Posted on 02/07/2008 8:54:51 PM PST by GaryWiram
Since Figgins knows that I consider myself to be a "Real Conservative", he seemed pretty stunned when he heard me say that I think what many "Real Conservatives" are currently doing will result in "Real Liberals" occupying the White House for at least the next 16 years. I can understand his reaction. It took something pretty stunning to get me to that point.
What got me to that point was hearing Focus on the Family's Dr. James Dobson state that, if John McCain is this year's Republican nominee and if either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama are this year's Democrat nominee, for the first time in his voting-life he won't cast a vote for President. Up to this point, the related "McCain is not a real conservative" noise had been troubling me but none of the noise makers had stopped me in my tracks, as Dobson had done.
I know Ann Coulter caused quite a stir when she said that, if McCain is the Republican nominee, she'll campaign for Hillary Clinton. That's certainly not something you'd expect from someone whose current book is entitled, "If Democrats Had Any Brains They'd Be Republicans". I think Ann's oversight here is that it takes more than brains to be a Republican and/or a "Real Conservative". In addition to brains, it also takes common sense ... another key ingredient lacking in many Democrats and/or "Real Liberals". Though Ann's intellect is obvious, this anti-McCain statement makes her lack of common sense just as obvious. So, I think she'll fit in just fine across the aisle and I say, "Good riddance!"
"Conservative Talk Radio" has been making the most noise on this and as usual, the noisiest has been Rush Limbaugh. Now, much like Ann Coulter's, Rush's views generally line up with mine. And, also like Ann Coulter, Rush typically expresses his views in an intelligent and interesting way. However, the guy is a windbag and mostly enamored with himself and I wouldn't let someone like that set my course for me.
Dr. Dobson, however, is quite another matter. I haven't done the accounting but I don't think it would take the fingers on one hand to count up the people in this world who I admire more than Dr. Dobson. What he has done and strives to do through Focus on the Family is priceless in my view. So, when he sets an example, I take it most seriously. In this instance, though, I believe he is mistaken. After all, admire him as I do, he isn't perfect. The flaw in this, as I see it is that he is choosing to not participate as his way of being against. This, I believe, will be very destructive. What makes it worse is that he had and I believe he still has, the opportunity to take a position for something and to be quite constructive.
Initially, there were many more Republican Presidential Candidates than the three major candidates (Please don't expect me to include Ron Paul) remaining. Surely, there was a "Real Conservative" from that field whose views would have lined up reasonably with Dr. Dobson's. I don't understand why Dr. Dobson didn't take the constructive path of endorsing one of these.
Although the opportunity to choose from the initial field of candidates has passed, three candidates remain. Isn't there a more positive tack that Dr, Dobson could take than just being anti-McCain and anti-Clinton/Obama? If so, I think its necessary to look at the three and see if there's something that Dr. Dobson and the others may have missed in determining if any of these are "Real Conservatives".
What about Romney? Instead of just taking an anti-McCain stance, Dr. Dobson could have endorsed Romney but he didn't. Why not? The "Conservative Talk Radio" crowd are certainly behind that. They say Romney maps to all three segments of the Reagan coalition. But, I think they've missed some parts. The Reagan coalition had many more than three parts. Some of the parts that seem to not to be getting mentioned lately are things like having more substance than a glossy veneer and being trustworthy. You may want to reference what I detailed on this topic in my post entitled Honest Politician but I suspect Dr. Dobson sees this and thus, no endorsement for Romney.
And, what about Huckabee? Frankly, he's my guy but I understand concerns about his foreign policy skills and his "electability". But what is such a mismatch between their views that would keep Dr. Dobson's from taking the constructive path of endorsing Governor Huckabee? I'd really like to hear from this man, who I so admire, on this topic.
And, finally, what about McCain? Or, more appropriately, why set an example of not providing support that McCain will need to keep "Real Liberals" from securing, at least, the next 16 years in the White House? Being anti-McCain is always an option but, in determining who is a "Real Conservative", isn't one for-sure quality that they aren't a "Real Liberal"? McCain, at least, passes that test. Clinton and Obama don't! OBAMA IS THE MOST LIBERAL MEMBER OF THE SENATE, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!!!!! Doesn't it make more sense for Dr. Dobson and the others to first see if they can settle their differences with McCain? Why not sit down with this unarguably genuine national hero, tell him your concerns, see if you can find common ground where you can meet and support him in order to avoid letting the "Real Liberals" take this country into another cycle of decay? I have to say, I'm sort of disappointed in Dr. Dobson with this. I know for sure that one thing we share is our faith in Christ. Central to that faith is that we have been forgiven through God's gracious gift, in Christ. The Scriptures teach us that forgiven people should be forgiving people so why shouldn't that apply to any missteps "Real Conservatives" see in McCain's past?
Great post.
Thanks for sharing.
My new mantra — You didn’t like McCain on immigration so you will like Hillary better? You didn’t like McCain on entitlements, so you will like Obama more?
McCain is conservative. So is Huckabee. Just not as conservative as we wish they would be.
I am a consevative, and I am voting for McCain. I will hold my nose.
I like the red herring displayed in your last sentence. Apparently we’re not real conservatives unless we accept every deceit, every deception, and every disrespect that POS has committed against us.
Nice.
Good evening marine dad. After you critized me, I came to my senses. You must be a fine example for your son. We need thinking and rational people at this time.
Logical non-sequitur. 16 years is four Presidential elections. How was it that Bill Clinton (one of the savviest and corrupting political figures of the last half century) only managed to win 43% & 49% of the vote and could not get another Dem to succeed him?
The real lesson here is: We put up a Conservative and we win the White House. We put up something other than that and we lose. We nominate ‘the next guy in line’ and we lose. Lets take a look at the last 30 years.
Ford - Not Conservative - Loses
Reagan - Conservative - Wins!
Bush 41 - Not Exactly - Wins One - Loses One
Dole - Not Exactly - Loses
Bush 43 - Conservative - Wins!
(yes, Bush has many ethical lapses as a conservative but he didn’t campaign on any of them)
Oh, and anybody who says that Limbaugh is a windbag who just likes to hear himself talk is an intellectual poser and should not be taken seriously. Only the truly uninformed believe that conservatives are sitting around waiting for orders from radio hosts.
Thanks SO much for joining FR today, just to tell me how to vote!
Rather then try to build a bridge to Conservatives. McCainacs are running around screaming insults at everyone who questions their god.
That is not going to win him any votes. Conservatives have legitimate questions based on John McCain's record over the last 10 years. Screaming at them they HAVE to support McCain "because the other side is worse" isn't going to sell.
Senator McCain should go to the Senate and start picking fights with the Democrats on some key Conservative issues. Spending would be an easy one for him to fight on since he has TALKED such a good game. Actions speak louder then words.
He needs to show us he is willing to fight FOR us, not just against us. He has the time to build a bridge to Conservatives while Hillary and Obama slug it out.
Arrogantly demanding our support as his due is not going to work. We know his record. From our vantage point, a GOP Liberal pushing a $ .50 a gallon gas tax hike isn't all that different from the Democrats.
Not from where we are sitting. Read McCain Leiberman.
Instead of arrogantly demanding we MUST vote for him. Senator McCain should be building a bridge to Conservatives. He needs our votes. We don’t need his brand of Democrat Lite politics.
There's a difference?
Please let your co-workers at McCain headquarters know that vanity posts are frowned upon at FR, except in extreme circumstances...
IIRC, Dr. Dobson semi-”endorsed” Newt Gingrich after they talked, saying he would not have a problem with him as a candidate. Gingrich estimated that it would cost about $30M to mount a serious campaign and could not get a commitment, was told by many he “had too much baggage”, “could not win”, to “shut up” and to “go home”, so he went.
Fred Thompson also jumped into the race about that time, without Gingrich’s fire or passion, but also without money. Then again, money didn’t buy Romney candidacy (he also seemed to lack a spark plug to inspire the GOP), but for entirely different reasons and he came much closer to winning it than most seem to recognize now (see excellent analysis of candidates and strategy by Michael Barone in OpinionJournal.com “Open-Field Politics” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1966312/posts )
GOP is not called Stupid Party for nothing, and we failed to improve it this year because we were too fractured, with few well-financed real conservatives and/or leaders or looking for someone who, we are told, “could win”. Never works, not much different from 2006 or 1996. Stupid Party doesn’t learn from its own mistakes and takes down few people who could be its leaders in favor of those “who can win”.
Yep. GOP establishment keep trying to win on that “bogeyman” forever, and keep trying to buy us with “I am with Ronald Reagan” which makes me sick because Ronald Reagan never did anything close to that - never traded on anyone else’s name and appealed to people to vote for him on the basis of his ideas and policies he would bring.
How long till we hear McCain’s “Where is the outrage?”
More than a year to learn the lesson of 2006 elections about what wins (all combined, not just this or that piece of the whole package) - conservatism, clear thinking and ideas, enthusiasm and willingness to “work the base” and creating events (not just attend them), articulate and passionate leadership... and what loses - infighting and backstabbing, fractured demoralized leaderless and rudderless base, voters looking for “who can win”, lack of passion and articulation of ideas, inability or unwillingness to finance those who could and were willing to lead the party and conservative movement (”because they would be killed by the media” - never understood that argument)... Reagan Democrats came into being not because he pandered to them but because his ideas appealed to him, he didn’t join them, they joined him because he led.
Yep, in the immortal words of Forrest Gump - “stupid is as stupid does...” And in the immortal words of Bill Engvall - GOP, “here is your sign!”
From excellent, short and incisive article by Michael Barone in OpinionJournal http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB120235128484149553.html (a must-read, in my opinion, which got completely sidetracked in FR’s post) :
“What I find most striking about this nominating season is that every candidate’s strategy has failed. Yes, each party will still nominate someone. If one rule of a zero-sum game is that all players but one must lose, another rule is that one must win. But not because his or her original strategy worked.”
“The ideas vacuum in campaign 2008 still remains to be filled...”
“The fact that every campaign’s experts came up with losing strategies...”
Surreal is a good way to describe it, but not at all unexpected, because every campaign was / is based simply on tactics.
The GOP is backing a 25 year member of the Old DC Boy Club member who looks ill, speaks poorly and is virtually broke against a Democrat machine that will be out spending him 10 to 1.
The Democrats have a massive advantage in organization, enthusiasm and turn out. They are like we were in 2000. This will be their 1st chance to hold all 3 branches of Govt in 15 years. They will be ground glass Democrats.
Meanwhile this is an election that is structurally difficult of the GOP to win. Really hard for any party to win the WH 3 times in a row. Nixon (1960) and Gore (2000) could not do it. Reagan’s legacy carried Bush 1 in 1988 to it but Bush 2 legacy will not carry McCain. In fact, taking into consideration the record low approval numbers of the whole political class these days, it will hurt him.
The GOP is telling us they can win with out us icky Conservatives. I don’t see how.
Get real. Hillary would be even worse than McCain about immigration; Obama would be even worse about entitlements.
McCain may have supported 10%, 20%, even 30% of the bad policies. The liberal 'Rats would support 100%!!!
Right on the money! Just to add :
Bush 41 - 1988 election widely considered Reagan’s “third term”
1994 Congressional elections - huge boost from Reagan’s Alzheimer’s disease “twilight letter”; “Contract with America” articulated clearly the direction and actions of the GOP Congress, if elected.
Bush 43 - 2000 primaries, amid reservations that he is a conservative (Bush 41 “legacy”) a boost from talk show hosts (Rush et al) “unifying” the party behind him brought by the fact that he seemed the only one at the time (South Carolina) able to stop McCain.
Bush 43 - 2004 general election, down in the polls to Kerry, until Reagan’s death and outpouring in June 2004. And that turned out to be another unnecessary squeaker in November, too.
His political character is, and his gut instincts.
And his instincts to work with and work for the Dims and the NYT, against his President and his party for the last 8 years, trashing them IN PUBLIC, for our enemies abroad, during WARTIME are unforgivable.
His flirting with Kerry for VP in 04 means his judgment was that Kerry would make a good CIC.
I will never participate in electing a man who gut and heart are with the UnAmerican Democrat Party, and the NYT enemy propaganda machine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.