Redstate

besides, scuttlebutt has it that Attorney General Tom Corbett is going to run for Governor in 2010. And unlike Santorum, who doesn't have a prayer, Corbett will probably win.

Anybody THAT braindead has already written him off for endorsing Specter.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

Santorum undercutting Pat Toomey to endorse problematic and notably disloyal RINO Specter was a betrayal of conservatives on an epic scale.

Those who remember it and hold it against him are hardly braindead.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

certain people look at primaries as coronations?

I thought the point of primaries was to come up with the best candidate, not merely the best incumbant candidate.

candidate, not necessarily the "best" candidate. I think the Repub primaries pretty well proved that point. I can grant that McCain is the most viable in this campaign season, but no way will I concede that he was the best out there. And, EPU, your definition of conservative is on the mark 100%. Adam C, your unflagging enthusiasm for McCain is well-noted, but the rest of us have the right to our opinions as well.

And if your opinion is that "conservative" means something that no current politician could be, then so be it. If "conservative" means socially conservative regardless of the size of government, so be it.

My only major point is that once upon a time, conservatism was related to personal responsibility and the limited scope of government. In that realm, McCain is at least as conservative as any other R running for President this year.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

I think you're getting pilloried here for during-primary advocacies. All candidates have to understand that getting elected is a 2-stepper - you have to win the primary first, and it's just a fact that the criticism you get from primary opponents (and their advocates) will get co-opted by general election opponents. It's life.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

Depends on who the stronger candidate is. I think in AK, the challenger has a better shot in the general. In Toomey v. Specter, Specter had a better shot in the general. In Chafee v. Laffey, Chafee had a better shot.

Other people base it on something else, but if the seat is not a prohibitively Republican place then electability comes into my equation.

For the other end of the equation, I think a challenge to Hagel this year might have found support (although focus would be elsewhere b/c of the number of endangered Rs). And in some open seats, the more conservative candidate often gets support here (RS endorsed DeMint, Coburn, and Cain in their primaries).

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Toomey winning the primary would have led to Hoeffel(I think thats the correct spelling!) winning the general.

... Toomey actually had a 50/50 chance of winning, compared to Santorum's 20:1 odds throughout his race with Casey.

Romney/Pace 2008

I am sure he was polling above Hoeffel at one point. However, PA is, and was then, a Democratic leaning state, and considering that Kerry carried it in 2004, it is doubtful that Toomey would have bucked the Democratic coattails. Plus, Toomey had some big problems in the general, like an unwillingness to provide earmarks, and bad constituent services; although I agree with him that these should not be considered part of the Senate job description, I also think that voters generally disagree, especially in PA.

1) No a strident social conservative whose primary issues are social conservative issues is not going to have a good time in PA. Yes, a social conservative who focuses on other things could do well there (see Sen. Casey and hopefully Pres. McCain).

2) I believe the G14 was good policy at the time (well before primary season). Just because others discounted the idea that the other 48 R Senators might not be enthused at the idea of having the Senate entirely shut down, isn't my problem. Or the fact that relying on Specter was one of those 48 was somehow not iffy.

3) McCain has been right on judges. Very right. He had concerns about nominating stealth Justices like Souter. He supported wholeheartedly Bork, Thomas, Robert and Alito. He helped make sure Democrats couldn't filibuster good judges.

Criticize him all you want on issues where he has been bad, but on judges he has been very solid and he deserves credit for it.

4) Finally, maybe we just disagree about what "conservative" means. A lot of people consider Bush conservative. But he's been the biggest spending President in history. He's expanded the size and scope of government. That is not conservative to me. McCain has a much better record of conservatism.

If conservatism now means how religious one is or how socially conservative one is, then I understand the "moderate" moniker. But I'm not about ready to just give up on the idea that small government is a conservative view.

And I still believe you can work across party lines and be a conservative. McCain may not be a partisan, but he's a conservative whether that bugs you (and Rush) or not.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Is McCain a conservative on some issues? Yes, he is, especially when it comes to Federal spending. Is McCain a liberal on some issues? Yes, he is, especially when it comes to government regulations on campaign ads, carbon cap & trade, and amnesty for illegals. You should just be happy with Sen. Santorum's endorsement, and cut out all the "Ex-Senator" snark.
It does not do our candidate any good for folks like you to continue to slap Sen. Santorum around.

If the rules are transparent and clear, and if the state has no author­ity to license businesses or restrict exports and imports, there will be no opportunities to pay bribes in those areas. Mart Laar

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

especially the attempt to make pork spending the primary measure of conservatism.

Has McCain done any heavy lifting with regards to entitlement reform? Tax cuts? Free trade?

McCain seems to hold his powder for his more liberal positions.]

McCain supporters ragging on the person who was probably the most educated anti-Jihadist in the Sentate is a mistake.

He is one of the biggest free traders in the Senate. He states such frequently on the campaign trail.

What I said was that as a leader in the Senate, what has McCain done to move the ball forward on free trade.

I'm not talking about merely voting the right way, I am talking about leadership.

Talking on the campaign trail now is not what I mean either. I'm saying that I don't remember McCain spending a lot of time on his TV appearances in the past (pre 2008 election) talking up free trade.

I have heard him on other issues.

P.S. McCain does not explain very effectively how free trade actually does help "the little guy"--which was the primary point of my criticism above

any good when Santorum openly questioned McCain's temperament and leadership ability?

How is calling him an "Ex-Senator" a "snark"?

Don't we want our elected and former elected officials to speak honestly about reasons to vote for or against various candidates?

Because there WILL be a campaign ad listing the republicans who don't think McCain has the temperament to be President.

Santorum and others hurt the party by attacking McCain temperament and leadership.

Did you say anything negative in the past about . . .

Pat Robertson
Pat Buchanon
Steve Forbes
Fred Thompson
Mike Huckabee
or any other past primary candidate?

I have serious doubts about McCain's temperment as well. I just think he would be a better CIC than Obama or Hillary.

but that doesn't mean I openly attacked their leadership and/or ability to be a sane president.

McCain's temperament is an attribute. When all your favorite congressmen who make all the "correct" conservative votes load up bills with their pork barrel projects, McCain will tell them to shove the bill up their ass.

Rick said McCain's tempermant left something to be desired and questioned MCCain's spending of political capital.

Many insiders have commented on McCain's temper. McCain's public comments to Sen. Kyl are ample evidence of that.

McCain does chose to spend his political capital in ways that I disagree with. If Republicans are not free to say that in a primary, then maybe I need to cease being a Republican?

"I think that to me it is a relevant issue for people to consider," he said. "I think it's one without question that factors into his [b]ability to govern, to form coalitions, and to get things done.[/b]"

“As a conservative, I don’t agree with McCain on many issues and [b]I don’t think he has the temperament and leadership ability to move the country in the right direction[/b],’ Santorum says in the call, according to the Romney source.

Didn't say $#%^$$# McCain, like McCain did to Sen. Kyl.

If we aren't free to say "I think you should consider the temperment" of candidate X in a primary, then what the heck are we doing holding primaries?

McCain said worse about Bush in 2000. Bush became the nominee. Would you chastise McCain in 2000? Maybe as punishment he should withdraw now?

Its not like Rick purchased tv time for an ad. He made comments he felt honestly to be true.

The biggest impact Rick had on McCain was pointing out that McCain wasn't a big "do-er" on pro-life causes.

If that is out of bounds, then I am out of the game.

I don't care that he endorsed Romney, I don't care if states his disagreements, but he openly brought into question McCain's temperament and leadership ability. He hurt the Republican party when he did that.

I have heard Newt Gingrich addressed as Speaker, and I have heard Sam Nunn addressed as Senator. Why add the EX-. It is not necessary.

If the rules are transparent and clear, and if the state has no author­ity to license businesses or restrict exports and imports, there will be no opportunities to pay bribes in those areas. Mart Laar

but I didn't. I don't consider ex-SEN snark, it's the same notation they use in Hotline which I have generally adopted. That's also why I often capitalize GOV, SEN, REP and string together titles. It's not pretty but it's efficient.

I thought Santorum was a pretty good Senator. But he spent the last few months (even after the primary was over) attacking McCain. So I think he can handle having someone point out that his strategy in Pennsylvania failed and that perhaps the next candidate should try something different (we can argue over what).

I think it is entirely reasonable to say that Sen. McCain is more conservative than Pres. Bush. It is debatable but a lot of it comes down to what you consider the foundation of conservatism.

By the standards of some here, Reagan was no conservative either (i.e. amnesty, tax-hiking, O'Connor-appointing, etc). If "conservative" is some standard that no real person can attain, fine. Then we're just arguing past one another.

And I don't consider Comprehensive Immigration Reform liberal but I don't want to spend a whole thread on that.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

because you just won't leave it alone.

I don't feel like debating every point, because I think we've covered most/all of that one way or another, and let's just say that I disagree profoundly with #2, and with the "very right" claim of #3.

But one point I want to make, and I want to be very clear on. The definition of "conservative" is not elastic enough to include John McCain. I will allow so much as to say that his sentiments (not to be confused with "heart", "philosophy", or "stands") are frequently (not to be confused with "usually" or "always") on track with conservatism. That's as far as I go. His heart and his instincts are decidedly NOT conservative. After thousands of column-inches of arguing with my dear friend absentee, a noted and formidable McCain advocate, I even wrested from HIM a confession that McCain is not conservative.

This is not Bitter Fred Tears, and this is not an idle opinion. This is important, because conservatism is a set of principles that have a history and a body of thinking -starting ostensibly with the thinking of Edmund Burke, flowing though Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, then we fast-forward to Barry Goldwater, William F Buckley, Ronald Reagan, and Russell Kirk.

You and I, Fred Thompson, CPAC,and the ACU do not decide what conservatism is. Those guys in the preceding paragraph do - and I'm dead certain that Fred Thompson, CPAC, and the ACU will agree with me on that. For just a quick primer on the fundamental heart condition that make up a conservative, read this Russell Kirk essay.

You can cite all DAMN day (and you just beat this to death) a list of deeds and words from McCain that track with conservatism. I can cite all day (and I desisted a long time ago) a whole list of deeds and words from McCain that reveal his heart, principles, and instincts to be NOT conservative.

I've stated before, he's an acceptable candidate, and I will vote for him. But he is NOT conservative, and your preaching to the contrary is profoundly irritating.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

.

nt

There isn't much else to say. He is acceptable, especially compared to the alternatives, and I will vote for him, but I will hardly fault other conservatives for being truthful about his lack of conservatism in many areas.

You're standard of "conservative" is high enough that no one can qualify. Fred and McCain had very similar records, it's why they were my #1 and #2 choices. But if you've bought into the Rush Version of McCain, I can't budge you.

McCain has supported limited government more than Bush or Huck or Romney or Rudy. He and Fred have been similar here. McCain opposed Bush's Medicare Drug Bribe. He opposed the slide into the pork-barrel GOP along with Coburn.

He has a strong record on judges that you just sidestep and ignore because you don't want to deal it. His record on judges is as strong as any other Republican and perhaps stronger due to his prescience about Souter and stealth nominees. And he has spent time and leadership on making sure good judges get nominated and confirmed.

McCain's instinct is for less government and more personal responsibility, the hallmarks of conservatism. From opposing bailouts to being a watchdog for wasted Pentagon spending, he has been a leader in that regard as well.

It irritated me that Rush/Hannity/etc only talked about one sliver of McCain's record. So maybe it's just your turn to be irritated.

If you're standard of conservatism is so high that no current politician fits the bill, then fine. I'm not sure how you can include Reagan with the loftiness of your standards (O'Connor, tax hikes, amnesty, working with Dems). But if it's a realistic moniker that can apply to mere mortals, McCain has as much a claim to it as any of the primary nominees this cycle. Fred and him had probably the strongest claim to it, which makes sense since their records are very similar.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

.

Reagan was a net tax cutter. McCain rarely supports tax cuts.

Reagan took the lead to push tax cuts through. McCain actively opposed tax cuts.

Reagan supported amnesty on the assumption that the border would be sealed and the issue ended. Reagan never insulted those who disagreed with his immigration ideas. McCain insults his fellow Republicans, and led the charge despite that past failures of the 86 amnesty.

McCain hasn't had the opportunity yet to nominate any judges. If you don't think he will purposely nominate an O'Connor, then I think you overestimate the man.

Cutting wasteful spending is good. Articulating why limited government and capitalism help the ordinary man on the street is better.

McCain is not in Reagan's league. If McCain supporters could stop trying to reduce Reagan, the rest of us could better be on board the Maverick Express. My support of McCain is conditional on not airbrushing history.

McCain is a great man in many respects. He is not conservative. Conservatives do not get most heated while taking on other conservatices. Conservatives do not aid and abet attacks on free market capitalism.

He had his own tax cut proposal, so there is no need to lie and say he opposes tax cuts.

You bring out all the biases in plain view.

"McCain rarely supports tax cuts."

No he opposed one tax cut. He supported every other one over the past 20 years and never supported a tax increase. But you don't hear about that in conservative media.

"If you don't think he will purposely nominate an O'Connor, then I think you overestimate the man."

I don't and I don't see any evidence to say he would. He didn't like the Souter nomination because it was a stealth nomination and resisted a quick endorsement while other Rs like Gramm went ahead and endorsed him. He was excited about Roberts and Alito and used his credibility to help win over moderate Democrats. Even in unguarded "off the record" moments, he has been "caught" talking about how to get good conservatives on the bench.

On the other hand, there is not actual votes or record of anything to make someone think he wouldn't nominate good judges.

Finally, this isn't about bringing Reagan down. This is about the shifting goalposts of what it takes to be "conservative." Now you have to scream social conservatism from the rooftop or you're not conservative. That's not what it used to mean. McCain's emphasis on limited government and focus on national pride and honor as well as his military sacrifice and sense of duty make him as much of a conservative as anyone currently with a shot at the Presidency.

I've watched enough people embrace Bush conservatism without batting an eye about his entire abandonment of small government principles. And I'm not going to sit here and let that new definition of conservatism gobble up the old. There aren't many people in Washington with as strong a record of fighting government growth in size and scope as McCain, Coburn, and Flake.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

We have had two significant sets of tax cuts since 2000. My recollection is that McCain actively opposed both. He attacked them using the language of the left. Tax cuts for the rich, etc. Not very conservative. McCain is the reason why we now have tax cuts that will expire, instead of being a position where Democrats would have to affirmatively pass a tax cut.

Was McCain more conservative pre-2000? Yes. I'll even go so far to say that McCain was more conservative in 1984 than Reagan was in 1948. So what? We are talking about the persons that they were in seeking the Presidency. McCain is probably more conservative now then I was when I was 4 years old and I thought people should just give me what I want.

I never said anyone had to screem social conservativism from any rooftops. I do think social issues are underrated---especially in blue states like Michigan, West Virginia, Penn, etc.

What I am saying is that Mccain is good on issues that used to be shared by both conservatives and patriotic Jackson democrats. McCain is not otherwise invested in issues that generally get conservatives motivated to work for candidates. McCain is not excited about free market capitalism. He isn't. Its not something he feels in his gut. He is not and never will be passionate about tax cuts. He is and never will be passionate about small business owners, and how government makes their jobs harder.

we all have different passions. We invest our energies differently. Besides military/national security, McCain's hottest issues are issues that his positions are the least conservative.

"compassionate" version of conservatism. Its just that while small government and related fiscal conservatism are primary parts of conservatism, just that by itself isn't conservative. You would get a lot of Libertarians (and maybe even a few liberals) agreeing on that who are far, far away from conservatism.

their relatives are incompatiable...but Adam if you keep telling yourself that one does not undercut the other you will be lying to yourself.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Whatis Janis?

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

there is no state left in the Union that is not forking over millions/billions on behalf of illegal immigrants. In Nashville, Tn alone, the city ponies up at least 12 million per year just for English as a second language teachers. And, yes, they teach children who speak other than Hispanic, but that is by far the largest group they deal with. In Tennessee, the TennCare program (HillaryCare local) has spent billions over the past 10 years and much of it has gone to illegals for healthcare. And that doesn't count the money spent daily on a whole slew of other programs--law enforcement agencies alone are having to increase their budgets to deal with the constant influx of prisoners who are illegals. A close relative works in the detention facility in one of the largest counties in middle Tennessee and sees this daily. The list goes on and on....

What's that have to do with amnesty again?

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

What's that have to do with amnesty again?

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

If we went with the program that McCain-Kennedy proposed, do you REALLY think that we could implement it without another huge expansion of government? If the ICE/INS agencies cannot do all the work they are presently tasked with, then how in the world do you think they could go through all the paperwork required of the new program without vastly increasing their staffs? And that won't be free--it's going to come out of OUR pockets, right? And don't tell me that the libs won't be front and center with every entitlement program that they can come up with, just waiting with big old smiles to buy the votes. And who's going to pay for these programs? That's right--us.

.

Let's "focus like a lazer" on the question at hand.

I didn't mention McCain-Kennedy. I asked how "Amnesty" has anything to do with the size of government. Not guest workers, not any sort of graduated procedure, just straight "OK, you're a citizen now," i.e. 1986.

Besides, your question manipulative and meaningless anyway. It's the SCOPE of government that conservatives are, or should be, concerned with. Immigration is a vital function of what the government does. No sane person can dispute that. It is one of their primary functions. Complaining that it might need more money to complete its mission is like liberals whining about the military budget. You don't cut corners on vital governmental functions. You cut corners, or cut entire programs, on things that it shouldn't be doing anyway.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

That's a point that just never seems to get through to those who like the idea of amnesty for all the illegals already here. They claim to be for limited government and fewer entitlement programs, yet the illegal situation costs states and the feds billions per year. This does not compute.

Well a pure amnesty would be the cheapest way to stop spending federal money on immigration enforcement. But I'm guessing that's not what you had in mind.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

and big dollars on entitlements and public services.

You know that spending on medical care, welfare programs, education, and other public services for illegal immigrants far outweighs the current spending on border security.

This argument is beneath you. It may be the first comment you have written that wasn't in good faith.

.

is looking at cost without benefit. Have you calculated how much wealth creation these workers have added to the economy? How much added demand they have added to the economy?

Counting only the costs is disingenuous.

But if we want to talk about reducing the "costs" of illegal immigration, that means talking about enforcement costs. If they were all to become legal tomorrow, the other costs (and benefits) wouldn't change.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

of their earnings to another country, so the net gain on the economy likely isn't much. I realize that's unsupported opinion, so if you have facts that can counter my statement, I'm all ears.

"After two years in Washington, I often long for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood." -Fred Dalton Thompson

Prof. Sowell would say that you are arguing the broken glass paradigm. A broken window does generate economic activitiy if it is replaced, but had the window not been broken, the resources could have been used to actually grow the economy.

I think the conservative solution would be to allow more people into the country legally thereby lifting the governmental barrier to people who want to work to support their families.

But this is another area where "conservative" has shifted from being pro-immigrant, optimistic, and pro-assimilation to a protectionist, anti-immigrant view that Tancredoites push to keep out people who are different.

I'm proud to be pro-immigrant and support higher levels of legal immigration. And I do so because of my faith in American and its opportunities for those who come to work here.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

don't mix up the two like they are the same...the legal immigrant is not stealing people's identities...the illegal immigrant is....the legal immigrant is paying all taxes....the illegal is not....the legal immigrant will have to prove eligibility (financially) to be able to bring their relatives to America....the illegal does not....why if I didn't know better the way you threw that word immigrant out there I would think you were inserting a strawman into the argument....like the NY Times much...they use immigrant also.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Tancredo and his ill are anti-immigrant. I know there are many people upset with illegal immigration who don't fall into that category. My beef is with the Tancreoites, not the later group.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Tancredo and . . . .

Adam, you are doing what the NYT does. Pick an outlier, beat the heck of the straw man, and annoy the heck of the other side.

I am first generation American in my family. Most of my friends are either immigrants or first generation. Nobody appreciates the country like immigrants (veterans excepted). As a whole, we are the most anti-illegal immigration folks you will find since we did things legally.

Illegal immigration is taking cuts in front of people who play by the rules. Is anything less conservative that rewarding cheaters over those who follow the rules?

was that conservatism used to be pro-immigrant. We could solve most of the "illegal immigration" problems by increasing legal immigration. But that idea doesn't get off the ground because "conservatives" are scared of letting in too many people from another place and those people eating different foods and having taco stands. I think those "conservatives" have lost their faith in America's ability to assimilate.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

The reason why we don't have more open immigration is because of the welfare state and entitlement programs.

Milton Friedman was a big open borders guy, but even he admitted it wouldn't work with entitlement programs.

I am very pro immigrants who will play by the rules and are not seeking to bring about Sharia law in the US

It IS all about following the law. Higher levels of immigration? Fine--as long as it's legal. As to assimilation? Again, fine. But the counties around mine who have a large illegal population seem to have no interest in assimilating. They speak nothing but Spanish and persist in the customs they brought with them--most notably, driving while drunk as they have said it is a sign of being "macho." Many of them are arrested on a weekly basis for this and are also found to have no license, no insurance, etc.

If they are so interested in assimilating, then how come they refuse to follow so many of our laws? Laws, I might add, that legal citizens are forced to follow?

If so, don't make me laugh. If you actually think you have a serious illegal immigrant problem, you're proving basically every critic you have right.

Tennessee isn't even in the top 10 states for illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants make up less then 2% of your population.

http://www.uslaw.com/bulletin/where-do-illegal-immigrants-live.php?p=809

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

here, it's not the least bit funny. And I don't care whether we are in the top 10 or the bottom 20, it's still a huge problem. You can prove anything with statistics, but I'm talking about the everyday lives of people who are affected here by an illegal population that insists on bringing their own culture here and then insisting that the rest of us adapt to it instead of the other way around. Are we supposed to sit down and shut up until we statistically reach the top 10? Sorry, I'd rather deal with the situation before it gets that bad.

I thought it wasn't about pushing out people who were different?

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

blend your culture with the one you are looking to become a part of--not insisting on holding onto your home country language, flag, holidays, social customs and then demanding that your new country give them precedence or equivalence.

Oh yah, people celebrating cinco de mayo...that's some scary stuff!

I think they brought some weird hot-sauce and the Mexican Hat Dance! Can't have that!

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

You can prove anything with statistics, but I'm talking about the everyday lives of people who are affected here by an illegal population that insists on bringing their own culture here and then insisting that the rest of us adapt to it instead of the other way around.

So you get a few random Mexicans wandering around wearing speaking Spanish and eating too many tacos and you freak out.

And you wonder why people call your type "nativists".

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

"a few random Mexicans..." and I am not freaking out. I'm sick and tired of being considered a nativist because I follow the laws of my country and expect others to do likewise.

I'm off to do some checking of those lovely statistics that you revere. Will get back to you later.

It's not ignorant. It's a FACT. Tennessee has NO illegal immigration problem in comparison to most other states. There are merely a "few random Mexicans" so to speak in Tennessee. Yet for some reason, you go on and on about how big of a deal it is, you feel threatened by new "culture", assume that they drive drunk more often then others, etc. That's pretty much the definition of nativism.

You aren't comfortable with anybody but the people around you that you are totally use to, that share your very narrow view of the world. That's clear. I just wish you weren't so blind to it.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

According to FAIR, as of November 8th, 2007, Tennesseeans now spend 285 million dollars per year for illegal alien K-12 education, health care and incarceration of criminal illegal aliens. In the same article, the estimated illegal population in Tennessee has grown from 46,000 in 2000 to around 100,000 in 2007. So that works out to about $2850.00 per illegal spent by the taxpayers in this state.

If you think that is just fine and dandy, then me and my extended family will be over at your house later this week with our hands out and we expect cash, no personal checks accepted.

And if you want ANYONE to believe that you are dealing in good faith here, then stop the name-calling about "racists and nativists." I am neither and your prejudices about rural southerners say much more about you than anything I have said.

My parents grew up in Chicago where they took us regularly on vacations. I lived out west for 4 years amongst a varied population. This whole issue for me is solely and simply about insisting on people following the law and not rewarding illegal behaviour with all kinds of benefits.

"...This whole issue for me is solely and simply about insisting on people following the law and not rewarding illegal behaviour with all kinds of benefits."

Amen and amen!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...

You are really, really clueless. I DID NOT ASK YOU ABOUT THE COSTS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, NOR HAVE I EVER DENIED THAT THERE IS A COST. I asked you about the costs of amnesty. Big difference.

That said, Citing FAIR about immigration is like citing Code Pink about military matters. I wouldn't trust them if they told me the sky was blue.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

wandering around and eating tacos." What does THAT have to do with amnesty, hmmmm? This discussion may have started about amnesty, but it went off to a whole host of related issues, including drunk driving, expenditures by states on illegal aliens, etc. And you questioned anyone/everyone's position on same if they don't agree with you. So I was answering in the way you indicated you found legitimate--although I could have predicted you wouldn't have found any source I came up with as reliable. So I read up on FAIR and found it to be highly praised by a bipartisan bunch of folks. Irregardless, I found the same stats on Tennessee expenditures in other places as well, but there's not much point in listing them as I am sure you will find fault with those as well.

Again, this about following the existing laws, nothing else.

Nothing. If you didn't notice, you are answering an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT POST that I wrote to you some time ago. Until you randomly posted FAIR numbers, we were talking about a totally different topic.

You seem really confused and unable to stick to any given issue at hand. You seem to assume your position is true, so logic, reason, or any coherent thought is not needed to defend it. You think can answer questions dealing with stereotypical views with the costs of illegal immigration to local and state governments, even when the question that you seemed to go seeking the numbers for was for the costs of amnesty, not the costs of illegal immigration.

You aren't talking reality. These are separate issues that must be dealt with separately to come to any sort of understanding on them.

I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

sterling example of a fair-minded American and I am a filthy racist, nativist, slack-jawed, southern yokel who runs screaming into the woods at the sight of a taco. I am also a tight-fisted, Scrooge-hearted, mean old lady who faints dead away at the sight of the Mexican flag and who has the vapors over Cinco De Mayo and who would never, no, NEVER, drink a nasty margharita or a pitcher of sangria on a hot summer's day.

But I still stand by what this is about for me--I have to follow the law, so do they.

All I'm asking you to do is make a coherent argument and stick to the topic. You can't seem to do that.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

goalposts. Ergo, I'm done wasting my time on you. Given the other commentors who have disagreed with you and your remarks in return, you apparently cannot abide anyone with a different opinion, which, correct me if I'm wrong, makes you the intolerant one.

Reality is not your friend, apparently.

I asked you about the costs of amnesty. You responded by talking about the costs of illegal immigration.

I made a comment on your comment about the effect of immigration in Tennessee, in which you damn Mexican culture in broad, meaningless terms. I call you on it. You respond by asserting that you aren't a nativist but say Mexicans are drunk drivers.

It's not me who's got a problem here. You have an opinion, fine. DEFEND IT. Don't change the subject. Don't make broad assertions you can't back up. Stick to the issue. That's all I'm asking, but apparently that's too much.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

I'm avoiding immigration arguments these days for just this reason.
Somehow, someway, if you oppose people coming into this country illegally and then reaping the benefits, you are a racist or nativist.
Bah. Whatever.

Again, preach it-But I still stand by what this is about for me--I have to follow the law, so do they.

And with that, good night from Old Europe.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...

I've been here before with the same results, so I will probably not bother to argue this subject again. Although it would be interesting if someone could come up with the expenditures on illegal immigration since Reagan's amnesty in 1986. THAT would be the true cost of amnesty.

Hey! You finally said something intelligent and on point enough to merit actually giving a reasoned response to!

It is true, a number like that would be worth knowing, but it's hardly the end of the question. While there are certainly costs to illegal immigration, there are also economic benefits. So any costs would also have to be offset by the economic benefits.

Likewise, while I don't deny that it is POSSIBLE for amnesty to encourage more illegal immigration, it certainly cannot account for all illegal immigration, or even most illegal immigration. Obviously, that would be hard to calculate, but again, merely plugging in that number wouldn't work either.

Anyhow, I'm not actually for "amnesty", at least depending on how you define it. I just object to simple-minded solutions and blatantly bigoted stereotypes of immigrants, legal or otherwise, that are counterproductive in actually dealing with the real problems it presents.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html#Methodology

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Good, then you weren't the object of my comment. I'm talking about the Tancredoites who support lower levels of legal immigration as well. They are anti-immigrant.

"most notably, driving while drunk as they have said it is a sign of being "macho." "

I'd love to see some statistics showing this is more prevalent among illegal immigrants than the general population. Otherwise, I presume it's bald stereotyping.

Assimilation has generally been more successful among immigrants who are here legally. It's one reason the de facto amnesty he have right now is a failure. If we passed some form of legalization or guest worker program, it would help with assimilation.

But at the bottom of all of this is a simple question. On the spectrum of crimes from jaywalking to murder, where does crossing the border illegal fall? If you think it's closer to jaywalking, you probably don't have a problem with legalization. If you think it's closer to rape and murder, then you probably have a problem with it.

Finally, for some people (including many Tancredoites), it is about pushing out people who are different. See his comments about Miami.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

officers that I have spoken to in my county and the county next to me. According to them, at least three quarters of the DUI's they deal with are illegal Hispanic males who have told them that driving drunk is their custom at home and it is about being "macho." These same officers have also said that they have seldom found an Hispanic woman driver who was DUI. And of all the ones they have stopped (male) who were DUI, NONE of them had licenses, nor insurance.

As to your scale of where I'd rank those who cross the border illegally, I'd put it right where it belongs--they trespassed. Jaywalking is crossing the street in the middle instead of at the crosswalks. Trespassing is going where you have no right to go legally.

Yah, because God knows, America doesn't have a problem with non-illegals drunk driving. If we just got rid of all the Mexicans we wouldn't have a problem. /sarcasm

I still can't figure out how you can believe these things and then go nuts when people accuse you of nativism or flat out racism.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

I still can't figure out how you can believe these things and then go nuts when people accuse you of nativism or flat out racism.

Check out my comment just below. Unless you can convince me that Hispanics in North Carolina are more likely to DWI than elsewhere in the country, I think you have an insult that you need to withdraw.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

Actually, I not only don't apologize, I double down. You're showing yourself to not only be nativists, but at least latently racist.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

You are showing yourself to be an ignorant cretin. Since you won't read my comment below, I'll recopy it here. Please explain why 18 percent of Hispanics in traffic accidents in North Carolina are drunk, compared to 7 percent of whites and blacks.

Save the ham-handed accusations of racism for the lefty blogs where it belongs. If you can't back up your argument with anything better than that, I really wonder why you post here at Redstate.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

I already did read it. It's still meaningless and latently racist.

There could be a billion reasons. You just jump to the conclusion that it's because of their race. What boggles the mind is that you actually think that's OK.

Black people are disproportionately poor and on average, have more people involved in violent crime and drug crime.

And if you object to "black people" moving into your neighborhood, you're a racist none-the-less.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

Let's back up for a minute.

Adam C tried to claim that illegals do not drink and drive more than the population at large. I found stats that, granted limited to North Carolina, show that Hispanics (and thus I project, illegals as well) drink and drive approx. 3x the national average.

And then you come in and start accusing people of racism.

Well, look in the mirror, buster. People who sling around loose charges of racism based on nothing at all are themselves the most likely ones to be racist.

Your logic is flawed and your argument is barely worthy of dKos, much less Redstate. People don't like illegals because someone that's already broken the law once to get into the US are likely to have less compunction about breaking the law in other ways, like drinking and driving. But according to you, that makes them racists.

Well you can take your racism charges and shove them where the sun don't shine. Your argument is bunk and you're a moron.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

2. That correlation = causation
3. That others that come here would be similar
4. That one study of ONE STATE = the whole country

and I'm the one who's argument is bunk and I'm a moron?

I'll take that as a complement given your line of reasoning.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

n/t

I'd love to see some statistics showing this is more prevalent among illegal immigrants than the general population. Otherwise, I presume it's bald stereotyping.

But since you had to bring that up, Adam, and I just read this via Neal Boortz this morning:

Nearly 300 illegal immigrants were convicted on driving-while-impaired charges and placed in North Carolina prisons in 2007.

Hispanics also account for 18 percent of drunken-driving arrests, while making up less than 7 percent of the state’s population, according to a study from the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center aired in WRAL's documentary "Focal Point: Crossing the Line."

The study also showed that Hispanics involved in car crashes were 2.5 times more likely to be drunk than white drivers and three times more likely to be drunk than black drivers.

...

Advocates admit that drunk driving is a problem within the Hispanic community and have aired public-service ads to combat the problem.

Drunk driving is also the No. 1 killer of young Hispanic men, according to the UNC study.

Sure you can point out how the survey talks about Hispanics and not illegals, but as the article said elsewhere, North Carolina has just passed a law to check the immigration status of those arrested for DWI, so we don't have stats on just illegals as opposed to Hispanics as a whole. However, since the vast bulk of illegals are Hispanic, and I seriously doubt that illegals drive while intoxicated at a significantly lower rate than Hispanics overall, I think this counts as something other than 'bald stereotyping'.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

And males are more likely to get involved in drunk driving then females too. What do you want to do? Ban male immigrants? Poor people are more likely to drive drunk then rich people. Wanna ban poor people?

This is a total non-argument. You're only revealing your blatant nativism and latent racism.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

The free flow of labor has done great things for this country. Where I differ with McCain is that I do not believe in granting amnesty to all these illegals, rather I would institute some sort of guest worker program that doesn't confer citizenship.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

Is far too sensible, realistic and logical for the Tancredo crowd.

You will be pay the price for your lack of vision.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

I encourage you to read up on Germany's experience with Turkish guest workers. Assimilation is much harder when you have a legal underclass. It may be the best solution given our situation, but I do think it will impede assimilation (assuming that is a goal).

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Now, of course, the immigrants can't all come from the same place.

But if immigration is easy to do whether you are from China, or Denmark, or Brazil, or Canada, or Somalia, or Spain... well, you'll get all kinds of immigrants and the good stuff will make itself apparent.

But when you crack down and crack down and crack down and crack down, you make it a huge pain in the butt for China and Denmark and Brazil and Canada and Somalia and Spain... so the only people who come here are those who only have to jump a fence to do it.

And they all come from the same country with more or less the same culture.

So cracking down and cracking down and cracking down seems the only proper response.

Which, of course, results in even fewer Chinese, Danes, Brazilians, Canadians, Somalis, and Spaniards showing up... and the only people who do are the ones who jumped a fence.

I'm wondering if people will eventually stop saying "Well, we just need to crack down even more!"

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

I agree, except I do not think a guest worker program would work. They have never worked anyplace they have been tried.

Personally, I think legal immigration should be increased. However, I think illegal immigrants should be fined and expelled when caught. And I also think that "damn fence" should be built.

Yes, I strongly opposed McCain/Kennedy but I also think Adam is right about the "Tancredo crowd."

But more to the point for me, I have a hard time personally excoriating John McCain about it when McCain/Feingold was no more "liberal" than anything I personally heard Bush promote.

Adam, you are fairly BEGGING me to go point-by-point in shredding McCain on the thresher of conservatism. I've steadfastly refused to do that for months now. I beg you to stop tempting me.

I disagree with practically everything in your comment, starting with the subject line.
-- we are not talking past each other. We are talking about the same thing. You say McCain is conservative, as evidenced by A,B,C, and D. I respond with "no he ain't", as evidenced by J,K,L, and M, and include a reference to what true conservative elements are, which I maintain are NOT all that fluid. This sounds to me like we are engaging each other.

-- my standard of conservatism is so high that no one can qualify? That is frankly ridiculous. A fair number (not nearly enough) of politians qualify IN SPADES. Hensarling, Pence, Flake, Coburn, Santorum, DeMint, Jeb Bush, Jindal, shall I go on? You want to use a litmus test of "their records", which I'll grant you is important. But a much more powerful indicator is what comes out of their mouths that indicate their thinking, their principles, and how they intend to govern.

-- "limited government", good, if what you mean is LOWER SPENDING. I agree. However, if what you mean is LESS GOVERNMENT INTRUSION, then what I hear is BCRA (more regulatory burden, less freedom), "drug companies are the bad guys" (more regulatory burden, less free market), AGW (more regulatory burden, more crockery, frankly rank gullibility), raking the ClearChannel CEO over the coals for supposedly censoring the Dixie Chicks (REAL censorship, less free market), I see a record a little less clear-cut on "limited government".

--I don't give a flip about the "Rush" version of McCain, and I absolutely call BS on the talk that he's harped on a small sliver of McCain's record. BS, I'd say Rush has engaged in widespread attacks on McCain's veracity as a conservative on many fronts.

--His record on judges. OK, I'll give you DECENT, but what you sell is STELLAR. No, no way. Opposing Souter, supporting Bork, and the others, OK, that's fine. But G14 was several things, among them a compromise that involved throwing several well-qualified judges under the bus for the sake of expediency. It was also a grand-standing and exceedingly ungracious usurpation of the text and meaning of the roles of executive and legislative roles in the selection of federal judges. You can call it effective, and it was, to a point. But only for the immediate problems at hand, and it merely exacerbated the overall long-term issue of unconstitutional Democrat blockage of the president's nominees. Look where we are right now.

--McCain's instinct is for less government and more personal responsibility, the hallmarks of conservatism my comments on "less government", see above. "more personal responsibility", that is a decent conservative principle, but no, these 2 things are not "the hallmarks of conservatism", merely a couple of outgrowths of a couple of the 5 or so hallmarks of conservatism. That's very nice, and clearly separates him from liberals - making him a moderate.

In my opinion, his instincts are toward arrogance and bullying, and relying on the government (and himself) to "fix" things.
--That's why he lectures the CEO of ClearChannel about censorship.
--the reason BCRA was needed was to "fix" campaign corruption (worked really well, yes?) by censoring free political speech in direct contradiction of the First Amendment.
--those evil drug corporations will need to be "dealt with".
--AGW, that magical vehicle for all things left-wing, also needs to be "dealt with". And I'll bet that solution involves less goverment. Ya think?
--"I know more about illegal immigration than everybody else in the room" - after complaints that he air-dropped in on the Amnesty Bill at the last minute.
-- OK, I'll build the G-D fence.

--Your ender is the straw man again: nobody can fit EPU's (and Russell Kirk's) standard for conservatism, therefore McCain has just as much of a claim on the term as Fred Thompson. What a moral travesty. Similar voting records, sure. But if you saw the evolution of Fred Thompson, the man he became since 2002, and you read his white papers, and then you listen to McCain talking about AGW and the drug companies, and you STILL say McCain has as much claim to the title of "conservatism" as Fred Thompson, you are gravely, sadly wrong.

Now I ask you to lay off. There are REAL conservatives out here, and you are not winning friends among them.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

They had a cartoon where someone said "Damn it, conservatism is an attitude," or something like that. The basic point was that every time someone countered one of his anti-McCain points, he'd still keep on believing that McCain was some sort of closet liberal.

That's basically what every argument you have here is. You don't really disagree on ends, and only slightly on means. You disagree with some of his tactics and feel that his "instincts" are wrong. Even if it's an actual issue disagreement, you don't care when it's someone else.

A perfect example is Reagan. Reagan got 1 good Justice out of 3. He ACTUALLY granted Amnesty for illegal aliens, not kinda-sorta-maybe pretend amnesty. etc. Yet nobody cares because he was 'one of them' and they make excuses for every one of his "sins" even when they wouldn't for McCain.

Don't get me wrong, I think Reagan is great too, but that just proves the point. You excuse Reagan and others you like when you won't grant the same for McCain.

That's basically what 99% of McCain's critics on the right end up saying when you get down to it. They don't like his attitude.

The problem is, that's a fundamentally liberal way of looking at conservatism. I 'feel' that it's not conservative, so it's not.

It's nonsense. It's feelings over facts. You simply cannot credibly say that based on his record McCain is significantly less conservative then Fred Thompson, Jeb Bush, etc. You CERTAINLY can't say that about Mitt Romney. You can only get there by 'feelings', 'attitudes' etc.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

Conservatives compromise in an attempt to move policy in a conservative direction. McCain compromise sometimes to "get things done" (i.e. "change"), to make himself look good/personal pennance (CFR), or sometimes, to move policy in a conservative direction.

Reagan didn't call people opposed to immigration reform racists. He understood that there were legitimate reasons to oppose amnesty.

Reagan didn't attack CEO pay or Big Pharma. Reagan understood that free market capitalism is the the key to freedom.

Reagan didn't raise taxes to punish "the rich" because Reagan understood supply side economics, and that it is only through risk taking and profit making that jobs are created.

Political realities limit what can be done in a finite period of time. Whether someone is conservative or not should be evaluated by what they tried to do and what they said.

McCain is no Reagan on either point.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Conservatives compromise in an attempt to move policy in a conservative direction. McCain compromise sometimes to "get things done" (i.e. "change"), to make himself look good/personal pennance (CFR), or sometimes, to move policy in a conservative direction.

And you know this how, exactly?

This is my whole point. You just assume motives on him because you don't like him.

Everything you said about Reagan just proves my point further. You assume good motives of Reagan because you do like him.

It all comes down to what you feel motivates the man. Not based on the record its self.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

Lets see:

Opposing tax cuts "because they benefit the rich" --this is not a conservative statement. This has nothing to do with my like or dislike of McCain. It has to do with how he understands the economy and the dependence of freedom on free markets.

I can't be sure what his motivation was, but I know it was NOT an attempt to move policy in a conservative direction. Conservative motivated speech would not bad mouth capitalism. Period. It is the same as bad mouthing freedom.

I liked Reagan BECAUSE he was conservative. He moved the ball forward on so many issues in so many different ways with virtually no help in the media.

McCains words cannot be ignored.
Impugning those who oppose amnesty---not for bad judgment, but implying racism. How does this move the ball forward?

Impugning Big Pharma as the bad guy? What was the motiviation for this? Improving the electorate's view on capitalism? Was it some form of reverse psychology? Was he trying to get the MSM media to say "John, you have it all wrong, free markets are a foundation of freedom?"

Please.

I already granted you the first one. The rest of them are, or at least could be, legitimate from a conservative point of view.

On this thread, we already have people from a state with a tiny amount of illegal immigrants insisting their culture is being overrun and saying they don't want more Mexicans because they are drunk drivers. If that isn't nativist, I don't know what is. That doesn't mean that everybody is, but that reality can't be ignored either.

And Big Pharma is sometimes a bad guy, if not always. If he were objecting to their free market practices, I'd agree, but he doesn't and he hasn't. It's not all their fault, but they are some of the worst rent-seekers in the world. Some of their practices are flat-out merchantalism straight out of the Wealth of Nations. Painting those practices in a bad light are hardly anti-conservative. Big Pharma's opposition to reimportant is classic merchantalism. They go along with Canada's price controls and pass the cost on to us, then flip when we want to undermine the system by reimportation. Classic rent seeking.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

What is Big Pharma supposed to do when a country imposes cost controls? Violate the law?

Big Pharma's opposition to re-importantion is based on a desire to have U.S. law respected in the U.S.

If you want to stop future medical research, reimport away. We are subsidizing research for the rest of the world. That is in order of fault (1) the rest of the world's fault; (2)our fault for not having our government stand up for Big Pharma; and (3) Big Pharma's fault.

The rest of the world wants US companies to spend billions developing and testing drugs. Then they want to buy them based on the marginal cost of production, without factoring in the required research costs.

A conservative would point this out and DEFEND Big Pharma, not attack them.

Big Pharma does a heck of a lot more to increase innovation and change people's lives than a beer distributorship. However, the tax and regulatory regimes have the global impact of making beer distribution a better return on capital than pharmaceutical research.

Maybe all of the Big Pharma invenstors should invest instead in beer distribution?

Maybe all of the Big Oil investors should invest in bottled water?

In summary, Big Pharma is not passing the Canadian Price controls to us. Rather, they are allocating all of the research costs to us because our government (responsible for foreign treaties, trade relations, etc.---in part this person is John McCain) has NOT been able to convince the Canadians to stop with the price controls.

What has John McCain done to fix this problem? Does he talk about Canadian price controls? No, he bashes Big Pharma.

How is this different than the NYT? or Howard Dean?

You really aren't getting the big picture here. Big Pharma doesn't have to sell in Canada or any other country if it isn't worth it or if it will undermine their market. They could lobby to have the law changed, just like they do here. We remove the incentives to do this by protectionism, so they make a little money in Canada, and stick American consumers with the bill. You just WATCH how fast Canada would change its laws if suddenly they refuse to sell drugs to them. It would take about ten seconds.

In other words, it's just like usual protectionism, it keeps the free market from doing it's job and functions to enrich a few at the expense of the many.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

Impugning those who oppose amnesty---not for bad judgment, but implying racism. How does this move the ball forward?

You're talking to a brick wall bringing up this point against "Random Guy". He's using the exact same "you're a racist!" argument up thread here that McCain used against fellow Republicans, so don't expect that making this point will actually convince himself of anything except what he's already convinced of, namely that he's right.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Yes, I think that people who justify their stance on immigration based on the "fact" that "Hispanics are drunk drivers" are in fact racist.

Notice, I'm not saying your positions is wrong necessarily, I'm saying your reasoning is utter bull. And it is.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

country and why one might extrapolate that illegals are more than likely Mexican or South American.....it's not because they are racist.

http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a2307.htm

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

I will grant that someone can have a conservative impact without having conservative intentions, but it is rare.

For example, Clinton cut capital gains tax primarily as a political compromise. There was no conservative intention, but he nonetheless inadvertantly moved policy in a conservative direction.

Of course, he was not a leader on the issue--he was a follower. Most of McCain's conservatism is as a follower. Its on the maverick issues that he shows leadership and enthusiasm.

No, you're missing the point. You ASSUME he doesn't have conservative intentions because you don't like him. You have little to no evidence that he doesn't have conservative intentions.

I'll grant you some of his statements on the Bush tax cuts. Other then that, you've got nothing.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

as being for the rich are not examples of conservative behavior.

McCain could try to explain how Canadian law is causing the Big Pharma problem? He either can't or won't. Either way, that is the conservative approach, push for free markets--defend capitalism.

Oh, instead he attacks a party that is NOT the source of the problem.

I like McCain as a person. His words are inconsistent with conservative motivations.

Who calls Republicans racist? the NYT and John McCain

Who dismisses tax cuts as being for the rich? Hillary Clinton and John McCain

Who impugnes Big Pharma? Obama and John McCain

Who wants to join with other countries to stop Global Warming? The DNC and John McCain.

You can disagree with me, but to say that my reasoning is simply because I don't like the man is insulting. There are plenty of data points out there. You can reach a different conclusion in good faith, but to repeat that I simply "don't like the man" is to ignore that the data points exist.

I don't like his being the nominee because I want to vote for a conservative. Someone with a record of saying conservative things, acting as a conservative, putting energy

He didn't call "Republicans" racist. That's just silliness. He didn't call himself racist. He called SOME Republicans nativists. Big difference.

And Big Pharma is not "evil" per-se, they are just rent seekers in the classic Adam Smith sense. They are protecting their sweetheart deal by exerting their political power. Calling them on that is hardly anti-capitalism.

I'm trying to have a productive conversation here, you aren't really helping. You just keep making my point over and over again. You assume bad motives of McCain in virtually every circumstance even when there are perfectly plausible alternatives.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

I simply conclude that many of his public statements and a none to small number of legislative positions are inconsistent with conservatism.

It is not conservative to say that people in favor of legal immigration are nativists (which in our society is going to cast a shodow of "racism") when they oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants

It is not conservative to bash Big Pharma or Big Oil when the problem is government (Canadian price controls in the case of Big Pharma and the U.S. government in the case of Big Oil)

It is not conservative to oppose tax cuts saying they are for the rich.

It has nothing to do with dislike. I am a huge fan of the military. Most people in immigrant families are. American GI's should be given the nobel peace price each and every year. I would love to be a big supporter of McCain's. As it is, I am a tepid supporter.

Having his supporters tell me that my objections are all "personal" is really annoying.

I hardly know where to start. I disagree profoundly on both means and ends, ALONG WITH MCCAIN'S ATTITUDE. I have cited numerous cases of specific issues, policies, votes, and statements.

I don't know what to say to you. You grossly mischaracterize conservatism. You have summed me up with a bunch of stuff I did not say, and which I cannot be logically construed to have meant.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

I think my post history will show I began by saying conservative, but not A conservative, in my very first McCain postings. I didn't need wrasslin to get to that.

Adam isn't picking at scabs, though. There is certainly an element of sensitivity from a select group, a group of redstaters I very much like. You, jaded, jsobieski, mbecker et al. There is sensitivity is all I'm saying. You can't just lay it at Adam's feet as if he's thinking to himself how he can irritate you.

Now, I have a question for you.

The definition of "conservative" is not elastic enough to include John McCain. I will allow so much as to say that his sentiments (not to be confused with "heart", "philosophy", or "stands") are frequently (not to be confused with "usually" or "always") on track with conservatism. That's as far as I go. His heart and his instincts are decidedly NOT conservative.

What are his heart and instincts in your opinion? Are they liberal? Are you saying he's a liberal? Moderate? Martian?

I wish to know, so don't make me wrassle you for it. I'm tired and my feet hurt.

absentee
Also now available at Political Machine.

Marxist the Socialist or the Moderate....I say it because it's true.....It does not take away from Senator McCain to be moderate..it riles conservatives but they will also vote for a moderate over the other two choices because it is closest to their beliefs...but to consistantly put down conservatives who "tangled" with Senator McCain in the past is silly...they had every right to say what they did in a primary...just as the two dopes in the Democrat party are literally tearing each other to shreds.

I have spoken for Senator McCain on here and I am happy to give him my full support but I don't appreciate arguing conservative against moderate this late in the game and Adam has an unusual habit of baiting people who do not agree with his moderate positions.....it really is unsettling to say the least considering his man won the primary....the fight is over and we have for the most part had a come to McCain moment...so let it go.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Because moderate isn't a philosophy. Moderate is by definition "in the middle." And if conservatives ever want to make big change in the country, they need conservative ideas to be "moderate."

For example, McCain is one of very few media ordained moderates who is pro-life. That's a breakthrough for pro-lifers. You can now be "moderate" and a pro-life Republican.

Hopefully supporting a flat tax can be a moderate position. And supporting school choice. And personal retirement accounts. And supporting our troops in Iraq.

In the long run, conservatives should hope that all of their positions are moderate.

If there is one thing that conservatives most have to gain from a McCain administration, it is that some of their ideas will be supported by a "moderate" who can reach out to voters that tune out Rush/Hannity/Coulter.

If Oprah is spreading Obama liberalism. McCain can spread parts of the conservative doctrine.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Let's all just stand for nothing then.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Since I am found actually at my desk so rarely, he thinks I'm a figment of his imagination....

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

some more of that "great minds think alike".

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

That seems odd to me. I thought the whole purpose of conservatism would be to get the country to agree. Look at guns. What used to be just "conservative" is now moderate. Moderate Ds (and Rs) are pro-gun rights.

Moderate isn't a philosophy or a way of discerning issue positions. Moderate just means in the middle. Wouldn't it be good for conservatives to be "in the middle?"

Or is conservatism defined as being out of the mainstream? Being "to the right" of what is in the middle?

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

out of the mainstream....otherwise we would just be moderates or as some call them Indpendents.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Only if you believe in some leftist notion of perpetual revolution.

If conservative means right of center regardless of where the center is, few people are conservatives.

But that's not what it means. It stands for certain principles and values. If those values become the middle of the political spectrum, I'll happily be a moderate.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

period and will not be moved so that you can feel comfortable in the middle and still call yourself conservative.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

: trying desperately to be charitable :

You simply are not paying attention to what I'm saying, or really, really don't understand politics.

I'm not asking conservatism to move, I'm hoping the CENTER moves.

If it becomes the "center" to favor school choice, be for much lower, fairer taxes, to have a robust foreign policy that is reluctant to use force but ready to do so when necessary, etc. then I would be a moderate because I favor those things.

50 years ago, if you told someone that it would be a right-wing position to oppose abortion-on-demand, they would think you are crazy.

The center moves. If the center moves to agree with what I agree with, then I would be a "moderate" in terms of the political spectrum.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

with your take on conservatism and or politics than obviously I am not paying attention and I do not know politics....wrong on both counts and I am not being charitable.....the center will move right if it moves at all it will not be moving left no matter what the MSM tells you.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

So, if tomorrow, for some unknown reason, the middle 50% of the country agrees with Bobby Jindal, John Bolton, Tom Coburn, etc. then you would have to change your position to move out of the political center as to avoid becoming a "moderate"?

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

He's got 70% approval in LA. It's now left-win to oppose him :)

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Well, yes, but as much as I love Jindal, that's temporary and doesn't mean the center agrees with every opinion of his.

That said, he has succeeded in moving the center well to the right, and I think he will continue to do so.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

those fine gentlemen and they are in my sphere to the right of moderate ie: conservative.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

: sigh :

Are you really this dense?

If the middle 50% of this country agreed with them, and 25% were to the right of them and 25% to the left of them, they would be moderate by definition.

Strangely, history does not stand still so you can put nice little labels on things that always stick.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

dense...ever...I imagine your ego will feed your desire to consistantly be correct and that's fine but do not make the mistake of belittling my take on any issue.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Second, I'm not belittling your position...I don't think. You cannot seriously believe what you seem to be saying, you seem to be missing the point entirely, over and over and over again.

Let's try this another way: Imagine politics is a football field. On one end, you have totalitarianism. On the other end, you have anarchy. I vote, and I think most other conservatives would vote for being on the 50 yard line. That was the whole idea of checks and balances, we want government, but we don't want totalitarianism. We want freedom, but we don't want anarchy.

However, right now we are on the 30 yard line toward the totalitarian side. The "moderate" position right now is where the chains are now is halfway between the chains on the 25. I'd like to move the chains away from the 25 yard line back down field toward the 50 yard line.

If we reached a situation when the middle of the chains was on the 50 yard line, I would no longer be trying to move the chains anywhere. I'd be a "moderate" in that I would be trying to keep the ball on the 50 yard line.

Conservatism IS the 50 yard line. That's the whole point. It is the balance between too much Government and not enough. It's freedom within the rule of law, peace through power, all that stuff. If suddenly we got to the 50 yard line, and we were not too far toward either totalitarianism or anarchy, I'd be a moderate because I wouldn't want us to move toward either totalitarianism nor anarchy.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

I will ignore your insipid responses and pretend that you are not here and my day will go much better in the future...you are not as bright as you think you are and to insult someone with "grow a pair" shows the depths of your intelligence....I would rather bide my time on Redstate with a "higher" class of commenter and that is saying something because I actually love lowbrow humor and give and take and you have exceeded the depths of lowbrow to the gutter....take that how you want.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Oh good grief.

All I have EVER tried to get you to do is actually RESPOND TO A SIMPLE POINT. If you disagree, fine, but disagree with what I am ACTUALLY SAYING, not to what you want to pretend I am saying.

Every time I make my point, you insist that I'm trying to make conservatism unprincipled. Which is the exact opposite of what I'm arguing, and if you actually read my posts and even attempted to contemplate what I'm saying, you'd realize that.

Anyhow, if you're really this thin-skinned, irrational, and unable to respond to simple, straightforward logic in a reasonable manor, I don't think I'll mind you leaving me alone.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

and on that note, its time to enjoy this fine midwestern weather

"Electability"

If traditional conservative points of view come to be seen as moderate that's a victory. It's a moving of the goalposts in our favor. How is that standing for nothing?

absentee
Also now available at Political Machine.

Well, it was the second read before I saw what Adam was trying to say. I'd say on today's thread with today's catfight over what and who is conservative, that was a dirty trick. ;o)

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

absentee
Also now available at Political Machine.

For example, McCain is one of very few media ordained moderates who is pro-life. That's a breakthrough for pro-lifers. You can now be "moderate" and a pro-life Republican.

"Hopefully supporting a flat tax can be a moderate position. And supporting school choice. And personal retirement accounts. And supporting our troops in Iraq."

Agreed, but this requires moving public opinion by articulating a conservative position. Many "moderate" positions on crime, welfare reform, and tax cuts were considered "far right" positions until people articulated them in the public square and convinced the mushy middle. Besides the war in Iraq, what has McCain done or said to convince the mushy middle? What is his track record in transforming a conservative position to a moderate position?

"In the long run, conservatives should hope that all of their positions are moderate."

WRONG. Conservatives need to WORK (not hope) at spreading the word and articulating support for conservative positions. Hope is not going to cut it. Triangulation will hurt it.

"If there is one thing that conservatives most have to gain from a McCain administration, it is that some of their ideas will be supported by a "moderate" who can reach out to voters that tune out Rush/Hannity/Coulter."

True, if those persons retain a conservative perspective. Anyone who is not dedicatd to being a conservative will over time backslide while in power.

"If Oprah is spreading Obama liberalism. McCain can spread parts of the conservative doctrine."

Only if he articulates why conservative doctrine makes sense. Not something he has done a lot of in the last 7 years.

There is purposeful being a moderate (i.e. triangulation between whatever the two other positions are) and holding views that just so happen to be in between two others on a continuoum.

Purposeful moderation (i.e. triangulation) is great in a marriage, but it is not a principled way to lead the country.

Take slavery for example.

Anti-slavery "radicals"
Pro-slavery entrenched interests

How about we count slaves as 3/5 a person--moderate position
How about we admit one slave state for each non-slave state-- moderate position
How about we pass a constitutional amendment outlawing slavery but tolerate Jim Crow laws --moderate position

Purposeful moderation never accomplishes anything. Anti-slavery used to be radical position, now it is mainstream and enjoys unanimous public support in this country.

What happens to the VRWC....I mean I just got my decoder ring?

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

as Adam is in hearing criticism. Guilty as charged. I will be a McCain voter but I am not happy about it.

McCain's instincts are to conduct himself in an honorable way. The personal attribute of honor, duty, and character override his political philosophy.

In many ways, McCain is a throwback to the pre-Reagan era, when there was more isle crossing (on both sides, not just Republicans) and the Congress was less ideological (the choices were Democrat or Democrat-lite).

McCain is neither liberal nor conservative. He is traditional in many respects, and views the world through a framework that is marketedly different from political philosophy.

I am not looking for these dispuates. Sometimes I feel like we are being tweaked on purpose. The Santorum comments were overly negative in my view. Santorum went down in defeat talking more about Jihad (not just Iraq) than anyone else who lost their Senate seat. His defeat is a sad thing, not a reason for gloating.

if McCain wins, I will be relieved. If he loses, I will NOT gloat.

My main interest is in strategy. Whatever strategy Santorum followed, it didn't work. We need to try something different in PA. So we now get to consider that. I think having someone who is pro-life and has done well with Catholics elsewhere but who is not primarily defined by social issues, might be the combination that can win Eastern PA without scaring off Philly suburb voters.

Maybe that's wrong and he'll lose both groups. But we can't just replay the Santorum strategy and hope for a different outcome in PA. We need candidates who fit their state.

Also I'd like to note that I'm not sensitive about the areas where people disagree with McCain. I'm bugged by the fact that people use one fact and ignore the whole record in a lot of areas. Judges and taxes are the two big ones. His record is rather solid on both but he had one deviation on taxes (and really none on judges) and that is all anyone talks about.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

on the same team. You can criticize Santorum for losing, but being a social conservative is not a "strategy" it is about deeply held convictions. Convictions that are more popular than free market economics.

Realize that many of us are big fans of Santorum and only marginal supporters of McCain. Don't make it harder for us to support McCain but throwing stones at Santorum, or by trying to make it look like Reagan would be rejected as a moderate by Santorum supporters.

I think we will all be better off is the words Reagan and McCain are not included in the same comment or post.

being a social conservative is not a "strategy" it is about deeply held convictions.

Right...but presumably that means actually doing something, not just making yourself feel good.

It's not about Santorum's beliefs, it's the fact that he couldn't seem to present them in a way that didn't do damage to himself and in some ways his cause. He felt it necessary to apply a sledge hammer regardless of the situation.

I'm not a huge fan of his, but I don't dislike him at all. I just think you have to recognize his limitations.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

people in PA wanted to go back to pre 9-11 and pretend it never happened....if we just don't acknowledge it there will be no enemies it will have just been a moment in time..that is why he lost because he called the enemy by name and scared the people of PA.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

But Santorum's loss had NOTHING to do with his stances on the WOT, at least beyond the general effect of Iraq on all Republicans.

Nothing. Nada. Zip.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

I simply said that he had the more wholistic view on the War on Terror than anyone else in the US Senate.

Point out where I said he lost BECAUSE of the anti-jihad position, and I will give you a cookie.

My point is that the loss of a Santorum is nothing to feel glib about.

of the anti-jihad position

points:

people in PA wanted to go back to pre 9-11

That's about as clear as you can say it without saying it outright.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

someone else did.

I do think the country is tired of the 9/11 mindset, but I think Rick would have lost anyway.

My point is that he didn't try to save himself by becoming a liberal on any issue, and actually intensified his message on jihad.

Who else in Congress is even brave enough to use the word "Jihad"?

money I gave to him for his request based on the GWOT I would say I remember it quite differently....but hey you are entitled to your opinion and I mine.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

But what evidence do you have?

There was a lot of evidence that his style and outspokenness on several issues hurt him. If it had something to do with the WOT, I'd like to see evidence of it.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

"being a social conservative is not a "strategy" it is about deeply held convictions. Convictions that are more popular than free market economics."

First, as I said below this isn't a social vs. fiscal conservatism issue. The point is whatever strategy Santorum used failed miserably in winning over PA voters. So what changes should be made. Do we not nominate social conservatives? Do we nominate social conservatives who are also pro-union?

To figure that out, it's important to recognize that Santorum wasn't just a social conservative vote on issues. He defined himself (politically) that way. I've long been a fan of Brownback being a major voice for the religious right. He does it in a less divisive way than Santorum. Santorum lost moderates because of that. Rs need to think about how to win moderates back.

Second, McCain was proud to serve with Reagan and be part of the movement then. I don't see any reason why we should not talk about Reagan asking Capt. McCain to join him at CPAC or about the goals and successes of the 1980s Republicans including Reagan and McCain. As long as haters are going to try to define McCain as some Rockfeller R, it is important to point out that when there really was a fight between Rockfeller and Reagan Rs, McCain was on the Reagan side of the aisle.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

between McCain and Reagan--something McCain would never do.

Comparing McCain and Reagan on the scale of conservatism is a big mistake, because it provokes people like me who are otherwise content to read and not write to get all fired up in a way that is not conducive to unity.

The goal has to be to move the electorate. One thing we both agree on is that people are assuming the 2004 red/blue state designations are somehow written in stone. To the contrary, they are NOT. We both agree on that point.

I want politicians who will try to move the electorate in a conservative direction. This requires both (1) the desire to do so; and (2) the communication chops to do so.

Except with respect to national security matters, I don't think McCain is particularly strong with respect to either (1) or (2).

McCain has no history of explaining why tax cuts are good for the economy because McCain does not buy into supply side economics.

McCain has a history of bad mouthing free enterprise at times because he doesn't really see how free markets and being free are linked. His lack of business experience blinds him to this. If he had run a small business for two years, he might have ended up being much more conservative, and a better sales person for capitalism. Heck, McGovern has done a better job criticizing Obama's economic policies than McCain has because McGovern has private sector experience.

I am not a McCain hater. I will vote for him. I am just not going to sit here and be silent when people say
1. Reagan has flaws
2. McCain is better than you think
3. McCain is as conservative as Reagan

[or some other path of "logic" that undoes the Reagan legacy]

and on that basis we can have a common strategy.

Judges--he voted like 99% of Republicans did. I don't remember McCain going on MSNBC to defend judicial nominees in the heat of battle. Maybe he did. McCain voted the right way, but I don't remember him DOING anything (e.g. exerting leadership) to make it happen. I.e. things he did for CFR, immigration reform, etc.

Taxes---in the past 7 years he hasn't don't much. He has attacked the Bush tax cuts as being "for the rich." I don't think this done to move the electorate in a rightward direction.

About 45 Senators have voting records on judges equivalent to McCain. In the least 7 years, about 45 Senators have BETTER voting records than McCain on taxes.

So McCain as the nominee will be effective in moving the electorate to the right?

I won't hold my breath.

First, he has been active on judges. His leadership on The Deal gave the White House a 2 year period where no effective filibusters could happen. If you look at the original diary here, you'll note that the major point of it was the fact that Republicans didn't have the votes for the Nuclear Option. Thus, if it had come to a vote, we very well would have let Ds continue filibustering Judge Rogers Brown and others.

Furthermore, the lack of a filibuster and the rare 55R Senate happened at the fortuitous time when two Court vacancies occurred. I think it is very unlikely Alito would have been nominated if the filibuster had still been viable.

I would recommend a read about McCain's record on judges, recalling that he is not a lawyer nor on the Judiciary Committee.

Second, I think what McCain brings that the other Rs did not have is credibility with moderates and independents. When McCain argues we need to stay in Iraq some people listen who don't listen to Bush anymore and never listened to conservative media.

The ideal person in this mold is a righty Obama who is a die hard conservative but somehow appeals to the middle as "new" and "hopeful." But since Rs have been in power for a while, it's hard to get that kind of outsider credibility. McCain is the closest thing Rs have to that.

Finally, if McCain can win over more of the middle to his positions on 1) school choice, 2) social security reform including personal accounts, 3) the need to confront a global terrorist threat, 4) what a good judge is, 5) the need for a simple, flat tax, 6) a moratorium on all spending while we find the excesses of the Era of Pork, and/or 7) pro-life principles... I think that would be good for conservatives.

I'm not promising it will happen. But that credibility is what he brings to the table that other Rs didn't have. And he got it by doing things that upset some conservatives, for better or for worse.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Just a typical, small town, white girl...

Hadn't seen you post much lately. Well, I know what you mean. For me, it's a fairly minor case of planar fascitis in my left foot, but I understand why yours is a bit more serious.

Well, for the record I don't think Adam is deliberately trying to cheese off the inveterate Fredheads. But what he is doing is harping continually on what he perceives to be McCain's conservative bona fides, and thereby (and in so many words) placing the mantle of "conservative candidate" on McCain.

I believe he does it with the best of intentions - persuading the very skittish conservative wing that McCain is not as bad as we fear - but IMHO it's grossly overselling and offensive to go as far as he does. Conservatism is deeply important to me, and the core principles describe, as far as I am concerned, the best guidelines, by far, for governance. A North Star. And I do not like the term being trifled with. And yes, I freely admit I'm sore as hell that this guy got the nomination and not Fred Thompson.

Now, as you you were writing this, I was writing above (search on "a thousand times NO"), things that include what you're asking about.

This is very unflattering, but I believe his instincts are arrogant and bullying, as indicated by some things I mentioned above. I know he loves America, and Americans, I sincerely believe he wants what is best for America. I have not a single doubt about his patriotism, and yes, these things are all important. But he does not come by it with any humility.

Here I cite Bob Hahn, in what some called the best comment ever at RedState: if boiled down to a single word, the most basic of conservative instincts is humility.

McCain is convinced that he's the smartest guy in the room. He said so. He "knows" that drug companies are evil, "knows" that AGW needs to be "fixed", and "knows" that his frankly STUPID BCRA scheme would "fix" campaign finance corruption. These things do not speak to humility, or in fact to much in the way of deep thinking. They do in fact speak to gullibility, in the same way anybody is gullible who does not operate from a steady compass that is embedded in his core.

I don't know exactly how to answer that question, as to whether his instincts are liberal, moderate, or Martian. I am certain his instincts are not conservative.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

I think it is certainly reasonable to say that conservative philosophy is philosophically humble, but I don't think it is at all true to suggest that only the humble are conservative.

People are flawed creatures, and pride is one of the most common there is. That doesn't mean excuse it, or it's ok. It just means that being prideful can't be exclusionary to being considered a conservative. Face it, there'd be no one left! We all suffer personal failings.

But see here, you discuss how his underpinnings are not conservative, and you remove his good characteristics as qualifying criteria, but then use his bad ones as exclusionary. That doesn't seem a just measure. If character is the determinant of conservative then let it be so, but if not then not.

I don't think humility is why you say Reagan is conservative. I wonder that lack thereof should kick you out of the club. There must be a better determinant of what exactly are McCain's underlying political premises.

absentee
Also now available at Political Machine.

Your argument is sensible, although as I always do I'll pick nits (we all have our talents).

There is more than one kind of arrogance. Obama's arrogance says "by all means, feel free to bask in my glory". Bill Clinton's says "my personal pleasure is pretty much what the world was created for". McCain's particular vice is the type of arrogance that says "I, and only I, know what is best for you". The problem here is that McCain's absolute certainty of his own rightness and wisdom has blinded him to things are revolting to a person whose heart is conservative.

Kirk's #2, #3, and #4 state, in short, that we do not lightly reject the wisdom or our predecessors (leading to strong feelings about the rule of law, primacy of the Constitution, sovereign borders, and not frivolously practicing social engineering). McCain, with BCRA, elevates his "get corruption out of the government" crusade above the political free speech clause of the First Amendment. Philosophical humility would have led a person to REJECT the 30-day and 60-day violation of free speech, saying "the Founding Fathers, for better or for worse, forbid me from taking that right away in the name of my personal crusade".

Kirk's #5 #6, and #8, in short, say to let people live free and unhindered by government, where possible, and do not trade personal freedom for a perfect society. It is sheer arrogance to use the government bludgeon to "fix" various ills -- those "evil drug companies", AGW, and ClearChannel. Philosophical humility drives one to let the free market cure most ills. Not censorship, not fuel and air regulations, and some bizarrely complicated election codes.

Kirk's #9 tell us to put restraints on government power, to be extremely suspicious of any attempt for government to take more control than it already has. Yes, McCain is for smaller budgets, less pork, but his instincts are to take over and "fix" stuff. Exactly what Kirk's #9 says to "just say no" to.

So you are right when you say that personal humility is not part and parcel with conservatism. But I respond in saying that McCain's philosophical arrogance, his certainty that he and he alone knows what is best, lead him DIRECTLY to reject conservative principles in favor of whatever his crusade de jour is.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

If only we weren't starting from such vastly different assumptions. I can see personal arrogance. But the notion of only I know best as McCain's driving force I find to be no more than supposition. I don't honestly think that it's even that well supported. Certainly there is contrary evidence. He's changed his mind on topics after being so persuaded. He's made fast friends with those who don't agree with him. He has a history of favoring smaller government, less intrusion, less spending, all of which go directly against the idea of a dictator doling out control over your life due to some sense of absolute infallibility.

It's an assumption to be certain. None of us can know precisely the extent to which "he always thinks he's right." But consider this. As a conservative who debates liberals, you have definitely been slapped with the "you always think you're right" argument. I know I have. Something to consider.

Still though, great comment!

absentee
Also now available at Political Machine.

and several other states.

Santorum lost to an economic liberal who was socially conservative. Social conservatism brings more voters than economic conservatism does. Huckabee got a lot more votes in 2008 than Forbes did in 1996 and 2000.

Social conservatives/economic liberals have a better a chance to win states like Michigan Pennsylvania, Ohio than the reverse.

In Michigan a proposition against affirmative action ran 10 points higher than a pro-business economically conservative Republican who kept social issues out of the campaign.

Conventionnal wisdom on social conservatism is wrong everywhere except on the coasts.

PA has been changing. The last 15-20 years have seen major growth in the Philly suburbs (socially liberal area, more Northeastern) and stagnation in the East and small town areas (more midwestern).

I think overall a social conservative record is probably net helpful in PA. But I think a person who is running on abortion and gay marriage is not going to do well, especially in the Philly suburbs. That is also the region that has seen several R congressmen lose in recent years.

Part of this may have to do with emphasis more than record. McCain is pro-life and opposes gay marriage. But those aren't the first things people think of when they think of McCain. That wasn't true for Santorum. So he had trouble winning moderates and independents.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

but I do know this. In Michigan, Rick Santorum without the socially conservative positions would do a lot worse than Rick Santorum with socially conservative positions.

My fear is that nobody is really making the case for free market capitalism out there, and that we are about to take severe steps in a backwards direction on taxes and trade.

I don't think running on the flat tax is the solution. But I think running mainly on social issues can come off as mean-spirited especially in big city suburbs. Right now the war and the economy are sucking up most of the political attention anyway.

But candidates who are defined mainly based on being anti-gay and pro-life are easy to tag as people who care more about imposing their values than running the country, especially in lean D states.

It would be a good medium-term project to think about how to win over big city suburbanites. They were solid R territory in the late 80s through the 90s. But they have slowly trended left to the point where many are solid D territory now (outside NYC, Chicago, Philly, DC, etc).

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

It wasn't his positions, it was how he presented his positions.

Sam Brownback is no less socially conservative then Santorum. But he wasn't nearly as scary to independents.

Anyhow, Santorum was always walking on a tightrope. He won in 1994 by a whisker due to the Republican landslide. He won in 2000 by another small margin because he had a lousy opponent, and the D's didn't put all that much effort into defeating him because they had so many other targets (i.e. Abraham, Ashcroft, Open Florida seat, etc).

Historically, Pennsylvania has elected people that are either socially conservative or fiscally conservative but not both. Santorum was both, and wasn't ever going to survive forever. He was an anomaly.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

It had nothing to do with conservatives sitting on their hands due to his suicidal Specter endorsement.

It did, in fact, have nothing to do with this. That is absolutely right.

The Republican turnout was on par for an off-year election, and he got the same percentage of their votes.

He lost independents.

You anti-Specterites really, really, really need to put some ice on it and GET OVER IT.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

I'm just ignoring you. You are relentlessly rude, and in some of your finest form today on this diary.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

"Relentlessly rude?"

Oh no, anything but that!

Good grief, grow a pair.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

Your discourse consists entirely of personal insults, misrepresentations, straw men, and about a .333 accuracy on facts. It's my choice to associate with whom I please, and I choose not to associate with you.

And you wanna talk about 'growing a pair', because I find you an offensive cretin, and tell you so? Smart guy, you can talk about having a pair when I see you treat the RedState editors the same way you treat the rest of us.

From now to eternity, I am dead to you.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

If my facts are inaccurate, tell me how.

And yes, if you are so offended by someone telling you to "get over it," you seriously need to take a good, hard look in the mirror and ask yourself why you are so fragile.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

before long he'll be like the little boy in "Sixth Sense" All he'll see is dead people.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

I suppose if it's 1999.

And you're 12.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

.

our articles of inclusion will require

1. You must be dense
2. You MUST be a nativist - which being American Indian is pretty much on the mark for me...
2. You must have been taken to task by RG's intelligence....I suspect we will have quite a large group.

I like being 12 again ;-)

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

our first meeting--tacos and sangria, of course. Jaded, you can bring a mock-up of a football field with some chains and EPU can bring the pelt of some random animal. This is going to be fun!

We'd better book a pretty good-sized venue.

...I have stayed out of this squabble -- too dense to figure it all out == but for Sangria I'm IN!

secret handshake. Otherwise, no orange slices in your sangria.

we will provide monitors for the overflow crowd :-)

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Good job attacking the messenger.

Any interest in actually answering any of my arguments? You still haven't even attempted it.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

longer than me to stop wasting keystrokes on RandomBoy.

In Vino Veritas

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Ohhh, is it Don Young's sidekick? Now he's on the hate me bandwagon?

I heard your boss earmarked a bunch of money for his buddies in Florida. With the money they paid him, he should be able to buy you some earmuffs if you get all upset again.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

The Texas translation of your tag line:

In Amber Bock there is truth

that RandomBoy hurled at me? The great advantage of the Internet for people like RandomBoy is that their betters can't just kick the s**t out of them and shut their mouths.

I have nothing against beer, drink it sometimes, just like wine better. My first choice of drug is single-malt Scotch, but bad things happen in my life when I start drinking much of that stuff.

In Vino Veritas

Consists solely of those of us who have now considered more dense than a black hole. Refreshments and everything! And that includes wine, too. You can be in charge of entertainment--what you mentioned above sounds pretty good for the inaugural meeting.

As for my part, and I've contributed generously to today's catfight, my personal beef is not with McCain per se, but with people assigning to him labels that I don't think are appropriate.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Nah, it's juvenile, no doubt, but just a few people making some fun out of a sad situation. This ain't about people being thin-skinned, about getting called a couple of names a couple of times. This is about being TIRED TO DEATH of one guy who makes a non-stop living out of insulting and muck-raking. RedState is a political diary, not a pie-in-the-face store. Discourse gets tacky and crude from time to time, but when one's chief offering, day after day, week after week, is personal insults, you know, there comes a time when I'm done with that guy. That time is today.

I don't come to RedState for that low-class crap. Call me spineless, whiny, and whatever if you want to. But I come for the discourse, for intelligent and useful analysis and news of the day, and of course for a fair amount of good-natured bantering, the occasional gratuitous shots at Hilbama and the lefty gang.

I can dish it out, and take it. See my history. But I don't feel like it when there are important issues to discuss.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

And maybe he's like that alot. Personally I'm for civil discourse, and if you know my history my above comment probably about as nasty as I've gotten. I'm just frustrated that it seems as though if you have certain view you can get called a raving lunatic, idiot, told to reading comprehension classes... But if you're in the "in" group than that's just not tolerated. When I argued for liberalization of the immigration laws, I was called a raving lunatic, and told I was very confused, but nobody jumped in to complain about those commenators having a lack of civility, and I didn't whine about it- I just moved on even retained friendly terms with at least one of the people. Oh, well guess its human nature.

Well, let me say for starters that he is pretty much always like that. But I know what you mean about there being some multiple standards about who can say what, and I'll agree that certain people routinely get away with some pretty personal name-calling, when their opponents do not get away with the same behavior. The "in crowd", you might say.

If you wrote something arguing for the liberalization of immigration laws [oh my, did you really?],well, that took guts, my friend. You do realize that is an extra-hot-button issue on the right, but I guess that plays into the "populist" portion of your name. Sadly, even if you present a good, cogent argument, there will be some flaming. I am not guiltless here, but in the future I'll make a point of moderating my own speech - but all bets are off regarding trolls and mobeys.

And yeah, I can vouch, you don't have a history like that, and I was a bit surprised by your first comment - the behavior you addressed - the "we've been called idiots by RG club" yeah I was not really into that, although that crowd consists of some of my best friends. But please understand, that did not happen in a vacuum. That guy has been due for a backlash.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

.