Fred and John in South Carolina
By absentee Posted in 2008 — Comments (171) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Promoted by Jeff. To the new diarists: look at this (and absentee's other work) and only a select few others to see just how diaries should be done.
Yesterday I attended a Fred event in South Carolina. I thought Fred was great. He looked good, he sounded good. Well actually, he didn't sound good, he sounded like his sound system was a big steaming pile of broken wires. Which it was. But his answers sounded great. Perfect, actually.
Fred Thompson knows what he is talking about and he has the right answers. Not only that, he delivers them so well, so believably and sincerely that you can't help but feel on board. Fred Thompson is, in short, a great conservative. He is the Reagan Coalition coalesced. God Bless Him.
But this blog entry is not about Fred Thompson.
Read on.
I've been a Fred supporter for awhile. I came on board based on his record; I stayed on board based on his platform. I have blogged for, and donated to Fred. I want his message out there for the world. I believe his conservative answers are the right answers.
But this blog entry is not about Fred Thompson.
Tonight I went to another political event. I went to see Senator John McCain. I've decided not to wait for Saturday. I'm supporting John McCain for President.
You may wonder why you should care. Am I pompously trying to ride the roller-coaster of fame and fortune following my clichés blog hitting the Corner? Yes that was obviously a watershed moment in the annals of internet history but, no, that's not why. I think my support is relevant because I feel like I'm representative of something we're going to see happen Saturday. I think I'm a good barometer, or at least eyewitness, for something that is already happening here.
But this blog entry is not about me.
John McCain's town hall was fantastic. In every way, it was superior to Fred's, including, and it truly pains me to say this, including the actual candidates themselves. It is not just the fact that John's sound system worked and Fred's didn't. It is not just that John had Tom Coburn and Lindsey Graham there singing his praises. It's not just that the whole experience was professional and well-run.
It was John. I'm sorry, I really really am. I love Fred. But there was just no comparison. John McCain had the crowd fired up. He made his points. He got you to listen. John McCain showed he was a leader.
I learned some hard facts this week; facts I've been fighting not to learn. The problem with Fred's candidacy is winning. It's that I can't see him winning, not out there among the crowds.
Don't call it electability, in that snide tone, with those rolling eyes, as if it were the high school version of popularity. It's more than who likes him. It's more than the numbers of delegates, or the branches of conservativism he represents. It's about being the man that Americans are going to follow to war.
War was a big topic tonight. I don't mind telling you, as a former Marine, with those I care about in harm's way, John McCain's record matters to me. Frankly, I'm literally disgusted by those who sneer at bringing up his war record, and I use that word with absolute sincerity. Character counts. It matters. It's not a Kerry record we are talking about here. It is not the mere fact of military service, without context. John McCain's character is illustrated by his stellar service to his country, by his steadfast spirit in the face of his captors. It's not just that he was in the military. It's the integrity and heroism that marked his service. Don't try and sell me on the idea that that's not relevant. It manifestly is.
But this blog entry is not about his service.
John's town hall tonight found a largely receptive audience, but like here at Redstate, even those who were disposed to listen to him had issues they wanted to challenge him on. I'm not going to go into the policies he espoused, I think they're well-documented by better bloggers here at Redstate. What I do want to express is what he brought to bear here tonight.
Some people snicker at the Straight Talk slogan. I do not. Straight Talk is exactly what I heard. John does not pander to his audience. He does not back away from his positions. You tell me which Republican candidate besides John McCain is going to talk about conservation in South Carolina. Which one? Who would dare bring up an environmental topic here?
I don't buy man-made Global Warming. Some of you may remember my tirade a few weeks ago about the attempted indoctrination of my children. It was a tirade because I don't buy it. But John McCain didn't pander to me about it. You know, what he talks about isn't so different from what those of who aren't members of the AGW club talk about. He says ethanol subsidies are a mistake. They are. He says dependence on foreign oil is a major vulnerability. It is. He says we need more nuclear power. I cheered.
But this blog entry is not about global warming, thank goodness.
John talked tonight, and people listened to him. He was fearless. He was compelling. He was convincing. He was energetic. He was fired up.
Here's what the blog is about: Belief.
Yes, belief. I said it. I believe John McCain but, more importantly, I believe in John McCain. I believe he will secure the border. I believe he will tackle social security. I believe, and Tom Coburn believes and, let me tell you, the democrats cower in fear with belief, that John will absolutely go to war against government waste and spending. Look at the endorsements and friends that are lining up with John. War is coming to Washington. War on high taxes and an absurd tax code. War on spending. War on pork. War on corruption. John McCain, and his allies, are bringing a war to Washington and I believe in him.
There is more, of course. John will make a great Commander in Chief. When John was out front criticizing Rumsfeld, it was out of principle. It was out of his desire to protect and honor our troops, and it was from his mission in life to serve this Country well. And when the Petraeus reign began, John was out front there as well. I know what I remember: John was calling for more troops before anyone else. He may not be an architect of the surge, but he is at least an ideological forefather of the surge. This is a man, a leader, who knows what is required for the security of this nation and, yes Mr. and Mrs. Snarky, that INCLUDES securing the border.
This blog entry is about belief. I wanted to believe in Fred. I tried to believe in Fred. I worked at believing in Fred.
And then John McCain inspired my belief.
I'm tired of hearing about the Republican party being at a crossroads. This Nation is at a crossroads. I know we have some wars to fight in the coming years, and not just militarily.
John McCain is the man I hope leads us in those wars, and he is the man I believe has the strength, courage, and integrity to do it. Bring war to Washington, Senator McCain. I'm with you.
(and Fred Thompson for Vice-President!!!)
John's was probably three times larger than Fred's, but that is likely due to the venue and the fact that it was after work hours. I've got no estimate on actual numbers. My brain doesn't work that way. Somewhere between 35 and 623 people.
absentee
Guns don't kill people, abortions kill people.
Texas Proud and Texas Loud
I don't know what to do with that.
Well, I mean, I do. You should spit it out. Swallowing it would be disgusting.
But I meant, I really don't know how to respond to it.
Yes, this is how long it takes to me say I don't know what to say. You should see how long it takes me not to be able to think of something!
absentee
If you don't have anything of substance to say, keep your disgusting, juvenile taunts off a good diary.
but now it has been promoted to hip cultural reference by indie film makers. That has to be taken into account.
...if you knew his record and got off the emotion.
This sounds like star-struck to me but, I know his record in what he has done with all this alleged integrity and nonpandering. I know he has snubbed his nose at us as being the pee-ons too lowly and uneducated to consider First and Second Amendment protections...we don't need them, right?;
Candidate Research - Know Who You're Voting For ( The Easy Way ) http://tinyurl.com/2sowta
...it's starting to feel like every one of his voters blogs at RedState.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
I don't care about his actual age, four years later he's the man. John will be serving only one term as President.
If I had a caged leprechaun, you better believe he'd be making Fred VP and, four years from now, President.
absentee
I don't ever want to think of a President McCain. That's almost as disgusting as a President Paul or President Huckabee. I can't get inspired by McCain's willingness, even desire, to make the US an unsovereign nation. I can't get inspired by McCain's willingness to throw strict constructionist judges overboard. I can't get inspired by McCain because he voted against the Bush tax cuts twice. I can't get inspired by McCain because, other than the war, he's disgustingly liberal. I can't get inspired by him because his oath to uphold the Constitution rings hollow considering how little he thinks about states rights & the Tenth Amendment.
Not only that but I'd prefer to be led by the best. I explain here that Fred's the best. I could've made that long post quite a bit longer if I'd wanted.
The post I'd write on why I'd vote for John McCain wouldn't take up more than a couple paragraphs, if that.
The comparison is stunning.
Among us Fredheads, as absentee points out, others of us have moved on to the later stages:
The stages [of grief] Kubler-Ross identified are:
* Denial (this isn't happening to me!)
* Anger (why is this happening to me?)
* Bargaining (I promise I'll be a better person if...)
* Depression (I don't care anymore)
* Acceptance (I'm ready for whatever comes)
Absentee may be stage 5. I'm maybe a stage 3.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
If McCain's the nominee, then conservatives have already lost. So it's time to start looking towards 2012. And unfortunately, a McCain victory would mean that even 2012 would not be looking good.
In many ways, moving away from Fred is just like that.
You fight it. You get desperate. You scramble looking for a replacement. You find there is none and feel like quitting. You work with what you got.
Very perceptive.
absentee
And I'll argue that my likelihood of getting to state 5 = 0.00.
I don't throw my man overboard, just 'cuz his polling sux. I believe his program is best and if I'm ridiculed like Ronulan for that, so be it.
"If this ain't a mess, it'll do until one shows up." -Sheriff Bell, No Country For Old Men
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
Don't abandon reason in favour of emotion. That is something Democrats do. John may inspire you, but he's a compromiser from the Senate. John is not a leader, and Americans don't like to make compromisers into Presidents.
A few weeks ago I saw Fred on C-span in Iowa. There was a woman there who worked for a rape crisis center and she asked him what he would do to help them if he were elected President. He gently pointed out that it's not the role of the federal government to be involved. THAT is straight talk.
I hope the emotional experience of John's rally wears off by Saturday!
I appreciate that you think none of what I wrote came from thoughtfulness ... but there is a larger point. This is why I mentioned the barometer.
I doubt you are going to go find the people who attended the same two rallies I did and tell them they've succumbed to emotion. It's not a matter of me. It's a matter of voters. Not just here in South Carolina but in the general election. If you think it's merely a matter of me and who I enjoyed hearing the most then you're not being practical.
I've been barking up the leadership tree for some time now here at Redstate. Inspiration is real. In the field, it can build heroes. In Reagan, it built a coalition. In John, it will build a 2008 win.
absentee
For a lot of people what's important is who inspires them, makes them feel energized, etc. But we're talking about John McCain here. This is the same John McCain who compromises with Kennedys and who helped keep judicial nominees from coming to a vote. He has stuck it to us one too many times for me to get excited about his candidacy. His words no longer have sway over me because I tuned him out long ago.
Just thought I'd add, I've been pro-McCain blogging here for weeks now. I've had him as my close second place alternative to Fred until this week.
absentee
Fred won't make the big push that I thought he would make.
Can I ask did you vote for McCain or Bush last go around?
I'm a North Carolina resident but I live near the border. Like I said, it's not about my vote in particular.
absentee
absetee must have a truck load of ballots to stop Freds push.
I just became interested in your opinion, and I'm not a McCain fan. Very well done.
"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman
I feel the same way. I disagree with McCain on some issues, and indeed I disagree with him strongly sometimes. But somehow when I disagree I end up respecting the man even more.
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
I, of course, agree with the result. But more importantly, this diary has 1) on the ground reporting and 2) personal reflection and reasoning. No talking points, no insincerity.
Recommended.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
session?
Belive in McCain? Yes, I believe he would most probably refuse to lose a war. But he would make it last longer and be harder when he gives all the captured illegal combatants their own lawyers with subpoenas that bring generals down to privates back to the States to testify in depositions and trials.
Will he finally name ONE American that tortured ONE named prisoner?
ONE?
Believe in the man, who, after seeing the people dare to call their congressmen and defeat the immigration bill, and then asked at a town hall if he would build the fence, replied angrily"
"Hell yeah, we'll build the G-D fence!"
The list is long for reasons we should not trust him to do right and why we should trust him to do wrong.
see the real record below
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Very nice blog, absentee!
I sincerely hope your new found inspiration comes to naught:)
I can feel your pain but I just can't agree with your accessement. I can understand voters turning to John, Mitt, Ron and the Huckster but I'm thinking for all the wrong reasons. I see the winning factors putting blindfolds on your logic. You assume that Fred can't win. You assume that John will seal the borders. You assume that John will reduce the size of government. You assume that John will cut taxes. You assume. You assume. You assume.
Do you get my drift? I personally think McCain's records leave no room for assumtion. The facts are McCain has not done any of these. But sir, if you have made up your mind, then sir that's what I like about America. We all have that option. A person can make choices. But the caveat to that is - one must live with that choice.
God speed to you and yours. But, before you leave Fred's camp, could you stop by and help fill that red pickup with a small donation? Us Fredheads would appreciate it.
I vote on Feb. 5th--I'm just waiting to see how South Carolina pans out. Totally agree with your assessments, though.
Erick K. Knackstedt
I, like you, appreciate, respect, and admire truth. John McCain shares his true feeling and perspective. I, like you, appreciate his service, his heroism, and his resolve to be true to his values. I, unlike you, will not vote for John McCain... for his version of truth is not conservative truth but is something much different. I have listened to John McCain, have learned from John McCain, and have been very disturbed by John McCain. His version of truth is not the truth I want to hear or have lead this great country.
The Gang of 14 hurt our country. John McCain's moderate voting record and inability to support our President and his party disturbs me. John McCain has had, what seems like centuries to close a border, improve an economy, build coalitions of strength within his own party, and defeat the negatives of the senate, and take care of other issues that you are giving him credit for.
I will not and cannot support John McCain simply for his lack of support for the tax cuts that helped keep the country out of the recession that Bill was setting us up for. In fact, going a step further, if the country and the economic engines that keep our economy going could feel confident that the tax cuts that John McCain does not support would remain in tact, I'm sure our 'recession talk' might not even be as big of an issue.
John McCain is a hero. I am proud of his service in the military. I am so grateful to him for being a patriot, and I am appreciative of his many years as a prisoner of war. I am glad that he speaks his version of the truth as he sees it. The facts are evident that he is a good man. The facts also show that he is not a true conservative, is not loyal to his party, and that he is part of the existing government that keeps the same old ball rolling.
John McCain's good qualities ensure that he is a good man. You get no argument from me about that. But his 'truth speaking' has not made any headway in congress. His policies are mediocre and moderate. He does not have the prodecural politics to get our country running faster and becoming stronger as we fight for our place in the growing world economy. He has been part of a Congress that said "Build a fence" but then did not fund the project. He was part of a Congress that allowed so many earmarks, pork, and idiodic ammendments to be added to an energy bill (including a timetable to leave Iraq) to be sent to the President. President Bush had no choice but to send it back for some thinking. He is also a senator that has a failed plan for Illegal Immigrants. How many years does it take to ensure that these programs are in place. He even had a Republican Senate and House to work with, yet still NONE of those issues were handled.
John McCain... and all the good things we can say about him... is part of the problem and not part of the solution. He has had his chance, he has had his opportunity... and he did not stand in the right corner.
Time for another truth speaker. Time for new blood in Washington. Time for Mitt Romney. He can build a wall, he can build an economy, he can build a vision. He can help place America back where we should be and where we were under Reagan.
Thank you for your service and for your opinion... I think your next visit should probably be to a Mitt Romney meeting. Keep reading, keep studying, and continue to search for truth...for the truth shall set you free.
MITT for PRESIDENT!!!!
EK
It is compelling and well written.
I have a lot of issues with McCain but will certainly support him in the general. I would like to believe the John McCain who has years of experience sticking his thumb in Conservatives' eyes (on immigration, the first and second amendment) will be different once he swears in as POTUS.
This helps me to be a little bit more comfortable that may occur.
Until then I have a deep seated fear that this is just SSDD, something he has done well for quite some time.
The greatest single cause of Atheism today is Christians who profess Jesus with their lips & then go and deny him by their lifestyle. That's what an unbelieving world simply finds..unbelievable -Brennan Manning
for the report from SC and I agree with your analysis of McCain's rallies. I watched on C-span some of his townhalls in NH and he shines in those events. If he gets the nomination, I hope he goes out and hosts townhalls with his conservative critics because I think he can ease their concerns about him.
McCain '08
That one rally can erase a decade of stabbing conservatives in the back.
That's a deliberate overstatement. But if you are interested in knowing I've been pro-McCain blogging for weeks, and have had him my number two for weeks.
I'm glad I haven't been going around Redstate denigrating and belittling the pro-Candidate bloggers (Paul doesn't count), although I've had a few choice words for some of the Nega-gogues. If I had I'd be sitting here thinking I was getting what comes around. Instead I'm pondering my McThomneyiani blog, the gist of which I think was lost in the kitsch of which.
We have four good candidates and one mediocre candidate. I think McCain has what we need. Perhaps you are not interested in what he can do, but rather how he has crossed you. That's fine for you, but it's not for me.
absentee
And some people believe that Bush LIHOP. Both are equally likely.
(1) Gang of 14
(2) McCain-Feingold
(3) McCain-Kennedy
(4) grandstanding on water boarding
(5) AGW kool-aid drinker
(6) McCain-Lieberman (5a?)
(7) McCain-Kennedy-Edwards
(8) original opposition to the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003
(9) disingenuousness on "The Surge" -- sure, McCain was for "more troops" long before, and in opposition to, most others. However, the most important part of "The Surge" is the accompanying change in tactics, deployment, and ROE promulgated by Gen. Petraeus -- 50K more soldiers hanging around inside the Green Zone wouldn't have done much good. McCain wasn't ahead of anybody, on that.
(10) Personal: When he forced the Senate, under threat of filibuster, in 2001 to deal with HIS pet project -- McCain-Feingold -- for two solid weeks of floor time, before allowing it, in his magnanimity, to get around to debating the ELECTED President's proposals, I lost a LOT of respect for him. He acted like a spoiled teenager, upset that he lost the nomination, taking out his frustrations in a fit of pique against the man who beat him. And for WHAT? Repealing the first amendment, of all things...
No. While you can, should, and must respect the man for his service and experiences in captivity, the most sterling reputation can be tarnished by later actions. Unfortunately, John's Senate career is nowhere near as praiseworthy as his military service.
A conservative voting for McCain is a battered wife.
"I'm with Fred, the true conservative"
John McCain is and always has been a Judas to the GOP and to conservatism. Should McCain or Huckabee win the nomination I will be voting for the democrat. If I'm going to suffer for 4 years under a liberal at least it can be with one who proudly wears the title!
He gave inspiring speeches that caused people to believe in him before and after all of these transgressions:
There’s a reason some of John McCain's conservative supporters avoid discussing his record. They want to talk about his personal story, his position on the surge, his supposed electability. But whenever the rest of his career comes up, the knee-jerk reply is to characterize the inquiries as attacks.
The McCain domestic record is a disaster. To say he fought spending, most particularly earmarks, is to nibble around the edges and miss the heart of the matter. For starters, consider:
McCain-Feingold — the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo.
McCain-Kennedy — the most far-reaching amnesty program in American history.
McCain-Lieberman — the most onerous and intrusive attack on American industry — through reporting, regulating, and taxing authority of greenhouse gases — in American history.
McCain-Kennedy-Edwards — the biggest boon to the trial bar since the tobacco settlement, under the rubric of a patients’ bill of rights.
McCain-Reimportation of Drugs — a significant blow to pharmaceutical research and development, not to mention consumer safety (hey Rudy, pay attention, see link).
And McCain’s stated opposition to the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was largely based on socialist, class-warfare rhetoric — tax cuts for the rich, not for the middle class. The public record is full of these statements. Today, he recalls only his insistence on accompanying spending cuts.
As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, McCain was consistently hostile to American enterprise, from media and pharmaceutical companies to technology and energy companies.
McCain also led the Gang of 14, which prevented the Republican leadership in the Senate from mounting a rule change that would have ended the systematic use (actual and threatened) of the filibuster to prevent majority approval of judicial nominees.
And then there’s the McCain defense record.
His supporters point to essentially one policy strength, McCain’s early support for a surge and counterinsurgency. It has now evolved into McCain taking credit for forcing the president to adopt General David Petreaus’s strategy. Where’s the evidence to support such a claim?
Moreover, Iraq is an important battle in our war against the Islamo-fascist threat. But the war is a global war, and it most certainly includes the continental United States, which, after all, was struck on 9/11. How does McCain fare in that regard?
McCain-ACLU — the unprecedented granting of due-process rights to unlawful enemy combatants (terrorists).
McCain has repeatedly called for the immediate closing of Guantanamo Bay and the introduction of al-Qaeda terrorists into our own prisons — despite the legal rights they would immediately gain and the burdens of managing such a dangerous population.
While McCain proudly and repeatedly points to his battles with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who had to rebuild the U.S. military and fight a complex war, where was McCain in the lead-up to the war — when the military was being dangerously downsized by the Clinton administration and McCain’s friend, former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen? Where was McCain when the CIA was in desperate need of attention? Also, McCain was apparently in the dark about al-Qaeda like most of Washington, despite a decade of warnings.
My fingers are crossed that at the next debate, either Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney will find a way to address McCain’s record. (Mike Huckabee won’t, as he is apparently in the tank for him.)
— Mark R. Levin served as chief of staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese in the Reagan administration, and he is a nationally syndicated radio talk show host.
I didn't get converted to this party to watch its antithesis take it over. I watched the 2000 SC primary as an objective observer and saw clearly that the better man and leader and the one with the better character was the current President and not this hot tempered back stabber of his own party.
Yes, absentee he panders to his audience. His audience are those that book him on Sunday shows and fawn all over him when he attacks the purveyors of hate, ie the Religious Right or conservatives, and republicans.
He does not believe in the free market. He is not for free speech. He has a hot temper and a vindictive streak.
Its late. We love ya guy.
more later
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
for the "more later"!
absentee... What can I say? Did they drug you? Too much kool-aid at the McCain event? Sorry, but I this is like when a friend falls off the wagon and starts smoking crack again...
You sit there knowing that decision is theirs and you have no place to tell them different. All you can do is hope they come to their senses before they have to go to work on Monday. In your case it's Saturday... Snap out of it man!
later be that for the rest of the week I write columns on:
How liberals are moved by the visual to emotional connections
How conservatives are moved by ideas
How an SC Dem that used to enjoy McCain's dissing of repubs until McCain's character problem was revealed in the raw in SC in 2000
The arrogance of power as revealed in spades in McCain's arrogance re the fence, taxes, the first amendment, etc
Why most any Repub will beat any Dem in November
Why Fred can win the general
Huckabee's pardons and clemencies
even more later
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
...I must just as respectfully disagree.
Absentee, your posts always strike me as being thoughtful and well-reasoned. This one is no different. That said, leadership does one no good if it is leadership in the wrong direction.
I deeply respect Sen. McCain for his service to his country. I voted for him numerous times when I lived in AZ. But the man I voted for in the 80s & 90s is not the same man today.
Unlike you, I will not be voting for Sen. McCain but, ironically, it will be for the same reason--his leadership since 2000. Sen. McCain led the fight to eviscerate 1st ammendment political speech; he led fights to place onerous regulations on our businesses due to his embrace of AGW and opposed tax cuts on class warfare grounds; he led the Gang of 14 which threw many qualified judges overboard and he opposes techniques of interrogation that our front-line interrogators say have saved American lives; he led the fight for open borders which is not merely a sovereignty issue but one of national security.
The list could go on but being the reasoned person you are, you already know the laundry list. But the biggest reason I will not vote for John is his temperament and condescension toward those who disagree with him. His vulgar tirades against Sen. Cornyn and those who disagreed with him on immigration, his lettuce picking and g*d d**n fence comments; the countless times I have seen his caustic, condescending response to those who happen to disagree with him.
So, for me, John's leadership qualities always seem to be used in ways which betray conservative principals on the most critical issues and at the most critical times. That, combined with his lack of presidential demeanor, is why I cannot ever give him my vote.
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Senator McCain may very well be a good speaker. He may sound reasonable and jovial and responsible with the way he begins every sentence with, "My friends...". He may sound like a great leader because he's the infamous "Maverick," someone who can "work with Democrats."
What does he work with Democrats on? Well, for starters, he opposed the significant Bush tax cuts. He may claim now that he did so because they weren't coupled with spending cuts, but during that debate he pulled out class-warfare rhetoric time and time again. That's not Straight Talk - that's distorting your record. If Sen. McCain wants to embrace Huckabeeism, fine, but be honest about it later down the line when running for President. The Huckabeeism line also comes into play with McCain recently attacking "Big Drug" companies as evil and his ideas for further socialization of the work force. (http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/12/john_mccains_new_welfare_plan.php)
What else has he worked with Democrats on? He's also a gung-ho blame-humans-for-global-warming kind of guy. For me, the issue is very simple: is warming happening? Yes. Has the Earth warmed and cooled for millenia? Yes. Is there significant, substantial, proof that human activity has directly "caused" warming this time around? No. (and if you think that isn't true, you aren't paying enough attention) Is the Sun heating up right now? YES! Are most proposals put out by the UN crowd and other leftists eerily leading to less freedom and power for the United States, while diverting some amount of our money to less powerful nations in a all-too-convenient Marxist way? Yes. I am not saying that man-made global warming is completely untrue, only that it is waaay far from being proven to be true and the proposals and rhetoric around it have just become ridiculous.
McCain-Kennedy-Bush on immigration. Do I really have to go here? Seriously?
You can call it "Straight Talk" all you want, but Sen. John McCain is not a complete conservative. He's not a stranger to Washington, or to big-government solutions, or to disregarding First Principles of the Constitution. He was a war hero; great, I'm proud of him for it- but seriously, is that all we're looking for here?
Whatever happened to looking for a leader who not only can talk like a leader, but has the record on the issues to prove that he's going to lead the country in the right way?
"Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more; you should not wish to do less" - Robert E. Lee
So I can't really chat, but this one thing keeps coming up.
I'm unmoved by the amnesty argument. The position of Bush, McCain, and Giuliani, as articulated best by Giuliani and McCain in the South Carolina debate, is my position as well.
Illegal immigration and border security are two different issues. I understand your feelings on McCain-Kennedy, I understand your position on McCain-Giuliani immigration policies. I simply don't share them.
As for the rest, as I say it is late. Besides, you are best served by accessing the two links in my blog entry above that refer to better bloggers. They have far more and better to say about policy than I.
absentee
Since you brought up the amnesty argument, I'll give you a little taste of how I think of it.
I'm an Economics and International Affairs Major at Georgia Tech. The Economics major part of me completely understands the notion of "self interest." I understand why somebody would want to cross the border, illegally or legally, to make some money for them and their family seeing as the Federal government won't do a darn thing to stop it.
My beef is not with illegal immigrants, for the most part. My beef is with the government for refusing to enforce the border, and acting like an amnesty-first and "security later" (which we were promised in 1986 but never given) approach will work. It will not. Secure the border, shut down illegal immigration, enforce the laws on the books. Five years down the line? Fine. Have some sort of legalization for those already here. I'm not advocating a mass deportation.
Myself, and most other reasonable conservatives, simply advocate using common sense. You don't stop, or prevent, illegal immigration by rewarding first then "enforcing" later.
Enforce the laws and borders of this nation. Prove to me that you can do that, without going into hyperventilation mode with respectable Senators (I'm talking about McCain blowing up at Sen. Cornyn) and acting like the vast majority of the nation is made up of idiots for wanting the laws enforced before going any further, then we'll talk. Plain and simple.
"Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more; you should not wish to do less" - Robert E. Lee
its the fact that he threw EVERYTHING he had to try and get it passed. His intensity in pursuing the policy makes it impossible to conclude that he wouldn't sign McCain-Kennedy should it cross his desk.
I still support Fred because I am more comfortable with his positions across the board. I supported McCain in 2000, I have read his books, he really is one of the greatest Americans of the last half century. I would lose all respect for this party, my party, if we split over such a good man, certainly we have elected worse, and the Demos undoubtedly have.
I think what you wrote is timely and factual, I do not see Fred winning SC. Regardless, now is not the time to switch horses, Fred said he had his own plan and I will support him and hope he is right. If McCain wins the nod in the end, I will give him all I can, he is a hero and this country could do a lot worse.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
absentee, I've just got to say, bravo! That was an awesome diary. Now, THAT's why I'm a long-time reader at RedState.
I only wish I could write such an eloquent rebuttal. I'll have to let the laundry lists in the posts above mine stand as my reasons why John is still close to the bottom of my list.
Still.. Nice writing.
support illegal immigrant amnesty - who needs border security anyway?
support CFR and silence his critics
support the Gang of 14 and stop conservative judges
torpedo any conservative efforts on life issues
Yea, you support him, and watch the erosion Bush started really take hold of this party.
but hey, he is such a likable guy in person, who needs actual issues?
but that is just me.
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }
In the interest of fairness (to me .. Hey, I'm selfish), this blog entry was about more than likeability. In fact, Fred was more likeable. Huckabee is extremely likeable.
With regard to amnesty; In the first place, John does not support amnesty. In the second place, I disagree with your reasoning. Border security and the status of the illegal immigrants currently here are, while obviously related issues, not the same issue. It's simply false to say John McCain doesn't want border security. It's not even logical. Clearly you think he is self-interested. Any self-interested person who can think wants the borders secured, and fast.
I've been saying for weeks, all of our candidates would secure the border. Huckabee, Giuliani and McCain included. As far as I am concerned, there is simply no question about it.
The gang of 14 thing has been discussed at length here. Certainly it is a reasonable republican and conservative position that the gang of 14 was a bad thing. But again, I completely disagree with your conclusion. Stop conservative judges? Clearly conservative judges were appointed, arguably as a result of the gang of 14. You can say it was wrong but you can't say it prevented us from getting conservative judges. The Supreme court isn't what it used to be.
As for torpedoing life issues, that's not really right either. John McCain has always supported life, and not just in principle but in votes. There is no question that John McCain, in addition to being pro-life, is antiabortion. I would NOT choose a primary candidate who was not.
John will fight this war we are in, and he is clear about what we face. Like Thompson, Romney and Giuliani, we can count on John to prosecute the War on Terror. Yes, even Romney.
I don't expect John McCain to step into office, abolish the new deal world, abolish the great society world, scrap social security, privatize NASA and institute a National Sales Tax.
I don't expect him to step into office and change the face of the American government as we know it.
I expect him to do that which he most fervently believes in. I expect him to step into office and end the Reign of Terror that is earmarks and corruption.
Out of control spending, and the corruption of our system it brings, that must be first.
Before Washington can reform, it must repent. John will bring his allies and to Washington and clean that place up. And in four years, his Vice-President will be campaigning on all those other issues so dear to us. All those Thompson issues. And that candidate, be he Fred Thompson or some other much less perfect candidate, will be going to a Washington where those things can actually happen.
absentee
...positions in respect to Senator McCain.
I however, feel that a lot of the positions he is taking right now are not because he believes in them. After he got taken to the woodshed over his illegal immigrant amnesty bill by the electorate, he changed his positions because he wanted to be elected, not because he believes in it.
Is it necessary to bring up the "I'll build the d**n wall" comment he made in anger. That was not an isolated incident. I am still convinced that his heart is more with the main street republican partnership and not with the conservatives. He is wearing the conservative "coat" to get elected, not because he believes in it. -- but that is my opinion.
Of course we can get into his man made global warming position too, and the carbon fuels tax proposal he and Joe Lieberman are now proposing. He is wrong on taxes! He is pushing this tax that would further damage our economy. Imagine what he would do once he is elected and doesn't have to "deal" with those pesky conservatives.
I do completely agree that he would be wonderful on the war and spending, but that is about all. He is and would be a much better choice than the Democrats have to offer as well. I will wholeheartedly support him in the general if he wins the nomination, but he is not my ideal candidate in the primary.
I get a very bad feeling about him when you put all this together. I feel he is only making nice to get elected.
...and if we disagree of some of these issues, that is okay too. That is what a primary is about. It is nothing personal. I enjoy the debate.
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }
With regard to amnesty; In the first place, John does not support amnesty.
That happens not to be the case. McCain supports preferentially giving legal status to illegals, which is was what 'amnesty' has always meant in the immigration context since at least the 1980s.
I see that Fred now has a commanding five point lead over Ron Paul in the national polling data. Now if he can just do something with those other pesky fellows'
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1554681020080117?feedTy...
Here is the quote: "McCain led among independents 45 percent to 13 percent and among moderates by 53 percent to 13 percent, while McCain and Huckabee tied among Republican voters.
In third place was former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson at 14 percent, with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney at 13 percent."
It would seem he is dealing 'with those other pesky fellows' just fine.
Texas Proud and Texas Loud
and tied for third behind McCain, who is first, and Huckabee. But no one has a commanding enough lead to matter. It's all about south Carolina and then Florida.
Fred is basically in third in SC, not too far off the pace. In SC, he's 5th, but again, not too far off the pace.
should he get 2nd or better in SC (I think he'll get second), that will sink Huckabee and narrow the field to 4 in Florida, with Fred having momentum.
other than inspire me to be disgusted when I see him and when you throw Lindsay Graham in behind him....forget about it I have to shut the tv off.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
There are just too many items on the list of onerous McCain ideas and deeds that make him a non-starter for too many. Not only would his presence on the ballot depress turnout from key elements of various conservative-spectrum slices top-ticket, it would also doom many good conservatives running for office down stream.
I just don't see the GOP coming out of a McCain-led November 2008 without having the threads holding its conservative fabric together ripped apart.
And, for the record, no matter how many times he and his babbling chorus of insipid re-definers try to sell the silly spin, at the end of the day if any illegal alien is still here with a chance of becoming legitimate as a result of legislation, it is at some level "an amnesty."
Since the established penalty has long been deportation, their continued presence might be considered conditional amnesty. But it's still amnesty, and McCain isn't going to change any more minds at this point by continuing to insultingly repeat it. He's only going to alienate (no pun intended) more people every time he does.
And, by the way, calling the existing situation a "de facto amnesty" is the epitome of snake oil. So much for that asinine "straight talk" garbage we keep hearing from him.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
About everything has been said in the comments above. I will just add that when I think of John McCain, two things come to mind above all the others.
1) CFR
2) The class warfare rhetoric he used back when he was talking about the Bush tax cuts. My gosh, it made me SO MAD at the time.... it left a mark, for sure.
-------------------------------------------------------
"I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"
And you can take that to the bank! If, God forbid, he becomes the nominee, the conservatives will stay home or go with a new party. Secondly, if people compare Hillary's record with his, they will see that the two are npt much different, and vote for her. And unless we have someone who will be proactive about the borders and not reactionary like McCain, WE WILL NEVER SECURE OUR BORDERS!!! That is why this conservative is sold on one and only, Fred Thompson, and I will campaign for him. Write letters for him, and do whatever is necessary to make him the next President of the United States. He is the only one that protect our nation and the ONLY one that caan keep the Reagan coalition together as well as the GOP!!! And you can take that to the bank!
I thought it was a good reply. It shows McCain's problems (problems with conservatives) and passion for Fred.
McCain is becoming my second choice behind Fred, only because I think McCain can win, while the other candidates all lose nationally (except Fred), but I still don't think the guy would make a good president.
To claim that no conservatives support John McCain is false. The use of caps like that never looks good. The talk of bolting the party just makes his whole faction look unreliable for party building.
so I think he's basically right on that. The fact is many conservatives would bolt -- McCain only wins the general because he would pick up a lot of independents and security Democrats. The fact is a lot of people would bolt the party -- and it's not Fred's faction that looks bad for party building -- it's McCain that is bad for party building.
Look, he's my second choice and I don't get as worked up against him as others do, but being quite involved in politics myself, McCain is opposed by a large group of people, and I'd say it's divided between those who would vote for him because of the iraq issue only and those who would stay home.
Fact is, Rush is right on this one. McCain would win, in my view, though the party would suffer in the process. And, there is nothing wrong with bolting -- I would bolt if Huckabee were the nominee.
not in a primary, for sure. The guy is better than Hillary or Obama, certainly, but he's not really a Republican in the true senses of the word. He's an independent.
He's my second choice, a distant second choice, to Fred, only because I think Romney would get clobbered. I couldn't vote for Huckabee, even in a general, and I like McCain better than Rudy.
To me it's Fred Thompson all the way and if Fred doesn't make it then I want McCain, because I think he beats Hillary and maybe Obama. I hope if it is McCain that he picks Fred as his running mate so a few Republicans actually want to work for him. That's McCain's probably, outside of you and a few others, he doesn't inspire anyone and doesn't have a base. He just is what he is -- a national figure flying solely on name recognition.
I admire him but he is just wrong on so many issues. And it says something about how bad our candidates are (save Fred) that he's actually my second choice.
I can see your reasoning.... but a couple of questions.
1) Why McCain over Rudy? I have to put Rudy ahead, even though I don't agree with some of his liberal persuasions. But at least he doesn't do the whole.... throw the rest of the Rs under the buss thing.
2) Why are you so certain Mitt can't win?
1) Because McCain is at least somewhat socially conservative and I think Rudy has a lot more dirt.
2) Because he polls so badly vs. Obama (by 30 in a recent poll) and even Hillary (by 12), and is awful in state by state polls. He would have trouble even winning Kansas by polls here, while Thompson, McCain, and Rudy all win easily. He has no natural base in the country and would have to spend a lot of time defending red states. I just think he loses all but a few states to either HIllary or Obama. He gets a few moer with Hillary, hardly any with Obama.
"I believe he will secure the border. I believe he will tackle social security."
On the latter: He had his chance to announce an intent to reform social security at the last NH debate. Not a peep.
On the former: Do you realize how foolish you sound?
for Huckabee by many Mormons. Why do evangelicals not like McCain? Because he is a sneering elitist who plainly disdains evangelicals.
Who does McCain listen to? If I had to say the most arrogant and least likely to listen to others person in the entire election,
Ron Paul and John McCain.
"hatred for Huckabee by many Mormons"
I believe you meant this to be a voting bloc assessment but it does not come out right.
As for least likely to listen to others ...
Look, it is obvious that his willingness to compromise with Democrats is a major downside to John. However, it certainly should provide evidence of his ability to listen to others.
He also listens to his advisors. Like President Bush, John McCain will listen to the Secretary of Defense and to the Generals in the field.
As for disdain for evangelicals. I've said here many times, I am a conservative Southern Baptist. My family is heavily involved in evangelism in North and South Carolina. I feel no disdain but, look; I'm not voting for John so he'll like me. If you are pro-life, if you protect my religious freedoms, well I don't really care what you think of me. You know? Disdain all you want, just act right, as we say in the South.
absentee
" And then John McCain inspired my belief. "
How can you say this after all our history with John McCain??
This blog makes it sound like John McCain and the Media are fooling you!!!
I am praying that others are not fooled. Best way to know if you should elect someone is their history! Don't believe what they "say" they will do if it goes completely against EVERYTHING they have done in their history!
If they say things that go against their history, they are "saying" things to get elected!
They are trying to fool you into electing them!
God Bless.
Ron Paul tells it like it is too. And you know what? For the most part (I would say 85%+ of the time), he's right. He certainly doesn't pander to the crowd he's talking too. BTW, I would probably vote for Huck before voting for Paul (which is really saying something).
I think we need more than a no-nonsense straight shooter. I think we need a no-nonsense straight shooter who shoots in the right direction.
The deal breaker for me with McCain is the global warming utter nonsense. If you can't stand up to this pile of doggie doo doo, you automatically move down several rungs on my ladder.
I also don't buy the McCain is going to bring war to Washington. If I believed that, I would vote for him. I think his record is replete with examples of making huge compromises (read: giving in) with the left. I think that is his nature.
I'm sorry, but I don't buy it.
All that said, vote for Fred!
Well written blog though!
is that we really do not know the truth. From what I understand, the experts are divided on it. For a candidate to jump on the Big Government Global Warming Bandwagon(tm) shows foolishness, I think. Furthermore, it is absolutely non-conservative.
One of the candidates (I think it was McCain, actually) said something along the lines of: Leaving a cleaner planet for latter generations is a good thing regardless of whether or not the Global Warming thing is a hoax. I can not disagree with that idea.
In the short term, I think the proper role of a US President in this matter would be to encourage and inspire people to find free market solutions to reduce pollution and help the environment. Let the market decide if it wants to move down the 'Green' path. With its size, a decision on the part of the federal government to go green could be a sort of 'free market incentive' to kickstart a green technology industry.
If it was determined that global warming was truly an impending disaster, I would think that the free market would drive the change more than government.
Go Fred!
One of the candidates (I think it was McCain, actually) said something along the lines of: Leaving a cleaner planet for latter generations is a good thing regardless of whether or not the Global Warming thing is a hoax. I can not disagree with that idea.
The science of saying that man made global warming is CAUSED by man emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is junk science.
Carbon Dioxide is a NATURAL element on this planet! While we are at it, lets clean up a few more natural elements from the planet so it will be cleaner for the children.
Cue the Bubble Boy video clip.....
Forgive my response, but the absolute stupidity of MMGW and destroying our economy in the name of a cleaner planet for our children over a hoax is just beyond amazing to me.
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }
Really.
Actually absentee, Langley, gamecock and knockdaddy have said everything I would like to say. I oppose McCain completely and totally, even though I'm sure he is passionate and personable.
He is not a coward or a loser. He does agree with so many positions that I oppose that I will never support him.
And if I'm faced with a November ballot of McCain vs Hillary or McCain vs. Obama, I will suffer from a massive case of deep, dark depression.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
I felt similarly upon reading this diary. As I would in November with McCain vs. Democrat. I didn't want to say it because I don't want to give absentee a hard time. I have always benefited from what he has had to say on RS. But still.... quite disappointed. Disheartening.
If someone switched from Rudy to McCain, no biggie. But from my guy Fred to McCain? From THE guy Fred to McCain? Ouch! :-/
(I always enjoy your comments too, by the way)
...batting for McCain. I also agree that Thompson would be a helluva VP.
The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left -- Ecclesiastes 10:2
As far as I'm concerned Senator McCain is just another Washington insider that, once in office, will partner with Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold to take us down the road to more Socialism.
We need someone in office who believes that there is too much power concentrated in Washington and is eloquennt enough to pound that home with the public.
John McCain strikes me as the kind of guy who will go along to get along. He has demonstrated time and again that he will discard conservative principles so I would never support him.
It is time for conservatives to stand up for what we believe in. I believe Fred Thomson is the man to lead our movement and I intend to vote for him.
so lacking in facts.
McCain deserves no conservative support after years of
his desertion from our principles.
Many above this post have written how I feel.
Thanks to them.
On a personal note:
I am jealous and have admiration for those on here that so ably
put their thoughts to text.
I can not, so lurking is my place.
Armed men can not be enslaved, only defeated.
Once again, absentee, your gift with the written word is plain to see. This is an amazing work, and diaries like this is the reason why I spend so much of my time on Redstate.
I don't think it would make much sense, however, to dispute your claims or attempt to dissuade you. Because you believe. And belief, by its very nature, is not susceptible to argument. Faith, after all, is a conscious act in spite of evidence, not because of it.
I will reserve my faith for those things I choose in spite of the evidence. Besides the obvious religious connection, one might conclude for example that my belief that Fred could win is a matter of faith, as it occurs in spite of evidence.
But my question, perhaps to the rest of us, is whether at this time in our history we need faith or we need reason. Is soul-enervating liberalism gaining ground because we conservatives lack faith, or because we lack reason? Are the Islamists perceiving weaknesses in the West because of a lack of faith or a lack of reason? Is capitalism and free market to be defeated by encroaching socialism and the nanny-state because of a lack of faith or a lack of reason?
In all of these things, I am forced to conclude that the crisis of Western Civilization is not one of faith, but one of reason.
For example, it is wholly unreasonable to conclude that the Islamists would stop their ways and reform, if only we would pull out of the Middle East and stop supporting Israel. Yet that is what the Left believes. It is entirely without reason that we can eradicate poverty through greater governmental involvement and welfare programs and housing projects and whatever sundry efforts by the state -- but my, it does make for a very attractive belief.
You may believe that McCain would do all of the things you listed. But reason, cold hard reason, suggests that he would not, or could not. Does reason suggest that Thompson or Romney or any of the others would do what McCain would/could not? I'm not sure. But reason does suggest that at least Fred Thompson is the least corruptible of the bunch, based on his record to date.
But this response is not about Fred.
It is about reason.
Each of us can believe whatever he or she wants. We are all entitled to our own opinions and our own beliefs.
But none of us is entitled to his own facts. And at the end of the day, it is literally imperative that we think about our candidate, our party, the conservative movement.
Literally. Imperative. That. We. Think.
-TS
"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt
"Man is what he believes."
Anton Chekhov (1860 - 1904)
Belief is one of those nebulous English words that make English such a fascinating language. It makes communication rich if, at times, opaque. In speaking of belief I may, perhaps, sound like I am referring to heady, unreasoned faith.
Belief is not an antonym for reason.
If we are to step back from rhetoric and examine the fundamental arguments here, let us first agree on our terms.
I believe in things that are true. For example, I believe the sky is blue and South Carolina is red.
I also state that I believe to indicate I hold an opinion. For example, I believe that Redstate is the best conservative blog online.
In neither case, does this exclude the possibility of reason.
I can also believe a person when they speak. Which is to say, I think they are not telling a lie. This, also, is not an exercise of religiosity.
I believe, yes. John McCain believes too. So does Tom Coburn.
Mike Huckabee Believes, and so do I.
"Men willingly believe what they wish."
Julius Caesar (100 BC - 44 BC)
Yes there is the other kind of belief too. Belief that defies reason. Belief that demands, that commands. Yes, there is belief that corrupts. Of course, that is all the more reason that one be steadfast in their own beliefs.
What of principles? Are we not to believe in these? I am certain I have heard this suggested at Redstate once or twice. Haven't we heard Fred Thompson supporters declare their belief in his beliefs?
"And if we now cast our eyes over the nations of the earth, we shall find that, instead of possessing the pure religion of the Gospel, they may be divided either into infidels, who deny the truth; or politicians who make religion a stalking horse for their ambition; or professors, who walk in the trammels of orthodoxy, and are more attentive to traditions and ordinances of men than to the oracles of truth."
-Samuel Adams
Truth. I believe in the Truth. And I believe in truth. I consider this a reasonable position. Moreover it is a reasoned position. Despite my belief in it, it remains reasonable.
Truth does not belie reason, and belief does not violate it.
"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything."
-Alexander Hamilton
In the barest most mundane sense, I am expressing the fact that I believe John McCain is telling the truth. I am also expressing that I believe in his earnest desire to accomplish those truths.
I am also saying that I believe in his beliefs. Not necessarily in agreement, but in agreement that they are his beliefs. That he is principled matters to me.
Yes, he is a strategic choice and, yes, I admit he was my second choice. However, believe me, he was not an unthinking choice.
absentee
it does not of course mean you are correct.
The better question may be what kind of thinking did McCain use to reach his beliefs?
"it does not of course mean you are correct."
Of course. I was engaging the point that TheSophist raised about thought vs. belief. In essence, to suggest that they are not mutually exclusive. Thoughtful belief is no oxymoron.
absentee
Don't get me wrong, absentee -- I never would accuse you or anyone of being unthinking in your belief in McCain. If I gave that impression, I apologize.
At the same time, I am suggesting that in many cases, belief is the antonym for reason, because reason demands evidence while belief can do without such niggling details.
For example, cold reason would tell me that Fred has no chance of winning SC, as his poll numbers are not where they need to be in order to form a logical conclusion of his victory. Nonetheless, I believe that he will, contrary to the evidence.
Similarly, I think (not believe, but think) that believing that McCain has earnest desire to accomplish what you suggest is without much evidence. I too can believe in McCain, and believe that his heart's in the right place, and believe that he will drain the swamp that is Washington.
But there is precious little evidence to support such a belief. Gamecock has listed a whole bunch of evidence to the contrary, and I don't need to delve into them here.
At the same time, reason dictates that we not exempt our favorite candidate from the same scrutiny. Is there really a lot of evidence to suggest that Fred would clean up Washington? Not particularly, no. I could try to make hay out of the fact that he walked away from the Senate voluntarily, indicating some sort of evidence that power did not ultimately corrupt the man, but I myself think that's somewhat thin soup. Nonetheless, it's something, rather than nothing.
What of principles? Are we not to believe in these? I am certain I have heard this suggested at Redstate once or twice. Haven't we heard Fred Thompson supporters declare their belief in his beliefs?
Strange thing is, and I limit this only to myself, I don't subscribe to conservative principles out of belief, but out of reason. I didn't start out a conservative -- rather, more accurate to say I was a raving straight-up Marxist as a younger man. Now that is belief. I subscribe to conservative principles out of reason, because of the evidence gathered which suggests that they just work. They're not particularly glamorous or inspiring ("Lower taxes" vs. "Equality of Man" is no contest in inspiration), but they just work at bringing peace and prosperity to the world.
I don't support smaller government out of ideology, but out of evidence that society flourishes when governments are limited and relatively powerless. Compare the American experience with the experience of statist countries.
I don't support gun rights out of ideology, but out of evidence that a disarmed population turns into a mass of victims rather than a strong citizenry.
I don't support enforcing our borders out of ideology, but out of evidence that lack of enforcement of those laws leads to widespread lack of respect for all laws.
I don't support federalism out of ideology, but out of evidence that it simply worked and continues to work at creating one of the greatest political systems ever devised for the maximization of individual liberty.
I don't support individual liberty out of ideology, but out of evidence that people are happier, wealthier, and more at peace with one another when they have freedom.
I don't support capitalism and the free market out of ideology, but out of evidence that despite its warts, capitalism has brought more people out of poverty, misery, and oppression than all of the -isms in history combined.
It is reason, ultimately, that distinguishes conservatism from socialism, liberalism, multiculturalism, and all of the other -isms. No matter what the false prophets on the Left and the media and the academe claim, reason is conservative, not liberal.
Therefore, I will reason my way to support of one candidate or another. If Fred should drop out, then I will rely on whatever evidence can be marshalled to show the likely outcome of one or another candidate. Belief has its place (as you can see from my support of Fred, despite the polls), but ultimately, it will be reason that guides my decision.
-TS
"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt
completely with your comments on this thread. I was never a Marxist, but was certainly one who, in response to being raised by very conservative Republican parents, went over to the lib side back in the late 60's and 70's. Fought my way back to sounder mental health by the mid-90's and became a solid conservative on 9/11, like so many others. As with you, I believe Fred will take S.C. despite evidence to the contrary.
And I do NOT believe that McCain will be a good conservative president should he be the candidate we are stuck with--but I will vote for him nonetheless and cringe when the illegal immigration issue comes up once again in his administration should he win. Well, cringe and be on the phone again, just like the last go-round.
There still seems to be a semantic disconnect between our posts.
"I don't support individual liberty out of ideology, but out of evidence that people are happier, wealthier, and more at peace with one another when they have freedom."
In every sense of the english word believe, it is therefore accurate to say that you believe in individual liberty.
It is not necessary to conclude that you believe in individual liberty due to a fundemantal, underlying philosophical belief.
As I say, there exists more than one sense of the word believe.
I believe in reason. Where does that leave me?
absentee
As usual, you have made good points. Let me see if I can sharpen the distinction somewhat.
"I don't support individual liberty out of ideology, but out of evidence that people are happier, wealthier, and more at peace with one another when they have freedom."
In every sense of the english word believe, it is therefore accurate to say that you believe in individual liberty.
It is not necessary to conclude that you believe in individual liberty due to a fundemantal, underlying philosophical belief.
You're right. Now, contra:
Yes, belief. I said it. I believe John McCain but, more importantly, I believe in John McCain. I believe he will secure the border. I believe he will tackle social security. I believe, and Tom Coburn believes and, let me tell you, the democrats cower in fear with belief, that John will absolutely go to war against government waste and spending. Look at the endorsements and friends that are lining up with John. War is coming to Washington. War on high taxes and an absurd tax code. War on spending. War on pork. War on corruption. John McCain, and his allies, are bringing a war to Washington and I believe in him.
These are two different types of belief, and they are separated by more than semantics.
As to my "belief in individual liberty", I think it would be accurate to describe it differently as "concluding the effectiveness of individual liberty." As you've noted, I don't support individual liberty due to a belief -- I support it based on the evidence that individual liberty leads to happiness, wealth, and peace. In other words, I have concluded from the evidence adduced from free societies vs. unfree societies that individual liberty is a good thing.
What I am suggesting, however, is that your belief in McCain is based not so much on evidence but on... well, faith.
You believe he will tackle Social Security. Great. But could you conclude from the evidence that he would? I submit no.
You believe he will go to war against government spending. Is that a conclusion based on evidence, or an article of faith?
You believe he will secure our borders. Is that a conclusion based on evidence, or an article of faith?
Again, I do not mean to imply that your belief in McCain is unthinking -- if anything, I'm sure that you have thought much and hard about that decision and that belief. But if your belief is the result of reason, then there must be evidence in support of such a belief. Without it, it becomes faith, not reason.
I believe Fred would govern best, and that is a conclusion I reach based on evidence. I believe Fred will win SC and go on to win the nomination. That is an article of faith, based not on evidence, but rather in spite of it.
And the question ultimately comes down to... is this a season for faith for Republicans and conservatives? Or is this a season for reason?
-TS
PS: I'm a poet, and I don't even know it.
"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt
I don't think you can justifiably exclude believing someone is truthful as evidence. That we each reside within our perspective is an existential truth. From within that sphere of information we reach out to understand the world and one another. In so doing, we must sometimes depend on the truthfulness of others. In court and in life, sometimes this must serve as the evidence.
But here, I didn't discount the other sorts of belief. I hoped to paint a picture that encompassed those things. I wanted a reader to think of each of the connotations of belief in turn.
On a tangential note, an article was reference here the other day about the allure of socialism versus the passive appeal of capitalism. The linked-to author had many striking and accurate conclusions. However, the underlying premise remained, to my mind, unexamined. It was taken for granted that socialism stirred the soul, whereas capitalism merely ensured the soul had enough to eat and a proper job.
I don't agree with this assessment. We conservatives shouldn't lean back in our chairs and harumph about the unjust universe providing us with the most effective tool in the least attractive wrapping paper. Imaginations can be fired about results just as surely as ideals. I don't care to surrender passion to the liberals or the young.
Let me tell you about an experience I had at boot camp that I still reflect on frequently.
A hurricane was bearing down on Parris Island. Stormy skies and choppy seas assailed our little island of discipline, pain and honor. In a flash of lightning, the entire installation was plunged into darkness.
In the dark of our squadbay, the Drill Instructor had us push all the racks out of the way and get in drill formation.
It was late at night, we were tired, and Parris Island is a blistering, sweltering furnace in the summer. In the pitch black, you couldn't see the man standing beside you, but could sense him there enduring the heat with you. In the dark we began to practice.
Periodic lightning lent a stroboscopic drama to our efforts.
The clacking sound of our rifles echoing amid the thunder was in its way as electric as the storm outside. At the penultimate moment to our practiced routine the impending perfect movement was a presence among us.
Then as one the singular sound of thirty M-16 bolts sliding home in unison, and then absolute silence. Total darkness.
For a second or two we all stood there in singular purpose. I had that lump in my throat that Marines get from Honor, Country, Corps, and Drill.
Out from the darkness there then came a decidedly undisciplined sound. The cacophonous clatter of one of the racks being thrown to the ground. "Dammit, that's what the hell I'm talking about!" came the hoarse, barking call of the Drill Instructor.
There's nothing inspiring about drill on first inspection. It's merely a series of moves designed to teach Marines how to respond to orders, work as a unit, and handle their weapons. Thirty some Marines standing in the dark throwing their rifles around is not an innately inspirational thing. Drill is not a wondrous thing, it's a practical thing. A smart thing. It is a correct thing.
But on that night I felt the inspiring call of a thousand Marines who had come before, who had spilled blood and who had bled in service of this greatest nation. I felt the esprit de corps of my fellows standing with me, and those who would follow after.
Conservativism is just the same. On the face it may seem it is too mundane to serve as a call to action. But if you put it together in the right order, with the right people, at just the right time, it can change the world.
absentee
What a great story, absentee. Really vivid -- had me feeling a hint of what you must have felt that night. Thank you for that.
-TS
"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt
I'm a preacher's kid. I remember my dad saying from the pulpit on many occasions, "What you do is what you believe, everything else is just religious talk."
In this context, substitute "policical" for "religious" and I think it summarizes why many of us have grave concerns with Senator McCain.
While I certainly respect your right to choose who you wish, on the issue of illegal immigration, either John McCain did not understand what was in that horrible bill, or he is lying saying it was not amnesty.
It would have GUARANTEED nearly 40 MILLION people the RIGHT to stay here as long as they wished, and many of them would have never really become Americans. When you count the 12 to 20 million already here, and then the right to bring in relatives, it would have crippled our society and our social services.
Again I ask you, does straight talk include straight dishonesty? You have 2 choices as answers, and one means he did not understand the bill, and the other means he was lying.
Neither is worthy of our nominee or next President.
We do not have to sacrifice what we believe in and can still win.
You are KIDDING me. But then I know you are not.
Sure, his wartime performance was outstanding for its bravery, ability, courage, and patriotism, and I applaud it. But we are electing a president whose job extends WELL beyond the "secure the borders, kill the terrorists" theme. Our nation cries for freedom in our daily existence, in essence a return to small government, with the boot of a regulation-happy federal bureaucracy and an activist judiciary off our necks. McCain will not bring us there.
Case in point: McCain-Feingold -- makes a mockery of political free speech. That clause in the First Amendment was placed there SPECIFICALLY in the context of POLITICAL free speech. A person who authors that and ardently defends BCRA is not a Constitution-lover. Period. Paragraph. Take the paper out of the typewriter.
I could continue -- Gang of 14, Amnesty Bill, "we have to stop torturing our prisoners", and so on. I could spend all DAY.
For me, though, the moment that will forever define McCain was his little stunt against the CEO of ClearChannel. To refresh, ClearChannel had pulled Dixie Chicks records off the air on CC after they made public statements slamming Bush over the Iraq liberation. It was either due to the political views of the ClearChannel powers that be, or the many thousands of calls from listeners demanding it, or both. The CC CEO was hauled up before a Senate committee, and John McCain LECTURED the CEO about (of all things) censorship!, and essentially made threats to CC [that probably themselves constituted censorship] regarding its future course of action.
Talk about a guy who (a) does NOT understand [or care about] some basics about Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, and (b) has an instinct toward bullying, vengeful wielding of power, and (c) is in dire need of a dictionary that can clarify for him exactly who is capable of committing censorship.[hint for John -- only government can censor. The Dixie Chicks have no Constitutional right to be listened to when nobody likes them]
That man will not be my president. I don't care how cool his rallies are.
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
But I anticipated a beheading. This was merely an ear-boxing.
I agree with you on what our nation cries out for. I have a different strategy for getting there.
I don't believe we are going to fulfill my conservative fantasies this election.
Four years from now?
FRED THOMPSON 2012
absentee
Seriously, I heart you a whole lot more than that. Just know that I'm plenty hacked ( I think you probably got that part). I'll read your link in a bit, they actually have me WORKING today at work (of all the NERVE of those people!)
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
You can't seriously believe that any man with the ego to run for President and actually win would step down after four years.
So basically the only hope conservatives would have is for a McCain loss in the general.
John has already indicated he is not that interested in a second term.
If he can get in there and just stop pork dead in it's tracks, if he and Tom Coburn and Sam Brownback and Joe Lieberman and Trent Lott and John Kyl and John Warner and John Shaddeg and Jeff Flake ... you get where I'm going here ... if they can work together and make that first, critical, all-important step; if they can actually clean up the ridiculous spending, the absurd budget, the outrageous earmarking; if they can, at long last, bring reform, well, that's four years well spent. That's four years invested in the future of the nation. It's four years that can no longer be delayed.
Congress is a swamp. It's time it was drained. It's paramount.
And if you ask me, it's coming.
absentee
for McCain, if he's completely honest on only that, is a pretty dangerous thing for us. I am assuming that people like Giuliani, Romney and, yes, McCain as well, would administrate their first time like good conservatives because they would want the second term as well. If McCain has already stated that he is only interested in ONE term only, then what assurance do we have that conservatism would have any sway with him? If he has no other ambition than this one term, what arguments could any of the electorate make if he pulls another one of his maverick stunts against our wishes and against the welfare of this country?
I think you would have better luck getting more conservatives elected to Congress than seeing all those if's come to fruition.
Texas Proud and Texas Loud
I question a leader that does not have the foresight to give US the American people a tax cut. If we run into problems can he make the correct decisions? I think not.
I really do believe that McCain is inspiring the way you say. But I think that's a poor reason for making decisions.
I don't want McCain out there leading the charge for global warming taxes or any of the rest.
Character matters, but so do issues. I don't want John McCain anywhere near a position to "tackle social security," health care, global warming, illegal immigration, or the supreme court.
I know it's just a prediction based on my opinion, but you say you "believe" in John McCain. I believe he will let you down.
Yes, a McCain presidency would be a disappointment to conservatives. If you think that McCain has been collaborating with Senate liberals too often up until now, wait until McCain is safely in the White House and doesn't have to ask conservatives for their votes.
He'll continue the attack on 1st Amendment rights for conservatives and will continue to advance the rights of terrorists at Gitmo. (Face it. The only two pieces of legislation McCain successfully passed during his 20 years in the Senate have been the Al-Qaeda bill of rights and the clampdown on free speech).
And no, I am not being unpatriotic for saying this.
liberal friends, dissent is the highest form... (can't even bring myself to complete the sentence it's so stupid).
snark
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
Absentee,
I do not consider you yet lost from FDT's team, and for that reason I refer you to this article at Newsmax.
After reading it you still pick McCain, I will consider you lost from the FDT team.
NOTE: parts in bold my doing.
I am not an articulate person, forgive my copy and pasting skills.
+++++++++++++++++
“It’s amazing to hear what John McCain is trying to convince the voters he is all about. The bottom line is, I served 12 years with him, six years in the Senate as one of the leaders of the Senate, trying to put together the conservative agenda, and almost at every turn, on domestic policy, John McCain was not only against us, but leading the charge on the other side.”
“There’s nothing worse than having a Democratic Congress and a Republican president who would act like a Democrat in matters that are important to conservatives.”
Santorum also claimed that McCain was a leader of Senate moderates that often stopped Republicans from pushing strong pro-life legislation.
Santorum said he had not decided which candidate he will vote for in the upcoming GOP primary, but ruled out voting for McCain.
Santorum expressed the same sentiment back in March, saying he would support whoever wins the Republican nomination for president in 2008, with the exception of John McCain.
As Newsmax reported at the time, Santorum said in an interview: "I don’t agree with him on hardly any issues. I don’t think he has the temperament and leadership ability to move the country in the right direction.”
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Santorum:_McCain_Presiden/2008/01/14/...
Armed men can not be enslaved, only defeated.
I believe he will secure the border.
I've never seen hope triumph over reason quite so profoundly before. It's so absolutely delusional that I'm not sure quite what else to say.
I must assume you are among those who think illegal immigrants and border security are the precise same thing. I do not share that point of view.
absentee
I distinguish between border security and illegal immigration as well. It simply so happens that McCain has been awful on both issues. McCain-Kennedy was not just about amnesty; it was also immeasurably bad in terms of its border security provisions.
but making excellent points doesn't always close the sale.
I've read persuasive papers here for Rudy, and now McCain, which might have moved them up from 4th and 3rd place for me, respectively. What makes these arguments fail for me is that I am a truth voter. I do not feel I can trust either to be completely truthful. Rudy because of ethics and McCain because his record is damning him every step along the way.
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
I really enjoy reading your diaries, and this one is no different as much as I disagree with it.
Absentee, how do you get past McCain-Feingold? That one bill is something that I have not been able to get over. The other issues that bother me about McCain - immigration, border security, MMGW, Gang of 14, problems with RKBA - none of those bother me like CFR. While I don't doubt that, in many ways, he is a good man, how can you support someone who demonstrably does not have respect for the First Amendment?
That just ruins him for me, and if it could be explained reasonably, maybe I could feel better about him.
During the primaries, we do. Even then, Bush didn't write it or push for its acceptance to the best of my knowledge.
Its not just the original bill that I don't like - its that he still supports that restriction on political speech. If he came out and said "BCRA was a mistake. I shouldn't have written it and I will try to get it repealed or overruled" I would have no problem with him on the issue. That is why Fred is acceptable to me.
It is just that I don't think that is what McCain-Feingold demonstrates. It demonstrates a sorely misguided desire to fight corruption. That's the basis, the intellectual underpinning. It's why Thompson was there, it's why McCain was there. The desire to prevent the Soros' of the world from buying the world is a real desire.
That they screwed it up I do not dispute. But your question was about underlying motivation.
absentee
I will say that I consider John McCain BY FAR the most formidable opponent that the GOP is offering this year. In all honesty I don't think any other GOP candidate has a chance as the only other one with cross-party appeal, Huckabee, negates that by upsetting a bunch of Republicans.
I know that Fred Thompson is the favorite son of RedState but he simply is not a very good candidate. Sure he tells you all the things you like to hear. If he thinks his "I'm above responding to that sort of thing" approach is going to work in the primary, he's delusional. Fred Thompson is simply warmed over Bob Dole. By the end of a general election he will appear dour and surly. Those are not traits that people like in their Presidents.
John McCain upsets you because he isn't willing to stay on message. He says what he believes even when he knows that he will turn off his constituents by saying it. I respect that. And this should not be confused with the current President's bullheaded nature.
I don't agree with John McCain on most things. But if the election turns out to be Hillary Clinton vs John McCain I will be pulling the Red Lever. Not because John McCain is some crypto-Liberal, because he most certainly is not. I will vote for him because I trust him far more than I could ever trust Hillary Clinton.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
I'm not trying to compare Hitler to John, but an ability to fire up a crowd and make them believe is a very dangerous and short-sighted thing to base a vote on. If that were the criteria, form all reports Obama will win this easily. We need to win on substance.
As long as a lack of charisma is not too great, (Bob Dole), the choice should be made on trust and issues. Fred is definitely no Bob Dole.
Why did you just compare them?
A politician can have the greatest ideas known to mankind but if he can't convince people that they are good ideas, they are useless.
Reagan was effective because he understood how to sell his message and excite his supporters.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
to support his views on illegal immigration and he hasn't killed six million Jews.
The point that was trying to be made is that charisma, alone, is not a good reason to support anyone.
McCain has convinced a majority of Arizonans and has been twice elected President of New Hampshire.
Thompson convinced Tennesseans and Law and Order viewers.
Neither have yet conquered SC.
Nor did Hitler.
smile
The non-PC human being, DeVine.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
If the only thing I was interested in was speech-making ability I would be in the bag for Rudy. I know, I've been at a Rudy speech. I was ready to go set a terrorist on fire afterward.
I assumed it was obvious from my commentary, as well as my links to supporting policy discussions by other bloggers, as well as my numerous comments in this thread and others, that there is a little more to it than just their oratory grade on the Hitler Charisma Scale™.
For future reference, using Hitler is never going to be as productive as you would hope. There are countless other examples of charismatic but ineffective people. Hollywood is rife with them.
absentee
because "you believe." Many of your arguments are the same reasons Obama supporters are giving for why they like him.
While you have "flipped for John," others are flipping for Fred!
A politician can have the greatest ideas known to mankind but if he can't convince people that they are good ideas, they are useless.
Fred can't sell the way John does, esp. not to middle America. Fred is more conservative, but that won't matter if he can't sell it. John is less conservative, but he's conservative on some important issues, and he can sell his ideas.
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
That is only the superficial overtones of what I wrote. The larger meaning is important. I have elaborated in previous weeks, mostly in comments on other people's blog entries, on why I think McCain is a good candidate. I have also elaborated today on why he is a strategically sound choice.
But listen to me now, that's us, that's here.
Fred's positions are sufficient to garner support here. It's not selling in the real world, not here in South and North Carolina.
The most critical point I made above was this:
"I learned some hard facts this week; facts I've been fighting not to learn. The problem with Fred's candidacy is winning. It's that I can't see him winning, not out there among the crowds."
Understand also that the fact that unreasonable emotional optimism of the Obamenon sort does not preclude the existence of reasonable, analytical optimism. I have discussed at length in the comments the various connotations of the word belief.
I am always amazed by the general lack of interest in qualities of leadership here. In the Marine Corps the theme of leadership and inspiration pervade your every moment.
Inspiration matters in the real, physical, offline world. It matters to voters. Leadership matters. The ability to compel action with words is of inestimable value. I tire of this nonsense of thumbing our nose at leadership qualities. What is Reagan hallowed for? Knowing the right answers? Hmm? Policy papers and accurate blog reporting?
Bah! Where then are your undying accolades? Where are the thousands of freed souls across the world, reaching out to touch your hand, pressing together just to catch a glimpse of you?
Knowing the right answers is not enough. The world requires leadership. History has no time for nonsense. History doesn't lay down in the path of progress and good thinking, it is wrestled to the ground by great men, great leaders, who shake the earth and change it forever.
You think ridiculing an anonymous blogger is the path to the presidency for your candidate? That's what his leadership is inspiring you to do? Well I say that is no achievement at all. It's not going to win the election, and that is the raw fact.
This is a real world, and a real nation. There are people out there looking for something. You can help them find the right, or you can let them find the left.
When the candidate you like the most fails to lead, you just say we don't need leadership. I chose a different road.
I want to win in November and beyond. I want Americans to fight the wars abroad and at home. Your taunt has not persuaded me. What will persuade you?
absentee
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
I didn't suggest otherwise. Nevertheless I dispute the general apathetic response to the qualities of leadership. We need someone who can make right decisions and get elected and be a leader.
I didn't make the case that John McCain will shake the earth. I make the case that being dismissive of leadership is to dismiss those qualities as irrelevant that often matter most.
absentee
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
that this might the be the truest statement I have I read online.
As a man who supported many futile candidates over the years I have realized that leadership and inspiration are BY FAR greater skills than wonkish adherence to principles.
And for those of you who wish to stick to the "issues" I will point to a few Presidents that were elected because of their "issues" adherence.
John Quincy Adams- He had a name. He had Federalist beliefs. He destroyed the greatest political party this nation ever had.
James Buchanon- A man who was devout in his beliefs who also, along with Roger Taney, ensured that 600,000 Americans would die for no real reason.
Grover Cleveland - One of our worst Presidents that somehow escapes history's death grip because of much poorer contemporaries. This man stuck to his beliefs and created a world in which Teddy Roosevelt and no choice but to break down.
I have little interest in the dogma players. They have proven themselves to be poor.
I want to see the men who change the world. Ronald Reagan changed the world. JFK changed the world. FDR changed the world.
IMO, this is a critical election. I may be wrong on who we vote for but I do believe we are at a crossroads.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
There's a season for everything under the sun.
I think absentee and you are right -- no doubt, personal charisma and the ability to inspire and lead makes an enormous difference. Perhaps as absentee points out, Fred lacks that charisma and cannot win.
On the other hand, different leadership styles work for different people and in different situations.
I don't consider Bill Belichick to be a particularly charismatic dude; I highly doubt he gives fiery inspirational speeches. But I don't doubt that he's the greatest coach that ever played the game. Contra Belichick, Tony Dungy is a fantastic leader, but never raises his voice, seems meek and quiet, and I highly doubt he gives the rah-rah speeches. Parcells is a great coach, but Dallas needed the softer touch of Wade Phillips to pull together.
You're right that this is a critical election, but not, I think, for the reasons you may be thinking.
This is a critical election for Republicans because it represents the test of what it means to be viable. He who emerges from this wide-open contest will determine the path forward for all those who come after for a generation.
Will it be the Huckabee template, of evangelical Christians plus economic populism?
The McCainite formula of playing to the "moderate middle" and independents?
The Thompson template of going back to the roots of "rock-ribbed conservatism"?
The Rudy template of starting from the "moderate middle" and tacking to the Right?
The Mitt template of emphasizing technical competence and experience in economic affairs?
This is especially the case if our nominee wins the general election.
After Bill Clinton, the Democrats triangulated for a full generation -- and they're still doing it today. Even though the heart of the Dems was probably with Howard Dean, they thought John Kerry was "more electable" because of his veteran status, and they thought he could triangulate more effectively. Even though Hillary is no centrist, she's been tacking to the center for a few years in preparation for the run. Even Obama is sounding the "moderate message" though no reasonable interpretation of his record or his policies could be construed as anything but left-liberal.
There is a season for everything under the sun.
We will know whether this is the season for personal charisma, or for policy consistency. Whether this is the time for moderates, or time for conservatives. Whether the GOP cares more about principles or more about winning. Whether the American people resonate to the core conservative message, or only parts of it.
-TS
"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Leadership is great. The fact that you see no leadership in Fred, well, I don't see it, because I DO see leadership, and I personally would follow Fred to hell.
But WHERE somebody leads us, and HOW he decides on a right course is AT LEAST AS IMPORTANT. That man took away a large chunk of political free speech and empowered people like George Soros to have a much greater influence than before. And he will hear no disagreement. He is stubborn, pigheaded, and will not veer off a bad course.
I will not follow a leader like that. Not to breakfast, never mind to war.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
Were there any republicans in the McCain crowd?
but I do know that Joe Lieberman has been campaigning with McCain. (John Kerry's running mate in 2004?)
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-0117lieberman,0,58445...
Do some of the old timers remember when I was the snarkiest person you guys had to contend with here at RS? The election has turned this place into a cesspool of snark and cynicism.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
... but he's turning out to be a lousy campaigner. If you can't persuade people to agree with you, then you don't win and you can't govern.
"If all men were just, there would be no need of valor."
- Agesilaus
And he has shone brilliantly of late -- a view I share with David Limbaugh:
http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2008/01/new_column_answ.html
I am for Huck, but I think McCain can bring the most Republicans together if Obama is nominated... (HRC would unite all of us)
Additionally, his ability to attract independents will make us viable in States that don't traditionally vote Republican.
McCain/Huck 2008 will be the winning ticket... some of you just need to accept it.
Herein I plug myself. NO that is not a cheap workaround for "in which I"
I understand this blog entry and I were mentioned by a caller to Rush Limbaugh. It is possible that this caller was, in fact, my brother, and I will find out shortly.
I wanted to gush over myself in that happy period before I know if it was him or not.
Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee
It was my brother (redstate lurker aglanon). Probably not going to bring in the endorsement offers, but I'll take it.
Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee
what was the crowd sizes at each event?