For whom the bell tolls
By absentee Posted in 2008 — Comments (117) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."
-Eleanor Roosevelt
I've seen a number of people calling Time of Death on conservativism here at Redstate. This is a gross mistake, because conservativism is as strong as ever. In fact, the proof that it is strong is last night's results. Far from being an indictment, the victory of John McCain is an affirmation of our will. The problem here is conclusions.
I am, in some ways, reminded of Al Gore. Gore voters couldn't believe that he wouldn't win, that people would vote for Bush over their guy. They couldn't accept it. So therefore, something else was the problem.
People at Redstate can't understand that genuine conservatives who are every bit the principled real conservatives that Redstate cons are, would vote for John McCain.
I remember certain people here at Redstate in recent weeks making a similar claim about Huckabee. If you weren't voting for him, you weren't really a social conservative.
The problem in both cases is conclusions. Some conclude from Fred's poor showing that conservativism is suffering. Some conclude that his views aren't as widely held as you thought. Or conclude the party is moving away from conservative values. Some conclude the media are deciding the race. Others conclude that conservativism itself is changing.
I am an evangelical conservative and I support McCain. Your easy path is to say, oh well then you aren't. That kind of thinking is what has you in this boat. I have said this many times at Redstate; I have a pretty deep insight into conservative, evangelical voters in southern North Carolina and northern South Carolina. The area I live is the most populous in either state. Evangelical Southern Baptist values are strong here. Charlotte is known as the City of Churches. I know Southern Baptist conservatives: I go to church with them; I'm related to them; I am them. And I am voting for John McCain.
There are some Redstaters who need to reevaluate. Part of the Thompson failure is a failure to understand he needs the votes. You can't expect to simply get them on policy.
I'll say that again: You can't expect to get the votes merely by representing the views of the voters.
This is reality. You can rend your clothes and gnash your teeth about it, but it remains so.
Note: I didn't say anything about electability.
People, especially here in the South, like a winner. More than that, they like a fighter. I saw the exit polls from last night. John McCain won among veterans, another group I'm a member of. If anyone likes a fighter ...
The problem with conservativism in general is the same problem I've been griping about since Fred stepping into the race. Leadership. I have been saying this for some time, and I still am. As you can see from the responses, some fellow conservatives don't want to hear this. They want to talk about how the policies are better. I keep saying that this is not enough to win, and I keep hearing the response that I should be more interested in substance than style.
I ask you, who has a theory better reflected by the election results thus far? You need both.
You see, it doesn't matter if you think people shouldn't want what they want. They do want it. That's the reality of electoral politics. The problem with perfect conservative candidates is ... we don't produce any! We merely produce perfect conservatives. Look at this primary season so far. Perfect Conservative isn't enough.
I know some will have a tendency to say "Fred is a leader." Well it's not true, and I'm sorry. I saw Fred in person last week. He was great, but he wasn't GREAT. And why not? He could be. By all rights, he should be.
Sigh, but like before, this blog entry isn't about Fred. Not in particular, anyway.
This is about the plethora of coroners at Redstate making their death pronouncements. Conservativism is alive and well. It is so alive and well, and so aware of being under siege, that everyday voters are citing electability. This is a good thing. It means the people, the actual voters are engaged. They care about winning. They know there is a War to fight, not just abroad but at home. They know they can't win that war with Hillary or Obama.
That desire to win is real, it is legitimate and, this is rather important, Fred Thompson could have tapped that desire. If he had, he'd be leading right now. Thompson failed to do so.
No, he wasn't thwarted, he failed. It wasn't the MSM, it was his campaign. If you ask me (and yes I note that you did not) it's too late to fix it. I saw the writing on the wall last week at the McCain rally. The difference between his event and Thompson's was stark. Thompson's campaign and presentation is strictly amateur hour.
Fred could have tapped the desire to win, but he didn't. John McCain absolutely did. He convinced me, and I am a conservative, evangelical southern Republican. He convinced me, and I used to blog about how McCain and Lieberman were their own party. He convinced me, and he convinced people like me.
He hasn't finished that process, there's a long way to go yet. But McCain can do it. He may not do it, but he can.
Where does that leave full-spectrum conservativism? Well I think it leaves it in a fantastic place. John McCain is going to be the President and when he is, he's going to handle the war better than the current administration. He's going to handle National Security better, and he'll have more traction to do so with independents, moderates and democrats. And that is a good thing. He'll also veto every earmark, cut spending, cut taxes, cut spending, fight pork and cut spending. And in four years, yes four years, when he doesn't run for reelection, where will we conservatives be?
Ready to fight, ready to kill, ready to die, but never will. I've been saying this isn't our year, but that's not really true. It is our year, if you take the long view. And John McCain is our candidate.
I see some saying last night is not indicative due to independents. They are wrong. You can dismiss McCain's victory if you wish, but you can't dismiss Fred's defeat.
The voters down here want to win in November. I know I do. They are willing to make amends to get that victory, and they are willing to make amends with John McCain because he'll do what he says, he'll stop the out of control spending, he'll fight the war like a leader. He'll help repair the republican brand with the sea of moderates and independents, he'll secure our border, and he'll set us up for his Vice President (Thompson?) to run in four years. (note: I also think he may not solve the second half of the immigration issue, the illegals already here, and that that could be a very good thing. More on that later.)
Conservativism isn't dead. It is alive and it is scrapping to win. Last night wasn't an attack on conservativism, last night was a counter-attack by conservativism. It was step one in building the right future for this country. Look past the navels, look up, look proud, and look again at John McCain. He is not who conservatives must settle for, he is who conservatives should vote for!
Don't speak your mind here at RS or you will be slapped down. Boot me if you will Neil, but I really see no reason your comment. Yes it's a private site, and I know it's my priviledge to post here. But you guys with your constant slap downs for people speaking their mind is getting old... Jeff's post last night wreaked of disrespect for people's feeling of their candidate, but I guess if you use enough words in doing so, thats ok.
Such behavior has never been considered acceptable at Red State. So if you wish your account disabled, say the word. But I'd rather you just took a walk than pressed the issue.
absentee is a pathetic sell-out? NO, I don't think I did. Did he flip on his choice of candidate. Yes! Is his credibility bruised? For me, yes again. Do I find his decision to support Jmac pathetic? Yes! Do I find his schilling for his new found love of Jmac annoying? Yes! Am I allowed to say that here at RS without being told to settle down, obviously not.
If you are going to slap me around for letting my opinion being known, so be it.
Good luck with 3.0. I fought with the idea of sending my money to RS or to Fred, even though it was a waste, I'm still glad i sent it to Fred. My point here is that if the mods here at RS don't lighten up a bit, they will have a site where everybody is of like mind and there will ne need to discuss anything.
No need for you to disable, I will walk, I will post nothing else but will continue to lurk from time to time. This internet is huge and I'm sure that I can find another community to be involve with.
I'm so misunderstood!
“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan
We have had some heated discussion about Thompson in the past, but I see your point here. Threats of banning and slapping folks around are getting to be common place. Thanks for recommending my blog regarding the matter.
One of the reasons that this site is much better in regards to the discourse (and subsequent rebuttal) than sites like DKos is precisely because of the fact that we have mods who are willing to crack down. It *is* rude to call someone a "pathetic sell-out", and the statement added absolutely nothing to his point (or lack therof).
McCain's not my favorite candidate either, but absentee's post makes some excellent points and does so eloquently and without offending anyone--more than I can say for Rottdawg's post.
I'm starting to think it is with the more we sell out the base. If you keep selling out conservative values just to win can you really claim you won on your principles?
I'm a Romney supporter but personally would have rather seen Fred get the nomination more, he would have run on a real conservative ticket, would he have lost? who knows but the momentum would have been there and we could at least walk away from a loss knowing we ran on our Conservative principles, that we didn't go vote for someone just to beat a Democrat. Thats what Democrats do, they compromise, Conservatives Don't!
Who said anything about selling out conservative values. That is exactly the thinking I'm discussing.
Conservatives don't compromise? That's nonsense. Of course they do. But no one suggested compromising your principles, that completely misses the point of what I said.
absentee
"There are some Redstaters who need to reevaluate. Part of the Thompson failure is a failure to understand he needs the votes. You can't expect to simply get them on policy.
I'll say that again: You can't expect to get the votes merely by representing the views of the voters."
So policy doesn't matter? Then what's the point. Ok, policy doesn't matter, I guess I'll vote Obama, Hillary or McCain, either way Ted Kennedy gets to handle all those meaningless policy issues in the Senate. Policy doesn’t matter.
"Conservativism isn't dead."
Nope, just redefined.
But thanks for pointing out McCain is not a conservative when it comes to policy.
Obama 08, because policy doesn’t matter!
How you can get it doesn't matter from saying "You need both" is really exactly what I'm talking about.
"Policy doesn't matter" is nonsense. It's obviously not what I said. Not even close, actually. I also didn't say McCain is not a conservative on policy. Are there any other incorrect word you'd like to put in my mouth? Or are we done here?
absentee
McCain is bereft of conservative ideals (save one, the war), how many times does someone have to side with Ted Kennedy on important issues before you question their conservative beliefs. McCain has made a career of blocking conservative policy, that IS his claim to fame!
It’s true, you did not say he was not a conservative on policy, I was being snarky.
How can someone with such a long record of conservative voting be said to have made a career of blocking conservative policy? How can a pro-life, pro-defense, anti-pork budget hawk, war hawk be bereft of conservative ideals.
You don't become bereft by virtue of merely not being perfect. That's a dramatically unrealistic pronouncement.
"Bereft" is hyperbolic hyperventilating. It doesn't represent the truth.
absentee
McCain-Feingold – Free political speech – Nah, who needs it
McCain-Kennedy – 12 to 20 million more Democratic votes anyone – Amnesty ROCKS!
McCain-Lieberman – Because Al was right, global warming is more important than the economy
McCain-Kennedy-Edward – Trial lawyers are hurting in America, time to answer the call.
Gang of 14 – Got to stop those rascally conservative judges!
Shall I go on…
That is NOT the voting record of a conservative.
Remember, McCain has been outspoken in the wrong direction about several things important to conservatives -- including, these days, Secretary Rumsfeld -- so it is easy to overlook his "workaday" conservative positions. I HOPE that now that the lone conservative might be about to leave the field, people will give McCain a nicer look, put aside old resentments over campaign finance reform, which turned out to be a joke anyway, &c.
I know I'll watch him more carefully.
At a recent campaign event, railing against pork barrel spending, he pledged to veto all legislation containing earmarks. It would take balls (footballs, baseballs, etc.), but McCain has them.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
resemble spinach (good for us, but not tastey) are not going to win. Similarly, candidates who are not likeable or trustworthy are not going to win regardless of their policies. True enough.
My concern is that the "want to win in November" attribute is something primarily measured in relation to the MSM. If I am correct, the more "moderate" candidate will always have a leg up, and only special circumstances will provide exceptions.
My personal experience is different in that regard. I continued to support Fred until I saw them both in person. Fred could have shown he was a fighter and a winner in person, but he didn't. John did.
People in SC came out to these events. I believe the appearances made a difference here. The perception of a winning candidate can be shaped by the campaign independent of positive or negative treatment in the MSM, I think.
absentee
perceptions in any way?
When you say that Fred came off as amateur hour, could you name a couple of the specifics?
In as much as I, like you, believe the MSM has an influence on voters in general, I took it into account.
About amateur hour: The vent was poorly planned and poorly executed. Ninety-percent of the people there couldn't hear what he said due to a sound system issue. The campaign staffers couldn't answer questions about who would get to meet Fred afterward, or where his next stop was. His presentation seemed too off the cuff. It seemed like being there was an afterthought, and not a very fond afterthought at that.
Furthermore, he didn't have many "ooh-rah" moments. He didn't simply not excite people, he de-excited them.
On the other hand, McCain's setup was professional and tight. He had people to speak on his behalf, including Tom Coburn, who was very persuasive. He gave a speech, then he took questions from the crowd. He stuck to his message, and he got it home. I could see the difference in the reaction of the crowd here. People were cheering, they were asking for buttons and bumper stickers. Afterward they pressed to meet him.
McCain was challenged by his audience, on immigration and other topics. He handled the whole thing like a champ. It was a world of difference.
Fred had all the right answers and was personable. But I know people at Redstate that can claim the same. I'm not voting for them either.
absentee
That's a bankrupt position. It is simply uncritical, unreasonable, unreasoned and unrealistic to dismiss notions of strong leadership and the ability to communicate ideas and persuade voters as mere cheerleading. It is dismissive of historic fact, it is absent real observation of real voters.
It is not, in short, an objective, truthful, logical assessment.
absentee
One of the greatest failures of the Bush presidency is his inability to get his message out to the American people. You can be as right as right can be, but if you can't convince anyone this is the case it doesn't matter a bit.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
..and as you can tell from my signature, I'm one of those who loves Fred Thompson but decided not to support him for President...before the MSM and Iowa and all that jazz.
---------------
"Fred's my conservative guru, but McCain's my President."
It seems like sound system problems were not unusual (see Fred's non-concession speech in SC). I will further admit that I found that lack of a comprehensive campaign schedule viewable online to be frustrating.
I agree that Presidential campaign is both message and messenger--a combination that requires style if there is no clear favorite (e.g. Dole in 96). No doubt I so liked the message that I put some blinders on, but I was very much aware of my lack of objectivity.
FredHeads need some time to digest the lessons of this, and to mourn more generally. We will be back on the saddle---its just going to take a while.
Another well written, well thought out post.
I disagree.
Senator McCain chose to make opposition to his amnesty bill personal. He called me a bigot. And he still only promises to deal with the 2 million convicted felons and give amnesty to the rest.
If I'm forced to vote for someone other than Fred, it will be Rudy or Mitt.
I always enjoy your comments on my blog entries as well as on others.
I have only one question. When did Senator McCain do the bigot line? I've heard this before so last night I tried to find it online. I figured Malkin was a good place to look but so far no dice. Not challenging you, just looking for the quote.
thanks!
absentee
I can't quote it either. And, in fact, he was more insinuating it than saying it. However, his close friend, Senator Graham, DID say it. But, whatever. You know what Senator McCain’s attitude was toward the opposition. Where I live, this is a HUGE issue. I did not appreciate the way McCain, Graham, Bush and the other republican backers tried to cram it down our throat.
I cast my vote for Fred yesterday, if he continues to ask for my support he will have it. If he drops out, I will push his principles and ideas to anyone who will listen. If Senator McCain is the nominee, I will vote for him. He is a good man, with whom I disagree substantially on some issues.
I don't really agree that we are all clear on his attitude. Is this perception something pushed by the MSM and, if so, why doesn't that matter? People keep saying don't listen to the MSM with regard to McCain, why wouldn't that apply here?
I'm not sure that Senator McCain's attitude has been fairly communicated. He clearly does care about border security.
absentee
It was Lindsay Graham as seen in this link. It comes at the very end (about 4 minutes). But if you watch the whole clip you can see him praising John McCain and Ted Kennedy for their work on the wonderful bill which was opposed by about 80% of Americans.
Spitballs?!?! / Yo No Soy Marinero, Soy Capitan
He has promised to secure the border. But I didn’t hear him coming out against this.
http://www.thebulletin.us/site/news.cfm?newsid=19161424&BRD=2737&PAG=461...
I would have thought, that with his bad rap on illegal immigration, he would have been very vocal about funding the fence. Yet he was not.
Maybe he didn't hear about it either.
As I pointed out last night, he doesn't think the fence, per se, is the logical and effective way to secure the border. He will build the fence, but he thinks that there must be oh so much more. So do I.
Besides, the candidates have nothing to profit by closing the issue now. An open wound about the border is good for their campaigns. Tough but true.
absentee
we need much more than just a fence. I'm sure if elected, McCain will do what he feels is best.
Have a good one absentee.
Keep posting, cuz we love 'em!
I don’t understand this at all. A lifetime of not understanding why abused ladies stay with their spouses exactly parallels my lack of comprehension of conservative support for Jmac.
Your saying he really does love us, he’s sorry we walk with a limp, bridgework will replace the teeth, the bruises and cuts will heal and its our fault because we just don’t give him the respect he deserves. But its all ok because he’s charming, says the right things, sorry that we are hurt and REALLY does love us.
Sorry no sell, not now not ever.
I could be wrong, but I don't think I was saying that.
I find your distasteful analogy inaccurate. I'm interested in the future of this nation, not my personal feelings of having been "dissed".
absentee
I am also concerned about the future of this nation the man has a history of kicking conservatism/conservatives in the teeth just so he can get face time.
That is what I am saying.
"What about all the times I didn't wear a tutu?
Nobody ever brings those up."
- Milhouse Van Houten
No matter how many times you don't wear a tutu, the time you do will be more significant. I get that. John wore a tutu to school and that is obviously significant.
However, that fact doesn't change the other facts. He does vote mostly conservative, he does support conservativism and the Republican party. He stumped for Bush, after all.
I don't like this presumption of motive, either. Just to get face time? That's a spurious accusation.
absentee
I don't like this presumption of motive, either. Just to get face time? That's a spurious accusation.
If it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, looks like a duck and cr*ps like a duck -- odds are -- its a duck.
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Honestly, not very compelling. It doesn't look like that ws his motive to me. In fact, I think "he just wants face time" is a silly and incompetent conclusion. It is akin to suggesting that Bush went after Saddam because he was mad that Saddam tried to assassinate his father.
It's a silly, silly motive to assign. If that's what the duck looks like, I suggest new contact lenses.
absentee
...it's my conservative, constitutional principles.
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
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.); }
People at Redstate can't understand that genuine conservatives who are every bit the principled real conservatives that Redstate cons are, would vote for John McCain.
People at RedState can't understand that genuine conservatives who are every bit the classically-liberal, libertarian and traditional sorts of conservatives like those who influenced Ronald Reagan (Kirk, von Mises, Hayek, etc.) would never vote for John McCain.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
If you refuse to vote for members of other factions of the party, then well, the party isn't going to really care what you think, and you'll end up on your own.
Partisanship is a team effort.
If you refuse to vote for members of other factions of the party, then well, the party isn't going to really care what you think, and you'll end up on your own.
It is, in fact, the very literal definition of "RINO."
---
Beth
If you mean I don't get it, you're wrong. I get there are some who won't vote for him, I just think they are wrong.
Conversely, people think there are none like you describe who would vote for him. Also wrong. There are. Maybe not you but, correct me if I'm wrong, you don't call the shots for the rest.
Genuine conservatives won't vote for McCain. That's your premise? It's demonstrably not so. So who is drinking what?
absentee
And my straight talk is that McCain's overall intention is not even close to most current iterations of conservatism.
McCain is running behind calculated veneer; considering his real track record, it's pretty clear that he's picking and choosing just enough from the conservative menu to talk about so that his likely governing behavior remains obscured.
I see it as a tremendous con job.
He hopes that not too many in the base will figure out that, except for defense, from a governing perspective there probably wouldn't be but a hair-breadth difference between him and the two top Dems.
McCain proves to be consistently dismissive of all who disagree with him. To this end, he hopes that not too many figure out that his election would effectively relegate to irrelevance within the party those who are fond of tradition, those who seek a restrained balance between continuity and progress, and those who treasure our cultural heritage.
You simply can't have an attachment to such things if you are for mass immigration, would bow to the church of global warming or would use consistently the leftist tool of political correctness as a weapon against conservatives who beg to differ.
It seems to me the man has no "first principles." He only has a power trip to feed.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
Overall intention. Tremendous con job. Seems to you. No first principles.
This doesn't sound like a substantive objection. I hear a lot of bitter speculation on his intent.
He doesn't prove to be "consistently dismissive". Where is his consistent dismissiveness of Fred Thompson? Mike Huckabee?
Relegate to irrelevance? How so?
Power trip to feed? That just sounds like nasty politicking, not discerning analysis. It's also a commonplace objection that can be applied to equal effect to any candidate for office.
All of which is not really relevant to your original comment. You asserted that no real conservatives will vote for McCain. This is obviously not so, and you can see this not only from the actual voting, but from the endorsements he has received and those who have editorialized for him.
You may think true conservatives ought not to vote for him, but to suggest that none will is simply not dealing with observable facts.
absentee
Overall intention
Not conservative: Path to citizenship, Global war on warming, gang of 14, recent ACU rating at bottom of all GOP senators, etc., etc., etc.
Tremendous con job
Not conservative:
"I'm not going to call up a soldier in Iraq risking his life for America to tell him we're deporting his mother because she's here illegally."
Would he call a soldier to tell him that his mom died waiting in line at an guest worker filled emergency room? Would he call a soldier to report his child had been raped and murdered by an amnestied MS13 member? Would he call the soldier to tell him his wife was dead, T-Boned by a drunk driver doing some job an American won't do?
The point is, McCain uses an argumentative fallacy as equally onerous as calling conservatives bigots for questioning his beliefs about immigration. This consistent dismissiveness those who beg to differ merely punctuates the con job...and the power trip.
No first principles
It just makes no sense that if you like Fred in a principled manner for what he represents that you could ever move to McCain. It just doesn't compute that someone attached to conservative first principles could do that.
Seems to you
Substance. I didn't think I needed to spell it out all over again.
I'll restate my first point: My contention is that anyone thoughtful about and committed to the conservatism given form by folks like Russell Kirk in the 1950s simply cannot vote for McCain under any circumstances. The mere act would be self-repudiating.
I hold no illusions that my view of things has a lot of adherents. But I do believe that there is a much larger group who, even if they don't know why, will be so naturally disaffected by this guy come November, he's going monumental loser. If he somehow can maintain the ruse through then, then conservatives had better treat him in governing as if they were sharing a prison shower with him.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
"The point is, McCain uses an argumentative fallacy as equally onerous as calling conservatives bigots for questioning his beliefs about immigration. This consistent dismissiveness those who beg to differ merely punctuates the con job...and the power trip."
As reasoning, there are a lot of leaps in there. For example, deducing a con job and a power trip. But as for the anecdote itself, I happen to understand and agree with it. Giuliani makes much the same argument. That to definitively declare there are no circumstantial considerations is not valid. But there is a larger point there. That being immutable and immovable on immigration is going to get you exactly what it has gotten you so far. Nothing. That there must be some sort of compromise should be obvious to anyone who is thoughtful and committed to a resolution.
It is interesting you bring up his ACU Rating. He also has a very high lifetime ACU rating. You must cherry-pick a year to put him at worst. That's hardly conclusive.
"It just makes no sense that if you like Fred in a principled manner for what he represents that you could ever move to McCain."
That's a preposterous absolute. I'm certain I could suggest hypothetical circumstances under which you yourself would vote for John McCain. Certain. It is implicit in your assertion that "real" conservatives can't be focused on individual issues. It is further implicit that we can't strategically determine a path to realization of those first principles that involves voting for a less perfect candidate. Again, that's absurd.
If you knew voting for McCain now meant some conservative utopia in the future, you'd refuse to do it on principle? Frankly, it seems to me that that is self-repudiating. You're putting your own sense of virtue over actual goal attainment.
So much for those dying babies or a secure border. As long as you feel idealogically pure, that's what really matters.
absentee
That being immutable and immovable on immigration is going to get you exactly what it has gotten you so far. Nothing. That there must be some sort of compromise should be obvious to anyone who is thoughtful and committed to a resolution.
On immigration in particular, McCain's election would be worse than getting nothing.
From the condescending "I'll build the g** d*** wall" to the debate stifling "I won't call the soldier son of a deported mom" to the F*** You to John Cornyn, his words betray his true intent. What we are offered is a guy who hasn't really heard squat, despite his protestations.
He hasn't changed his position one iota. And he lies through angrily clenched teeth about it just about every time it's brought up in his town hall meetings. If he's going to keep saying it, he's going to need some serious meds to pull it off for eight more months.
You insist there must be a compromise position on this. I disagree, so long as that compromise has the potential to fundamentally alter the nature of the type of "who we are" that I hand down to my child. A reasonable compromise might have been found somewhere between Johnson-Reed and Hart-Cellar, but not four decades after Ted Kennedy devised the latter to diversify and balkanize us, ultimately, I think, to elect a more compliant and big-governable "The People."
Today, we're basically at a goal-line stand in sudden death overtime fighting over nothing less than the continuity (a decidedly conservative, not bigoted concept) of our culture and heritage. You and McCain might disagree, but his protests would be calculations. In these situations the burden of proof must always fall upon those who desire radical, untested change from which there is no reasonable route of return once set in motion.
John McCain is quarterbacking the opposition with the intent of what? Merging us with the third world? Teaching us some weird lesson about how our advancement of Western Civilization isn't all that great after all? Trying to prove that people who haven't been historically able to attach themselves to temperate liberty can do it if only we share all that we have with them?
No thanks. No good can come of it.
At least Huckabee now mouths words that sound like he would actually defend the interests of people who want to actually have a heritage to hand down to their kids. Not that I trust him, because he probably doesn't really understand the issue.
That's another problem. McCain does understand this issue, and he's come down on the other side, the leftist side, of my child's best interests. He's the same whether it's immigration, global warming, the First Amendment or any of a host of other issues.
Once you strip off his medals, there is nothing conservatively redeeming about John McCain. Nothing. What is not liberal about him is mere costume and those who move from Fred to him are merely itinerant court jesters.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
On immigration in particular, McCain's election would be worse than getting nothing.
Huh?
You think the current situation with immigration is preferable??? Seriously? I don't know, but I don't think you really mean that.
---
Beth
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
And nothing more.
It is really something that you can rage about angrily clenched teeth so unabashedly. I notice you have no response to my points which undermine your assertions regarding requiring total uncompromised conservatives to be worthy of your vote.
But then, none of that other stuff was really real. When you finally get to your point, you're a one-issue voter.
But you go ahead and make your bleak pronouncements. Luckily for you, and your children, there are practical people in the world. They'll get something done on your behalf. That's the wonderful profit of democracy.
absentee
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
It isn't immigration per se. It's behaving as a steward; it's being mindful of the importance of continuity.
I'm well aware that few these days have the upbringing or have learned to think this way, and it's a damned shame because such cautious considerations have been vitally informative to this nation.
However, while continuity is very important to me conceptually, I can and do support and help candidates who don't feel as attached to it as I do; I would not expect that at all.
What I won't support as a voter is a candidate who rejects it in such an antagonistic manner...as if history and heritage and learned lessons of the generations have no value going forward.
As I see it, that sort of outlook is pure progressivism.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
I am happy to hear that you do support candidates that aren't a 100% match.
Also, don't think I don't understand about continuity of culture. I travel the world extensively. In every other part of the world, preservation of culture and cultural identity is considered virtuous. Only here is it considered shameful.
However, it is presumptive on your part to think that people who have a different, or even wrong viewpoint on what to do with the illegal immigrants who are here means they don't understand or care about that. To suggest it means they are selling out your values is not different from them calling you a bigot. It presumes underlying motivations that are not necessarily there.
Whether you agree with them or not, there is no question that people can make pragmatic arguments about the existing illegal population. Whether you believe in it or not, people can argue for assimilation as the means of protecting that continuity.
I could, for example, argue that the existing population of illegals is no more damaging to our culture per se than our existing legal immigrant population. Which is to say, the mere fact of them not being illegal is not directly an assault on continuity. Perhaps the problem is one of quantity or percentages. That's another discussion.
The point is, you make an assumption I simply can't make. That a person who doesn't favor your particular solution to illegal immigration therefore doesn't care about the future identity of this nation.
But I do appreciate your further answer here. Perhaps I was snippy above.
absentee
Well stripping away the screed quality of your posting, absent as it is of any intellectual content, we can only conclude that you are just a garden variety Oxygen thief. And not even a very intelligent one at that.
Why don't you return to the self gratification that is obviously the only skill you bring to this earth.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
The title of this comment perfectly reflects this description.
It's clear to me I've been thinking too much about McCain today and have adopted some of his habits. I feel the sudden need to take a bath.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
I think that there is one telling line in your comment: "... I think they are just wrong."
Perhaps both sides of this issue need to step back and think about that... Opinions can differ, but do they have to be "wrong" if they disagree with yours? Some differences of opinion can be irreconcilable. I think that perhaps this is one of those issues...
nor condoned expelling principled men and woman from the GOP for failure to conform to his ideological vision. He understood that you could not achieve a governing majority comprised of people in near unanimity except in such as Soviet Russia.
Reagan's politics involved standing strongly by your principle and working with others on the things about which you agree.
Either that, or true conservatism remains a talking point, a pipe dream, and something which seldom escapes the think tank.
Recommended, for telling us what we needed to hear. Conservatism is not dead. The people who are saying that it is dead have a myopic and disconnected understanding of conservatism that reduces an entire world view to a dozen or so banal slogans.
They scream things like "No new taxes!" or "Send the immigrants home!" and they believe they're actually summarizing a tradition of political philosophy that encompasses thinkers as diverse as Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, J.R.R. Tolkien, and Russell Kirk. And worse still, they denigrate people like me who have the temerity to diverge in the slightest particular from their narrow understanding of conservatism. Frankly, I'm getting tired of hearing this "I'm the true conservative and you're not" tripe from people, on this site and elsewhere. Like they would know.
Naturally, it's gotten worse since I came out in favor of McCain, but the tendency to impose a rigid, doctrinaire view of conservatism has always been there. This primary season has only exacerbated the problem. We need to remember that if we keep trying to write people out of the movement we'll eventually end up like the few remaining communist intellectuals in our universities: a small band of socially alienated people, scowling suspiciously at an indifferent world, and congratulating each other on our "orthodoxy."
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
I should mention that the writer really didn't need to use quite so many words in bold face. It was kind of distracting. Other than that, good post.
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
assuming that Sen McCain survives November, and does NOT bring us BobDole 2.0, I will hold you to this:
Where does that leave full-spectrum conservativism? Well I think it leaves it in a fantastic place. John McCain is going to be the President and when he is, he's going to handle the war better than the current administration. He's going to handle National Security better, and he'll have more traction to do so with independents, moderates and democrats. And that is a good thing. He'll also veto every earmark, cut spending, cut taxes, cut spending, fight pork and cut spending. And in four years, yes four years, when he doesn't run for reelection, where will we conservatives be?
More than any other candidate in the Republican race, Sen McCain IS Washington. Whether that is good, and he will be able to use his familiarity to get things done, or whether he will continue to be part of the problem, is yet to be seen.
I have no doubt that, IF he survives the MSM attacks leading up to November, and becomes President, he will continue to receive support from independents and democrats. We will have to wait to see if this is good for conservatives, or not.
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
Why wouldn't I vote for Rudy? A guy who has actually shown he can lead and run something bigger than a Senate office? The guy who has shown he can get things done against the opposition of the Democrats?
I mean, if we're putting issues like taxes and the economy aside and simply focusing on the man, it seems like Rudy is the obvious choice. His only deficiency is his stance on a handful of issues that the President doesn't even have much control over.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Who said it was all about leadership? I certainly didn't. Who said put taxes and the economy aside? I certainly didn't. I definitely never said set abortion aside.
Don't get me wrong, I like Rudy too. And Romney. But not more. And Rudy, too, has Fred issues with regard to winning.
absentee
We are being asked to set aside purity (which is really a straw man, anyway.. the problem is that McCain is very bad on specific issues that are important to the base, not that he isn't 100% pure) and focus on things like leadership instead.
The problem with McCain are his lousy positions on a big handful of issues that the President has a lot of say in. Compared with Rudy who has problems on a small handful of issues that the President has little say in, it doesn't seem like a very difficult choice to me.
And Rudy, too, has Fred issues with regard to winning.
As far as the campaign goes, Rudy has had this crazy Super Tuesday strategy from the very beginning. Fred never had much of a strategy at all besides "I'm gonna try to win this one... oops... guess I'll get the next one... oops... guess I'll get the next one... oops..." It is hardly comparable. Rudy's strategy might not work, but he definitely has one that could work.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I keep saying this. You aren't voting for or against this so-called purity. That is, in fact, my point.
My point is that you don't have to concede your conservativism at all. Saying you have to surrender it is adamantly the opposite of what I wrote.
absentee
Just not the bits about McCain. There's a distinct possibility that instead of repairing the Republican brand, he could harm it and send us back out into the wilderness for 8 years. Bush 41 did plenty of harm to the Republican brand with his lousy domestic policy. McCain might very well do the same. I'd vote for him in the general just because I believe he'd be good on foreign policy, but I have zero confidence in the guy on the domestic front.
Anyway, I just think you could do a find-and-replace on the name McCain in this diary and substitute somebody like Rudy and come to the same conclusion.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I've long been saying at Redstate that I was fine with each of our top four. I think it's a year for a strategic choice, and I think McCain is the most viable strategy. No question that one could reasonably conclude Mitt or Rudy were the strategic choice. It's no secret that my "real" choice would have been Thompson. He just didn't come up with the chops.
Four years from now things can be different. If they are different in the right way, we can get a Fred Thompson. I think McCain can bring that around. That doesn't mean that Rudy or Mitt can't.
absentee
Well, I've been arguing at length here at RS and elsewhere that McCain absolutely can repair the Republican brand. He is considered honorable, courageous, ethical, and honest not only by Republicans (those who aren't blinded with fury, that is) but also by potential Republicans/conservatives.
Contrast him with some of the Republican and/or conservative names in the news over the last few years: Duke Cunningham, Larry Craig, Vitter, Haggert, Foley, Delay (unfairly or not), Ted Stevens, Trent Lott, etc. Bush and Cheney aren't exactly well-liked or respected dudes, either (again, unfairly, but that's reality).
The Republican Party and conservatism in general has taken a hellacious beating in the media and public opinion over the last several years. People of all political stripes respect John McCain, and he can make the Republican brand attractive again. With greater numbers, we CAN get more conservative goals accomplished. And note I said "conservative"--not just "Republican." You know that old line about drawing flies with honey? People will begin to listen to conservative ideas again when they don't consider the Republican party as hopelessly corrupt and amoral. I have faith in the conservative agenda; I absolutely believe that when people are willing to listen, they will understand it and may change their opinions.
---
Beth
Just because the electability gang has sold out doesn't mean I have to. Come November, if Fred's not on my ballot, then I'm writing him in.
After all, who cares if any of your issues ever actually find resolution. So long as you made your stand, that's what matters.
absentee
Either a person has principles and stands on them or else he is un-principled. Take your choice. Can't have it both ways. That is what McCain is trying to do. As one from Arizona, I must say that his supporters and detractors in this state are fairly reflected at Red State. Those in the "blue" city environments are fairly receptive to him. Those of us in the "Red" rural areas wouldn't vote for him for dog catcher. Not sure what that says about the survival or disolution of conservatism as a national movement, but I do know the effect it is having on mainstreet America, and it doesn't look promising. Does the word "disenfranchised" ring a bell?
There he goes...off to write that hit song "Alone in My Principles"
(from "That Thing You Do")
There's a Presidential Election coming down the tracks. It's picking up speed. You can stand on one side or the other. Or you can just stand there in the middle on your principles and get run the heck over.
If you stay home in November, you will have cast your vote. It'll be for the winner, because you did nothing to change that course.
I hope you'll be comfortable with your principles voting for Hillary Clinton. But somehow I doubt you'll understand that you actually voted for her, and I'm sure you'll never actually take responsibility for it.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
by self-righteous little twits into voting for a candidate who is so ideologically-compromised that, on the issues most important to me, he is indistinguishable from the Democrats.
Nor will I be stand for being blamed, by these same twits, for a Democrat winning the White House.
You want me to support the Republican Party nominee? Fine: Give me one that I can support, with reasonable confidence that they won't be catastrophically bad on my issues.
Otherwise, come to grips with the fact that I don't owe some kind of quasi-retarded feudal obligation to the Republican Party, and shut up.
You don't owe anyone anything.
Just don't think your "principled stand" doesn't come with consequences. No decision is still a decision.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
are, for me, the same either way.
If I vote for the likely GOP nominee, someone who sucks on the issues most important to me will be sworn into the White House in January 2009.
If I don't vote for the likely GOP nominee, someone who sucks on the issues most important to me will still be sworn into the White House in January 2009.
So to what point and purpose would I vote? I get a big fat bite of a turd sandwich, albeit one made with a slightly different set of condiments, regardless of whether it's Mitt Romney, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama winning in November. Should I vote to spare you, who prioritize the issues differently than I do, the allegedly oh-so-much-more-horrible consequences of a Clinton or Obama presidency?
I don't think so. As I indicated, I'm not going to be guilted into voting for a four-flusher of a GOP nominee simply because someone else thinks a Clinton or Obama presidency would the end of civilization as we know it. The Republic will survive me casting a write-in vote for Batman, and the GOP may even figure out that it's necessary to give people a reason to vote for the Republican candidate rather than just reasons to vote against the Democrat candidate.
Here. I give you permission.
"Don't Vote"
Does it feel better that you have my permission now?
Just don't think you didn't affect the election by "not voting" (or writing in Batman which is the same thing).
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
...is a legitimate political calculation. And it's a very valid way of making a point to the party hierarchy, particularly if the abstention point is high up on the ballot.
I've spent a good part of the last 24 years looking at post-election numbers for targeting purposes. This sort of stuff, if it trends, can be powerful. Cripes, we're talking about folks who actually got off their duffs and went to the polls, then refused to vote at or near the top of the ticket.
Is there any clearer indicator of general dis-affection for a candidate than that?
There will always be the lone rebels that can be dismissed from analysis. When aversion to a particular candidate is so strong that it shows up in the numbers as an obvious non-localized percentage, the incidence rate ought to get vetted pretty hard.
I don't know if it is looked at in the GOP right now because I don't do contracts with the state party any more. But if they're doing a half-decent job, they'll notice.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
I might skip the presidential portion of the ballot this November, but not because I am hopping mad at the GOP and all of its candidates. (I admit that I don't like McCain.)
I have a problem with the combination of a Republican president and a Democrat Congress. I think that Congress has a lot of power over the country and that the President has less power than we realize.
Thus, electing a Republican president this fall when the Democrats are heavily favored to retain Congress (and even increase their majorities) is giving the Democrats the power (Congress) without the responsibility (The White House).
Let's face it. Nobody says that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have mismanaged the economy. Nobody says that we are headed into a Pelosi recession or a Reid recession. Congress has power, but it operates "below radar" so that it isn't held responsible (unless the person in the White House is of the same party affiliation).
So, I believe that the GOP lost big in 2006 and the November 2008 election is just the post-game show and the interviews with the contestants. I don't like the idea of a Democrat winning anything. But I believe that the nation might be better off if it had a 2 or 4 year dose of the Democrat experience.
That's when the American people will come screaming at the GOP to please, oh please, come back and govern us.
"Either a person has principles and stands on them or else he is un-principled."
I'm happy to concede this point if you wish, as it has no bearing on my own. You see, voting for a candidate is not exercise of your principles, nor an example thereof; not in total. You aren't voting for a list of your own principles, you are merely executing a function of society, the decision of which is informed by your principles.
You can, in fact, stand on your principles by voting for someone who doesn't fully represent them.
For example, versus Ron Paul, I'd vote for Hillary. Because all sums totaled, she'd do less harm to this country than he. It's not saying much, but it isn't saying I'm unprincipled that's for sure. One of my core principled beliefs is that the United States is a source of freedom, justice, democracy, prosperity, and truth across the world. One of my principled beliefs is that our responsibility as Americans is to make sure that remains so.
Stand on your principles, please do. John McCain isn't seeking them, he's seeking your vote. And you most certainly can have it both of those ways.
absentee
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I too would vote for Hillary Clinton as opposed to John McCain for the very same reasons you site. In other words I don't see where she would be any worse for the country than would he. And yes, I fully acknowledge concern for SCOTUS appointments as much as others. How one arrives at their personal perceptions of the individual candidates varies as to their personal observations and experiences. After all is said and done, it may very well be for the conservative movement in the US that the "bell tolls".
Many here can't seem to accept that the struggle going on with-in the GOP to define itself contemporaily looks more like an effort to attract the independents and un-decideds at the expense of the core values of the party. Compromise for expediency is not always the best course in the long run. Please excuse the cliche', but you might "win the battle, but lose the war". The GOP still is the closest thing we have to a "conservative" party at the moment and I tend towards them due to that circumstance. But unlike some here it is not blind allegience at all costs. I will stand on the sidelines and watch the outcome with interest.
However, we also greatly disagree.
"I too would vote for Hillary Clinton as opposed to John McCain for the very same reasons you cite."
Well then, you're just a bad decision-maker. I'd vote for her over Ron Paul. Over McCain would just be silly. I can sort that one out on abortion alone, much less the many other differences.
absentee
I know Arizona is some distance from where you are and possibly even further in it's political views regarding Sen. McCain. Just thought I'd give you a little view as to how he is percieved by the Republican Party in his home turf. This is from a Maricopa County straw poll done by the Maricopa County Republican Party on Saturday past. I don't think the SC results would have anyone changing their views.
Overall Votes (662 Votes):
#1 - Mitt Romney - 28.4% (188)
#2 - Fred Thomson - 18.3% (121)
#3 - Ron Paul - 17.4% (115)
#4 - Duncan Hunter - 14.0% (93)
#5 - John McCain - 12.1% (80)
#6 - Rudy Giuliani - 5.0% (33)
#7 - Mike Huckabee - 4.8% (32)
Most Unacceptable (1949 votes):
#1 - John McCain - 21.9% (427)
#2 - Ron Paul - 20.3% (396)
#3 - Rudy Giuliani - 18.3% (357)
#4 - Mike Huckabee - 17.4% (340)
#5 - Duncan Hunter - 8.0% (156)
#6 - Fred Thompson - 7.8% (152)
#7 - Mitt Romney - 6.2% (121 )
As I've been trying to point out, if a potential presidential candidate cannot even muster the support from his own constituents, how in the world is he going to garner it from conservatives nationally? Now I admit that Sen. McCain may get the nod by simply attracting all the independents and un-committeds and that might be enough to put him in the drivers seat. But that surely says a lot about the fragmentation of the conservative movement within the GOP. Sort of like watching the Titanic sink a few feet at a time while those that can leave the ship.
I'm also willing to concede that this is all much to do about nothing since it is only the primaries, and the whole party attitude may change when it comes to the general election, but it will be very interesting to watch how it all plays out.
It doesn't matter what you thought it was. This primary has changed the definition of conservative.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
I don't think that's right. Why does who we vote to be President define conservativism? Who makes all these rules?
We aren't electing a dictator for life here, and we aren't voting for what conservative means. We're deciding who needs to be in the big chair for the next four years, and that decision must include the attendant facts: Who would support him; what would he do; what would be the consequence.
This is not an American Idol competition where we all call in to decide the best conservative. We're choosing the chief executive. Right?
I just don't understand how that redefines conservativism.
absentee
PEOPLE do not define or redifine conservatism. It is what it is. That people have substantially STRAYED from it, I agree. That alot of center-right moderates call themselves conservative, I agree.
But the North Star has not disappeared or moved because it's a cloudy might, or because one is looking for it in the wrong place.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Conservativism isn't dead. It is alive and it is scrapping to win. Last night wasn't an attack on conservativism, last night was a counter-attack by conservativism.
Good grief.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
my smile is skin deep, if you
could see inside I'm really crying
you might join me for a weep."
Conservativism is not dead. It is not redefined. Conservatives the men and women, and the movement thereof, remains what it has been.
If anything is dead, it should be the notion that one Presidential election should be seen as the resolution to all our ills, and that failing that resolution, all is lost. I'd love for that idea to be dead.
It seems you have a bit of the pessimism creep.
Irrespective of that, I continue to be a fan of your commentary. Right on, write on!
absentee
Stripped of its rhetorical flourishes, this diary essentially says the following:
"I went to two campaign rallies, one for the ideologically-pure candidate (Thompson) and the other for the ideologically-compromised candidate (McCain). After those rallies, I came away believing that the ideologically-compromised candidate could win, and the ideologically-pure one could not. Since I think electability is a top-line consideration, I'm prepared to forgive and/or minimize McCain's ideological sins, and allow my hopes to triumph over my reason with respect to how McCain is likely to govern. You should all do the same."
Sorry, no sale. I think electability is a top-line consideration as well, but there are some ideological compromises I simply refuse to make.
John McCain is a great American and a genuine war hero. He also wiped his nethers with the First Amendment, and has never once expressed so much as an ounce of regret for doing so. Beelzebub will be buying ski lift tickets before I vote for him; if the electorate wants someone who'll shred the First Amendment in the name of clean elections, let history lay the blame at the feet of the Democrat Party.
.. but rhetorical excesses; yes?
"He also wiped his nethers with the First Amendment, and has never once expressed so much as an ounce of regret for doing so."
Yeesh.
Stripped of your hyperbolic declarations, your reply essentially says the following:
All other issues, policies and practices be damned. McCain-Feingold is the salient topic for this election. If the electorate wants to elect someone who will shred the second amendment, or protect abortion, or cripple our foreign policy, then in the name of my own clean hands, let them.
absentee
"If the electorate wants to elect someone who will shred the second amendment, or protect abortion, or cripple our foreign policy, then in the name of my own clean hands, let them."
The First Amendment is non-negotiable to me, sorry. John McCain could be (but isn't) the perfect candidate in all other ways, but he has no respect for the free speech rights of his fellow Americans, and on that basis alone -- without even getting into his other flaws as a candidate -- is unfit for public office.
FWIW, I feel the same way about the Second Amendment, and this is why I will not vote for Mitt Romney.
thank you absentee.
when will Fredheads admit Fred wasn't the Messiah they were looking for? are the other candidates perfect? no. but NEITHER IS FRED. he's marginally better in some ways (maybe), but much worse in the one that counts: the ability to win, and the ability to LEAD. Whatever supposed advantages he has don't do any good if he gets slaughtered in the general, and even if he somehow managed to win, they won't do any good if he can't lead.
McCain, Romney, Huckabee. Pick one and stop crying. None of them will "kill" the conservative movement. They'll do some things we won't like, yes, but they'll do a lot of good too, much more and much better than Hillary or Barry. Heck, maybe even Rudy too. I'm very nervous about what he'd do to the movement, but like the other three he at least has the ability to win (probably) and to lead (definitely) that Fred so manifestly lacks.
I think your assessment of McCain is wrong, especially when it comes to cutting taxes. And there are lots of McCain problems you don't address. But I can see how a conservative would make the argument you do, even if its not mine.
P.S. Are you aware the cutting earmarks would reduce spending by not one iota? Earmarks just direct how money that is already appropriated should be spent.
I didn't just say earmarks. I said veto earmarks, cut spending, cut waste, cut pork, cut taxes.
Anyway, allocating tax money to wasteful projects is bad in and of itself, whether stopping it reduces spending at all.
absentee
Don't expect other conservatives to make the same mistakes you do! Your flip flopping is as pathetic as the man you now support!