It's either McCain or the Democrats: Choose wisely.
By mschuyler Posted in Archived — Comments (71) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I think it's time for a little Real Politik here. A dyed-in-the-wool, completely 100% red conservative is not going to get into the White House any time soon. And no, Ronald Reagan was not one. The reason is that dyed-in-the-wool, completely 100% red conservatives are a minority. And, frankly, they don't have the best rep in town mostly because they fail to play well with others. Like many extremist groups, many places they are shunned.
Now, let's just pretend for a moment that the Republican Party nominates the most conservative person possible, one who will instantly deport 12 million people, for example. What chance do you think that person has to be elected to the White House. C'mon; get real. I mean REALLY get elected? Stop the posturing, get your head out of the sand, look around. I know you don't like it, but the fact is there are plenty of (shudder) 'liberals' in this country, plenty of Independents, and plenty of moderate Republicans. You don't think so? Visit Seattle, for example.
Now: Here's the deal, pure and simple. A moderate Republican conservative who can appeal to Independents and conservative Democrats can win--just like Reagan. NO ONE, and I really mean no one, else has a snowball's chance in hell to do it. If you don't think so, I think you aren't living on this planet and paying attention to political reality.
So you have a choice to make. You can either nominate a staunch dyed-in-the-wool, completely 100% red conservative and lose the election, or you can nominate McCain, who is right-on in conservative principles on so many issues (abortion, pork, schooling, etc.) (Plus: Who do you want as Commander in Chief?) and be assured of NOT electing Barak Hussein Obama President, or Hillary Rodham Clinton President of the United States of America.
It's your choice, of course. Which do you choose?
I'd rather go down fighting than surrender. A well fought conservative loss leaves us able to fight another day! And there is nothing saying we won't win...unless we don't try!!!
HAHA. HAHAHA. HAHAHAHAHAHA! Not today. Not tomorrow. As the immortal samcoastie said, "I'd rather go down fighting than surrender".
Scotch.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
I didn't get past the assertion that there is a candidate that wants to deport 12 million illegals tomorrow, so in fairness, I haven't read the entirety of this moronic post.
Who exactly is proposing that we deport 12 million people? Tancredo isn't around anymore and I'm not sure that even he would have proposed this.
I do know there is one politican whose first instinct was to co-sponsor a bill, along with the esteemed senior senator from Massachusetts, that would have given legal status to 12 million ++++ people who are living in this country illegally. He would have done this without any real prospect of having sescured our borders. He (and President Bush) rightfully got pummelled for it. So what does he say about it now? He now realizes the people want to secure the border first. Well, I'm willing to bet a large sum that his definition of a secure border and mine are not the same.
I much prefer what I consider to be a sensible approach - secure the border as much as is plausible (it will never be 100% secure) and start enforcing laws that say employers cannot hire illegals. That's it. If you're here illegally, we've enjoyed having you here--hope you find your way home OK.
As far as electibility is concerned, a Republican is not going to get elected, unless Republicans are enthusiastic about their candidate.
Please mschuyler, won't you tell us which serious Republican candidate's position is to "instantly deport 12 million people"?
If you can't name one who holds the position you attribute to them, you should apologize for polluting the debate with this canard. But I doubt you'll apologize, because McCain is all about self-righteousness being immune from reality.
So basically you're admitting McCain's shortcomings as a Republican, manufacturing his media-fostered electability, caving on issues, and foisting him on us as the only option we have besides a Democrat in the White House in 2008?
That's absolutely ludicrous and silly. Do you think Republicans won't remember the times he has stabbed us in the back?
Just remember, an elephant never forgets....
Good points GOP84.
McCain works year after year with the biggest amnesty supporter in the U.S. Senate, Ted Kennedy, to find away go reward millions of illegal alien lawbreakers with legal status and a path to citizenship that they can obtain without ever having to leave the leave the country they illegally entered.
But I guess that wasn't quite 25 words, eh?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
rather than get faced with a choice of Dem-lite vs. Dem.
Republicans are big time losers when they try being Dem-lites.
McCain will be very unpleasantly surprised in SC. As will Mike Huckabee.
"If this ain't a mess, it'll do until one shows up." -Sheriff Bell, No Country For Old Men
Isn't this the same thing we heard about Guiliani? It is interesting to look at the poll numbers but they mean little at this time. It is like trying to predict the weather one month from now. Huge numbers of people don't make up their minds until sometime the week before an election. Campaign ads do make a difference. There is the whole process of coalescing around the primary winner. Event happen that you just cannot predict.
Gee. I don't know, it's a tough choice.
Are you sure these are our only options?
Because H-ll will freeze over before this household casts a ballot for McCain.
is so popular, why didn't bill pass even with GWB's support? Oh, that's right, they didn't build the GD fence for us bigots first. Still want us to vote for him after he spoke to his "fellow Americans" that way? Exactly how do you think he will act after he gets the power of the Presidency? He didn't care WHAT you thought before and he will not care after he is elected - he will just bypass us if is policy doesn't go where he wants.
--roxer
What else did McCrazy call us? I quit listening after "bigots."
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
not like he's some liberal. Pro-life, pro-defense, pro-making Bush tax cuts permanent, pro-spending restraint.
Sorry, but read the tea leaves - Mitt is not getting elected. Life is about compromises - it's more important to keep Hillary out than to fight a losing battle for Romney.
McCain's 2006 ACU rating was 65, 9th worst among the 2006 Republican Senators.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
maybe we should all get behind Obama! I don't like his policies, but there's a snowballs chance he would listen if the whole country screamed "BUILD THE FENCE...NO AMNESTY".
Let’s assume for a moment that I’m a “Independent” or “moderate” voter and I like the various offerings of government programs that will absolve me of being responsible for my own well being. I’m given a choice, the stingy Democrat-lite Republican with the almost cradle to grave solutions or the full on cradle to grave Democrat. I’m guessing that I’ll choose the full on Democrat.
The choice of mostly liberal or very liberal will not excite or motivate the base (quite the opposite) nor will it gain any liberal (aka Independent/Moderate) votes in the general.
Lastly, what the (that place with all the flames and wailing) are we accomplishing if we elect someone who will advance the Democrat causes at a slightly lower level and reflexively reach across the aisle to get Ted Kennedy’s advice and blessing on policy in the name of “comity”.
Real Politik, because principals don’t matter, conservative goals secondary, winning yet inexplicably advancing the other side’s agenda, CRITICAL!
I'm not sure I agree with this, and this is from a liberal perspective.
I'm a hardcore screaming San Francisco liberal on social issues. I want to see gay marriage, legal abortion, an effective safety net, and dramatic changes to healthcare system (if not necessarily HillaryCare). That said, I'm moderately hawkish (if in disagreement with most Republicans on Iraq), certainly want to see a strong military. I'm also fiscally moderate to conservative.
(I am not a Ronulan! Loonys!)
I don't think that that is a terribly uncommon perspective in America, particularly on the coasts and in the cities. And a real moderate Republican, possibly even a Rudy, could appeal to us more than a classical big government Dem like Edwards or even Mrs. Clinton.
And maybe a bit surprising given the list of your priorities that you would consider a Republican. Most of the things that are listed would seem to me by definition require classical big government “solutions”.
I guess my best answer would be if a Republican moderated to that degree that would make the Republican no longer a Republican but in fact a moderate Democrat. So maybe the question is how much of the base are we willing to lose in order to pick up a few liberal votes.
Maybe a more comprehensive strategy for healthcare and a safety net don't require ridiculous amounts of government spending and higher taxes. Yes I'm a moderate Dem, who doesnt like Hillary much, though I'd vote for her over almost all of the Republican field.
I'm a hardcore screaming San Francisco liberal on social issues. I want to see gay marriage, legal abortion, an effective safety net, and dramatic changes to healthcare system (if not necessarily HillaryCare). That said, I'm moderately hawkish (if in disagreement with most Republicans on Iraq), certainly want to see a strong military. I'm also fiscally moderate to conservative.
These two things are in conflict.
For that matter, I'm not even sure what fiscally moderate means.
Does it mean you trust in the free market... except when it comes to certain things?
Does it mean you think the government is the solution to social and economic problems only some of the time?
You only want a largish government, but not a truly large government, and that line is kinda hazy to draw....
Fiscal conservatism is not loony-toons libertarianism -- it isn't anarchism. It is the recognition that government is a necessary evil, and as such, needs to be minimized as much as possible. Government is like a cancer drug -- most of which are extraordinarily poisonous: you may need to use it, but you certainly don't want to use more than is minimally necessary to fix the problem. There is no such thing as a "moderate" dose of chemotherapy -- it's always the "minimum required" dose. Same with government.
The minute you support an overhaul of the healthcare system by the government, you cease being any sort of a fiscal conservative.
That is in a way why the OP's rant about "realpolitik" doesn't make much sense. If we go with a so-called moderate, aka, washed-out pastel conservatives, then the country continues to lurch leftward. If McCain is held up as the conservative nominee -- maybe not to some folks here, but to the nation as a whole -- then we'll surely see the emergence of a "moderate" alternative to McCain who doesn't subscribe to McCain's "right-wing" views on the military.
We have to stop the ratchet.
-TS
"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt
" a real moderate Republican, possibly even a Rudy, could appeal to us more than a classical big government Dem like Edwards or even Mrs. Clinton."
Whom do you think you're kidding?
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
but I think that Thompson, Romney, or Guiliani would have just as good a shot as McCain againt the Dems.
Just to give some perspective, a lot of democrats think McCain is more likely than Hillary to stamp out torture, put us back in line with the Geneva conventions and restore our honor in the international community. Honor is a foreign concept to the Clintons.
In the event of a McCain vs Hillary matchup, I could well go with him, particularly if he gives some indication that he's not interested in putting government in the bedroom.
in this party too. I'm actually not one of them. I consider myself a conservative. But its not just that. Let's look at the people who have a legitimate shot of getting the nomination, assuming Romney wins Michigan.: Romney and McCain. Huckabee, Giuliani and Thompson still have chances, but I think that they are much less.
Say what you want about polls a year from the election being bunk, but from March of last year until now they have consistently shown Romney getting thrashed by Hillary/Obama in key swing states. People just don't trust him. It's not something that can be overcome by campaigning. You can't change someone's gut by campaigning.
and let the chips fall where they may? Anything else requires making an assessment about what other people think, which makes you chase down drive-by spin and other unhelpful things.
Thank you. I now know there are at least two of us who think in that strange way.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
Say what you want about polls a year from the election being bunk, but from March of last year until...
last month they consistently showed Rudy Giuliani running away with the Republican nomination.
I seem to remember the MSM declaring Clinton all but dead after the bimbo eruptions during the 1992 primaries. We all know what happened, right?
I was going to just leave it at that, but this deserves an explanation.
Labels such as "fails to play with others" or "extremist" do not accurately describe my conservatism, sounds more like something you would see on DK or hear in the MSM where actually they mean "will not toe the liberal line".
I mean play well with others... as opposed to who on the
other side of the aisle that would play well with the values I hold dear are concerned? Do you expect Hillary or Obama to "play well"? Also I don't know when exactly low taxes, small government, and protected borders became extremist views?
The reason I really object to this sort of reasoning is not your choice of candidates, but out of concern for the future. If we decide on a strategy of electing milquetoast candidates that espouse moderation and bipartisanship, in what direction do you think the opposition’s positions will drift in order to distinguish themselves? More to the middle or more to the left?
I will not condone a strategy of appeasement.
________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
to surrender my values uncontested. Xerxes offered Leonidas the chance to rule as long as it was under the Persian bootheel...
_________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
Shucks. I've been misreading it all along. I thought it was the name of a Canadian beer.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
Right on, Kitty!
Well said, and it needs to be said more often. Why should we play nice with them? Let them play nice with us!
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
But, up to and until that time, I am simply not interested in the vote-for-my-candidate-he's-totally-more-electable-than-yours type of argument. Recent history seems to argue against electability as a primary concern, and in favor of principles and ideas.
Pass.
You've presumed what you want to prove.
But, on the positive side, at least you're not trying to convince us that John McCain is a solid conservative. That much at least we agree on.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
49 states anyone?
Poll driven populism is a scurge to this country. They change like the wind. If you look back to last March, who was the Republican frontrunner? It was Rudy. Who is it now? If you looked back to last March on the Dums, who was their Donkey of choice? It was Hillary. Who is it now? You put way to much faith in the polls. As of right now, we haven't yet had a truly conservative caucus or primary to give us an accurate guage of Republican preference. Iowa and New Hampshire, and today Michigan, are flawed guages to go by, Rush has said so much himself. If you're for McCain simply because you think he can win one for the R's, your root, root, root for said "R" will set this nation back probably as far as what would happen if a D won this time. Phewey! There's a little thing called the general election primary any of these lightweight D's that gets through has to face. Our guy (hopefully Fred) or Mitt, or Rudy, will eat them for lunch and that most feared liberal scurge, the soundbite or video bite of them sounding like the second coming of Lenin! If you want to see the polls change, wait till they have to face a principled conservative and it will be prima facie!!! Besides that, do you really put an ounce of CREDIBILITY in a CNN poll? Brother, you trust more than I do!
Tim Schieferecke
...principle. I'll see where it leads me.
Why don't we have a nomination contest with primaries and caucuses and arguments and ideas?
If Senator McCain wins, congratulations. But let's have the win before the kudos.
This is ridiculous. Giuliani is tied with Clinton in the polls. A liberal Democrat hasn't won an election since 1964! That's 44 years ago. I seem to recall Reagan being re-elected in a massive landslide, while Bush Sr. lost his re-election race. There is no evidence that moderates do better than conservatives.
If anything, the McCainiacs are among the more deplorable 'bots of the lot, and I include the !Paulans!. I would suspect Moby-bait but this is par the course, i.e., "if my man doesn't win I want to see the party implode:"
NO ONE, and I really mean no one, else has a snowball's chance in hell to do it.God end this primary ASAP.
Good post.
You did an adequate job of expressing what some of us have been thinking, but not saying.
"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."
-George W. Bush
conservative leader has gotten us, I choose the Democrats.
I would rather they take the blame for the failures of liberalism.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
A dyed-in-the-wool, completely 100% red conservative is not going to get into the White House any time soon.
Maybe not if you're defining Reagan as a moderate. But quite honestly, it all depends on someone's ability to communicate their ideas. The better communicator always wins--and yes, Bush was better at communicating with the common American than Gore was. Communication is not based solely on how articulate you are.
However, we do not have another Great Communicator. I was hoping that Fred could be that guy, but he is clearly not. Many people here want to believe he is because his ideas are so good, but I can't see it happening. Giuliani and Romney are better at rallying the troops, but I don't think they speak in a way that wins independents. Huckabee is a great talker, but I'm concerned the FairTax will kill him in the general because it's just too silly an idea (Apologies to the FairTax warriors).
McCain can win, and he WILL beat Clinton.
No one of good character leaves behind a wasted life - John McCain
What issues is she going to attack Rudy over, and how is that attack going to appeal to the political center?
Executive leadership -> + Giuliani
Taxes -> +Giuliani
Abortion -> how does HILLARY attack him on this issue?
Personal life -> Obama might get some traction on this, but Hillary???
GWOT -> at home = drivers licenses for illegal aliens: +Giuliani
GWOT/Iraq -> Petraeus/moveon +++Giuliani
GWOT/Iraq (2) -> How does Hillary get us out of Iraq? What's her plan? How does she appeal to center without enfuriating her base?
2nd Amendment -> How does Hillary beat Rudy on this issue?
I'd rather lose supporting something I believe in than win by supporting something I do not.
I put my faith in my God, my family, and myself. Not the Polls. Public opinion can change in a flash, and I'm not willing to compromise my own conscience for nothing more than a pragmatic notion, especially one in which I don't even gain much of value.
What's that old country song? You've got to stand for somethin', or you'll fall for anything. I'd like to add "neither a defeatist or a populist be." Backing Huckabee or McCain does NOT further the cause of conservatism! I am proudly an ideologue of conservatism, not a cheerleader for the R's, though they are my imperfect party of choice! This nonsense of a third way is ridiculous. The duty of any conservative should be the reform of our tattered Republican party back to its Reagan Conservative roots, not the less than bold colors of backing a donkey in elephant's clothing. Besides, all this pollspeak of McCain being the only one who stands a chance against any of theirs is poll driven liberal gravy laden surreality. Don't get sucked into believing these polls. If general election polls taken 11 months out from November were a future reading Oracle in ancient Greece, that would be one unemployed Oracle! Was Dukakis ever president? Was Al Gore ever president? Was John F. Kerry ever president?
Give me a break!
Tim Schieferecke
When Republicans run as Conservatives - as in 1980, 1984, 1988, 1994 - they win. When they govern like Democrats - as in 1992, 2006 - they lose. The way to win this year is with a solid Conservative - and McCain while a good conservative on many issues is like a Democrat on too many big issues.
If McCain is nominated, we may end up with a Democrat because many Republicans - feeling betrayed too often by McCain - will not work for him. And if he is elected, he likely will do a lot of the same things that Democrats would do. I'm not even sure that he would nominate good Supreme Court justices - many of the worst justices were nominated by Republican presidents.
"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
I think we're cut of the same cloth! While I agree with the premise that the upcoming election will be of transformational importance, if it takes losing another election to correct the course of the Republican party's embrace of conservatism, so be it. If the party is allowed to continue down the road of embracing populistic, liberal positions just to win elections, I would rather see it fail again. As Jesus said "tear down this temple, and in three days I will rebuild it again. This is still true logic today 2000 years later, because eventually there will be NO real distinction between the two parties.
God Bless America!
Tim Schieferecke
McCain has gotten a free ride from the MSM and in the primaries that he will not get in the general election. We have not heard Keating Five. We have not heard questions about his age. (This is not something that bothers me, but will hurt him in the general.) We have not heard about his temper in the MSM. He will not be able to confront the Dems on taxes, global warming, immigration, and speech.
The economy is headed into a downturn. He will not be able to offer a tax-cut based stimulus package with any credibility.
He leads Hillary and Obama because they are beating each other up right now. When the Dems coalesce, and they will, his lead will vanish by Labor Day and never come back.
He is Bob Dole v. 2. (Both honorable men who are best suited to the senate.)
It will be the fiery, stubborn, status quo oriented and aging McCain versus the energetic, reasonable, innovative and calm Dem in the MSM.
How many disaffected R's will it take to flip Ohio, Florida, Iowa and New Mexico?
The real question is how many states can McCain carry on judges and spending control?
I'll support Fred until the end. I can't and won't compromise my morals and ethics just to elect a more conservative Democrat like McCain.
Perhaps then the RNC will wake up, clean house of their failed leadership and start supporting real Republicans. The heck with worrying about the MSM (they're increasingly irrelevant anyway) and stop trying to out-pander the Dems.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
"A moderate Republican conservative"
What on earth is THAT thing???? Sorta like a cow with gills?
Here from Federalist 10 is one of my favorite Madison quotes.
"When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrafice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens." By "popular government", I make the following assumption that Madison would agree with me on the following premise. From studying the Federalist Papers, I think he would concur with me that "popular government" is not to be understood as the people being happy with a "popular government" that is popular because it follows Constitutional doctrine, that would have seemed obvious to him. What he is referring to is knee jerk, passion of the moment populism, and its liberty and freedom destroying predispositions. I have found it interesting to see so many caught up backing populists McCain or Huckabee because there weaknesses make them more attractive to cross over Dems and fence sitting independents. The people of America are craving red, white and blue American leadership which to all of you in the peanut gallery IS common sense conservatism!
Tim Schieferecke
What's the difference? McCain is basically a Democrat in liberal Republican clothing.
He talks a good game and that is about it, just talk.
It will be a cold day in Hades when I vote for McCain for any office, including dog catcher!
In short, he sucks.
Think about the possible bipartisan "accomplishments" McCain could achive as president. There are so many liberals that he hasn't yet worked with to betray conservatives. Our future could hold:
McCain-Biden
McCain-Boxer
McCain-Brown
McCain-Byrd
McCain-Cantwell
McCain-Conrad
Mccain-Dodd
McCain-Durbin
McCain-Feinstein
McCain-Harkin
McCain-Inouye
McCain-Kerry
McCain-Lautenberg
McCain-Leahy
McCain-Levin
McCain-Murray
McCain-Reid
McCain-Rockefeller
McCain-Sanders--he needs to find common ground with the socialists
McCain-Schumer
McCain-Webb
McCain-Whitehouse
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can some day, let's get to work."
Barry Goldwater at the 1960 Republican convention
McCain has spent so much time being a maverick, I'm not sure that when it gets down to it that he can win the support of republican primary voters. I imagine that many are laying low, & if is nominated we will have a complete cross-sectional disection of the Keating 5 "scandal."
If one were to go by the Cato scale, a 100% conservative would want total social control and total economic freedom. The conservatism that wins is conservative libertarianism - just enough laws & regulation for an orderly society, with the emphasis on social & economic freedom in most venues. Fred Thompson's philosophy most closely matches that for me, with his understanding of federalism being a huge factor.
Let's see how McCain reacts to his loss to Romney in Michigan. If he can resist the temptation to lash out & act like a cranky curmudgeon, he may have a shot. I will support Fred throughout the primaries & hopefully all the way to the white house. If McCain is nominated, I will certainly support him v. whatever comes out of the democrat flotsam - however, I cannot support him because of his policies, stances on issues, & record, as much as I could Fred or Mitt.
Lets nominate him.
The MSM will not be kind to McCain if he is nominated. The will expose his temper tantrums and foul mouthed tirades. He hill be destroyed and will lose the general election
He called 90 percent of the party (those who are concerned with illegal immigration) biggots and liars. He trashed the religious right (only a third of the party). He sucked up to the far left for 8 years and even rewrote campaign laws to give them an edge in fundraising from which we may never recover. This shouldn't just deny him the nomination, it should run him out of the party all together.
If the GOP is stupid enough to nominate him, I will be one of those, along with the immigration biggots and religious right wackos that will stay home that day. I am sure he will be the second choice of all the left wing friends he made over the last few year.
Similar to 1976. McCain is Gerald Ford without the decency or honesty but with a VERY BAD temper.
"snowball's chance in hell to do it. If you don't think so, I think you aren't living on this planet and paying attention to political reality."
and I'm from Mars. I don't pay attention to political reality because I read and comment at Redstate for 1.25 years longer than you. Next on my task list is to send Al Gore to hell so he can convince them that the global cooling happening there is fake and that the snowball will melt really soon.
that was probably the stupidest post i have ever read. With McCain, comes the death of the Republican Party.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion