"Real Conservatives" position "Real Liberals" for 16-Year White House Stay

A Few Days With Figgins ^ | Wednesday, February 6, 2008 | Gary Wiram

[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?

[CutePuppy]

Exactly, Groundhog Day.

And so sad, because with the compassionate conservative candidate and Democrats themselves so fractured and divided along racial and gender and political famiglia's (Kennedys vs Clintons) lines, this election could have been GOP's to lose.

[arthurus]

For the Republican Party condition 8 years from now, or maybe only 4, it does not matter who is elected next November. We will get Amnesty and 40 million new democrats will join the citizenry. Maybe twice that many will flood up from the south because of the reality of that amnesty. Saying that it is a one shot deal won’t be believed and the wish will create the reality as all those new Democrats will make sure that the border no longer exists and will be working hard to extend federal welfare and free indigent medical care to Ciudad Mexico and Tegucigalpa and beyond. The Republican Party will collapse to scattered local significance only.

[devere]

A silly article, not worth reading.

[sanchmo]

fideist:
I think we need to take a break for a couple of days to see if the symptoms of this McCain Derangement Syndrome subside with time. It’s almost as frustrating as trying to have a rational conversation with a Kucinich supporter.