge Venezuela. And that will be well received by the public as long as we have good people articulating these ideas and not calling those that are, wackos.
We are beginning to see this on the Health Care debacle. I believe the R party has finally gotten the message that they are better off saying “NO” and not caring what the CNN spin is.
We need to fight and the battleground is ready. A massive number of Democrats and independents are seeing what kind of radicals are running the Democratic party. This isn’t what they voted for.
Despite the pain we are experiencing now, the GOP will pick up seats in both houses, perhaps an unprecedented number and by 2012 be in good shape.
grackle // Dec 20, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Ok gackle, now we are talking.
OK but there is some real naivete in the GOP. The MSM set us up for McCain , and McCain and many in the GOP were blindsided thinking the MSM would be sympathetic to Johnny Mac, maverick Senator from AZ , but as I predicted they turned on him. It is sad and ironic that so many in the GOP went for MC Cain thinking he would be treated differently, and meanwhile all McCain’s disparagement of more conservative GOP pols was in vain and translated into zero “credibility” and zero goodwill on their part.
I give more credit to the primary voters. I don’t believe they voted for McCain because they thought McCain would receive favored treatment from the MSM. I believe they thought he was the best candidate. Period. The MSM will NEVER approve of a GOP candidate – that’s a given that the GOP leadership and many conservative-minded voters understand well. And you and the SoCons should also understand it.
And what you term as “all McCain’s disparagement of more conservative GOP pols” is nothing more than ordinary hard-fought primary campaign behavior. What should McCain have done, or any other hopeful candidate do, in the primaries, express APPROVAL of their opponents? Please. You are being unreasonable to think they should do that. That comes after the primaries are over and the nominee selected, then we can all be nice and approving and bond together to defeat the Progressives.
It wasn’t just errors by McCain. It was WHO HE IS. He is old.
I see you have fallen for this assumption that younger is better. I don’t really blame you. After all, worship of youth and the young permeates our culture. We are all made to feel that ‘old’ is bad. It’s a total pile of crap but many fall for it.
He relied too much on his status as a POW.
I don’t think so. It was a rare thing whenever McCain alluded to it. And I also believe that it was right and proper, in the appropriate circumstances, to occasionally remind folks of it. It was, after all, a significant part of the man’s life, an episode that revealed the man’s mettle. But McCain never TRADED on it – other people may have but not McCain himself. Here you blame McCain for something the media did.
He has been in the Senate too long to have debating chops or even be in touch with regular Republican working class voters.
McCain may, as you claim, be out of touch but he’s fighting the monstrous Obama healthcare travesty tooth and nail. In fact McCain is leading the opposition to it in the Senate. If you think SS and Medicare are costly then you must know that the Progressive health care plan is potentially 10, maybe even 20 times more costly. McCain seems to know that once this thing is imposed on our system that it may turn out to be just as Medicare and Social Security is now: untouchable. Doesn’t that count for something in your estimation of him?
He has ALWAYS been too deferential to leftwing nuts and gives them too much credit. He even said that America “has nothing to fear with an Obama Presidency” Huh??? You know how bad Obama is. I know how bad Obama is, but our candidate says stuff like THAT??!!! This is not who I want representing me and the only party that has a chance to thwart Democrats.
I agree that it was a stupid thing to say. And also a stupid tactic to dampen Obama opponents’ enthusiastic disapproval of Obama – as McCain did a couple of times during the campaign. They had fears about Obama that have since been proven to be real. McCain got caught short at a couple of those townhall-style campaign venues he favored. Haven’t you ever said something stupid, Franco?
And I also agree that McCain had made some poor decisions in regards to deference to the Left in the years previous to the campaign. Like I have indicated already, McCain was not my first choice, either. But once the primaries are over it’s time to realize that no matter what misgivings you may have had about the nominee that you need to get behind him(or her). Otherwise you may get what we got now – a disaster of unbelievable proportions.
Lots of Hillary voters were turned off to Democrats. I personally used that divide in discussions with Democrats and it woke a lot of Dems up as to how radical their party has become. Many Dems stayed home too.
Respectfully, Franco – you are wrong. The Dems didn’t stay home and the Hillary voters didn’t revolt. After a bit of understandable and conventional grousing they fell right into line. All the drama was just the media hyping a story. No one in the know gave serious thought to the possibility of the Hillary supporters causing any problems during the election.
I also am a strong believer in being mindful of alternative realities, which so many people miss. For example, one argument I never hear about the Iraq war is; OK if we didn’t do that we would still have troops in Saudi Arabia, we don’t know if Sadaam could have fired scuds and killed even more troops than died in the 8 year war. We would have overextended ourselves anyway with thousands of troops in Saudi and Afghanistan. Sadaam was a wild card, a rogue player and he had to be dealt with. Had we not invaded Sadaam would still be in control in Iraq and we really don’t know what the situation today would be, but we know that he was getting around sanctions and he wanted nukes and was playing with terroists. I also think Bush tried perhaps vainly, to give the Middle East a chance to get a real Democracy ,and stop playing games with dictators which we had been doing for years and which contributed perhaps more than anything else to radicalizing element in the ME. I don’t know why the Bush administration didn’t articulate some of that better and defend themselves against the reams of propaganda. They really were in an ivory tower on those issues. They really thought that it diddn’t matter if people impugned their motives and they tried to dumb down the reasons for going into Iraq (WMD – which the left KNEW they were just using this as shorthand instead of more difficult arguments and used it against them, and ultimately got them on it)
I see you have fallen prey to yet another Progressive meme: That the Iraq war was only about WMD and that WMD was not a danger. When they found over 500 metric tons of yellowcake in Iraq that discovery settled for me the question of WMD, Saddam and his intentions. But Saddam was toppled mainly because after his defeat by the first Bush he spent 13 years violating every single post-war agreement. If he had been the least bit compliant after the Kuwait war he could still be happily torturing and murdering Iraqis in the basements of his palaces. Saddam was a gambler and he gambled that he could be an asshole with impunity – I think he craved the prestige from the Moslem world his defiance was bringing him. He’s dead now and beyond all bets. Good riddance.
What would happen were McCain elected. really I ask you to contemplate what the MSM would be saying about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, what kind of fire MCain would be under for the unemployment and Tarp fallout and whether MCain would be pushing immigration reform in part to appease the left who would love a few million more Democrat voters for a permanent majority. And then what would be the natural consequence of 8 years of Bush and 4 years of McCain. The political tectonic plates would erupt and it wouldn’t be pretty. I view Obama’s 4 years – and I really think he will lose to just about any Republican in 2012 as having a sobering effect on the entire electorate moderate R’s and Dems alike and will pay off for a long time.
What would happen if McCain had won? The media has been quiet on Iraq ever since we started winning there. I think it would be the same with Afghanistan. The MSM has no traction if the wars are going well. Oh, the Lefties would be bitching, of course, but they always hate it when America is winning a war, don’t they?
Sure, McCain might be catching hell from the MSM on various issues – ANY GOP President is going to get that – but to my mind that is a hell of a lot better than what has been happening and what is apparently about to happen. With Obama and the Dems in charge we are on the fast track to hell, Franco. Much of what you and I hold dear is going to be stuffed into a shithole.
You can’t hold the Presidency forever and this time given the way it played out and McCain was a loser anyway, I had a lot of time to think. As soon as he won the nomination I was crestfallen. I can’t emphasis that enough. It isn’t just that it wasn’t “my guy” it was far beyond that.
You gave up. A lot of folks had spent years resenting McCain for being too chummy and soft with the Left and I agree, he WAS too compliant. Then he did the unthinkable and won the nomination. Believe me, I know the feeling. But you and the folks in the same mental place you are in should have sucked it up and done your duty – which was to do everything you could to defeat Obama and the Dems. The issue in your minds after the primaries should have shifted from how disappointing McCain had been in the past to how dangerous Obama was to the nation.
Now I believe what is important is for the GOP to recognize and compromise with conservatives and they need to clean house vis-a vis voting for pork and politics as usual. The days of dismissing tea parties and Palin supporters as idiots should be over. They don’t have to become total Christian bible thumpers and moralists, just heed to tax and the big government pleas and have a spine with Democrats especially LEFTIST Democrats. And stop worrying about being called names. It is now meaningless, they call everyone racists now, and with 95% voting for Obama it is beyond minute to get their vote.
I really haven’t noticed any leading GOP pols badmouthing Palin, the Tea Party or Conservatives in general. The GOP in Congress has certainly vigorously opposed Obama. Wasn’t it just one Republican that voted for the Stimulus Bill? The Congressional GOP took a chance doing that because at the time it ran counter to public opinion. I don’t see that as being spineless. I haven’t seen any leading GOP pols calling Conservatives “wackos,” either.
The Republican Party DOES have some problems believing and often capitulating to the left’s assumptions. This site is full of “we can run the government better” and “our government programs are better” This is a loser, not just politically but because government is way too big already. We need to shrink it or freeze it. We need to BE the party of NO MORE. Not the party of other statist solutions. We just don’t have any more leeway before the country is a huge Venezuela. And that will be well received by the public as long as we have good people articulating these ideas and not calling those that are, wackos.
We are beginning to see this on the Health Care debacle. I believe the R party has finally gotten the message that they are better off saying “NO” and not caring what the CNN spin is.
We need to fight and the battleground is ready. A massive number of Democrats and independents are seeing what kind of radicals are running the Democratic party. This isn’t what they voted for.
Despite the pain we are experiencing now, the GOP will pick up seats in both houses, perhaps an unprecedented number and by 2012 be in good shape.
I hope you are right but the Dems have apparently decided to sacrifice some seats in Congress to get their health crap passed, so it may not matter. Once entitlements are granted it seems to be almost impossible to take them away. Also, although it looks pretty good now, I think the Dems and Obama probably have a couple of tricks up their sleeves and they may not lose as big as might be expected.
If McCain had won we would now have Palin learning the ropes in the front row and waiting for her chance – this time with a lot of experience and much smoother and more knowledgeable answers to loaded questions from the biased MSM interviewers.