Right Nodding (McCain and the base)

National Review ^ | 9-27-05 | Rich Lowry

[Dan from Michigan]

Republicans will unite against Hillary. They'll cave for McCain and he'll get more crap passed.

I wouldn't vote for either of them.

[Aetius]

But what exactly is an extremist? What extreme religious right policies stand a chance of becoming law in the nation as a whole, or in any state? If Roe were overturned, abortion laws would eventually reflect the very mixed views of the people. Its much more likely that the Left's extreme view on this issue -- abortion on demand -- would remain law in large sections of the country whereas the Right's extreme view -- all abortions banned -- would be rejected everywhere. As to marriage, well it takes a lot more than the religious right to garner the overwhelming majorities that have rejected gay marriage in each and every state that has submitted the matter to its people. For example, if it were only the religious right who opposed gay marriage, then I doubt the Calif ban of it would have won with 61% of the vote, or with 56% in Oregon.

I can understand that libertarians tend to be more liberal on social and cultural issues, and as a big tent party, the GOP should be able to accomodate such members. But what I don't understand is the seeming support from many libertarians for the outrageous manner in which the courts impose liberal social policy on the entire nation on nonexistent constitutional grounds.

We need to have a certain respect for the concept of voting with one's feet; if you don't like the cultural values of a conservative state, then either deal with it or move, likewise if one doesn't like the liberal values of a state, then either deal with it or move elsewhere. Things not protected from or elevated above the normal democratic processes by the Constitution should be left to those normal democratic processes.

This is of course made impossible by the type of jurisprudence favored by Warren Rudman.

[GretchenM]

Couldn't agree with you more.

[meandog]

But what exactly is an extremist? What extreme religious right policies stand a chance of becoming law in the nation as a whole, or in any state? If Roe were overturned, abortion laws would eventually reflect the very mixed views of the people. Its much more likely that the Left's extreme view on this issue -- abortion on demand -- would remain law in large sections of the country whereas the Right's extreme view -- all abortions banned -- would be rejected everywhere. As to marriage, well it takes a lot more than the religious right to garner the overwhelming majorities that have rejected gay marriage in each and every state that has submitted the matter to its people. For example, if it were only the religious right who opposed gay marriage, then I doubt the Calif ban of it would have won with 61% of the vote, or with 56% in Oregon. I can understand that libertarians tend to be more liberal on social and cultural issues, and as a big tent party, the GOP should be able to accomodate such members. But what I don't understand is the seeming support from many libertarians for the outrageous manner in which the courts impose liberal social policy on the entire nation on nonexistent constitutional grounds.

I cannot speak for all Libertarians; but, as for me, I see extremism in a 40-year War on Drugs that has failed miserably when a better program would be to decriminalize petty products like pot and tax the hell out of its sale; then use the income to treat and educate the users of hard drugs. I see extremism as the left not understanding that there is a point of no return in pregnancy (somewhere in the mid second trimester when "quickening" occurs). I see extremism on the Right as not understanding that some unfortunate people are burdened with a same sex proclivity from birth and that they should be allowed the same advantage that traditional man-woman unions have, however, that advantage cannot be called marriage in that it doesn't follow the looks like, acts like, quacks like duck logic. I see extremism as an abuse of power by both parties when it comes to confiscatory taxation of the citizenry when a flat tax is the fairest tax. I see extremism in welfare, whether it is individual, corporate or disquised as foreign aid.

Libertarians (at least in my case) strongly believe in the right to ownership of firearms, in free trade (and neither CAFTA or NAFTA meets that definition), in free borders (but where non-citizen migrants do not have the benefit of free education, health care or social service programs), in the freedom to exercise religious preferences anywhere or anytime, in private charity to replace all government handouts, in a war only when Congress declares it, in private property rights with certain limitations on what is in community standards of good taste and is not harmful to neighbors, in the marketplace to solve labor issues and establish wage earnings, in tough, truth in sentencing punishment for violators of law, and most of all in freedom. Succinctly, I would love to have Republicans out of our bedrooms, Democrats out of our wallets, and BOTH OF THEM OUT OF OUR CONSTITUTION!!!!

[KeepArizonaFree]

McStain can not be trusted with America, I'll write in my cat before I vote for him.

I called RNC and warned them no more money if they don't punish him for stabbing Bush in the back with his gang of 13 traitors.

They have called and written, but I won't even respond anymore. McShame makes his America hating ways more known each year.

Meeting with Cindy traitor sheehan is just the ammo I need to convince others.
I hope someone got pictures of that little meet.
I'll post them in 2008 with my Hillary hugging Arafat ones.

[meandog]

It really sounds as though YOU are doing most of the hating: "McStain, McShame, Voting My Cat, Stabbing Bush" etc.
Incidentally, you might find that you and Cindy probably hold the same opinion of McCain after he met with her if you'd bother to read published accounts of what happened. And, further more, he did not stab Bush in the back; instead, allowing for John Roberts to become Chief Justice today as the RATs would have surely filibustered him without the agreed compromise.

[KeepArizonaFree]

you really can't believe that drivel...

[okie01]

I don't know that I "loath" [McCain], but I certainly don't trust him. He's absolutely unreliable, I don't care how strong a stance he takes against fiscal irresponsibility. I think he's in it for the attention, and not for conservative principles.

You've described the senior senator from Arizona quite accurately. McCain is a political opportunist, with little use for principle.

Thus, by definition, he is not trustworthy. Without the ballast of right and wrong to guide him, McCain will say and do those things which yield him political popularity -- without regard to their impact on the nation and its people.

Since "political popularity" is defined by the polls and the polls are largely defined by the MSM, we know who McCain would be saluting -- day in, day out.

[goresalooza]

Hmm..interesting. Is he thinking of running?

[goresalooza]

Good point about Perry and the TX fear factor. He's almost like having Jeb run...we like these TX men but not sure we want another Bush right now.

About Racicot....he ran the RNC for nearly 4 years. I know we hardly ever saw him, McAwful got all the media attention, along with DNC, from the libnutmedia. Maybe Bush persuaded Racicot to take that job rather than run for senate? Plus..IMO...a job in the senate is a few notches down once one has been a state governor.

I'm also leaning to George Allen...all I've read and heard about him, I like! :) I just hope that we run someone strong and conservative for a change...that would be nice.

[Always Right]

The one big and obvious thing McCain could do to win over the social conservative base (or at least assuage their anger and make them accept him) that Lowry fails to mention is to make explicit and unambiguous promises to nominate Scalia/Thomas/conservative/originalist type justices to the federal courts, especially the Supreme Court.

If McCain beleived that, why is he a member of the gang of 14? It seems to be something McCain fights against.

[mosquitobite]

Sadly, no. :(

[Aetius]

Well membership in the Gang doesn't necessarily denote an opposition to Scalia/Thomas types. I believe that Lindsey Graham definitely supports such candidates. And isn't it the case that Graham, DeWine, McCain, and Warner voted for all of the 'controversial' appellate court nominees?

As to why McCain spearheaded the Gang; there could be many reaons other than an opposition to good conservative judges. They include: Ego and love of media attention and adoration; a delusional view that such action truly saved the 'dignity' of the Senate; an almost admirable but incorrect view that he thought it was the only way to get good judges like Brown, Owens, and Pryor confirmed; or finally, and implausibly, that he wanted to preserve the filibuster for Republican use against liberal nominations from a future Dem president.

I say the last one is unlikely because if the GOP did nothing but bend over and embrace Ginsburg, then what chance is there that they'll ever respond in kind?