Big Tent Politics: Conservatism's Unraveling Yellow Brick Rogue(s)

My own thoughts... | 08.29.2008 | DoughtyOne

[DoughtyOne]

    It's primary/caucus time again in the United States.  Those who consider politics to be the most important sport to watch are certainly getting their figurative money’s worth this year.

    Having observed what is taking place so far on the right side of the isle, I’d like to make a few comments.  While I have harbored thoughts along these lines over the years, I have never felt more compelled to voice them.

    Before I go any further, I would like to insert some definitions for the word “rogue”. Some of you will view my inclusion of all these definitions to verge on overkill.  Those who do may be right, but many of these definitions fill out the true nature of a rogue.  I wanted to include them all.

    Here they are:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rogue

rogue

noun

1. a dishonest, knavish person; scoundrel  
2. a playfully mischievous person: scamp
3. a tramp or vagabond
4. a rogue elephant or other animal of similar disposition  
5. Biology. a usually inferior organism, esp. a plant, varying markedly from the normal  

verb (used without object)

6. to live or act as a rogue
 
verb (used with object)

7. to cheat  
8. to uproot or destroy (plants, etc., that do not conform to a desired standard)  
9. to perform this operation upon: to rogue a field
 
adjective

10. (of an animal) having an abnormally savage or unpredictable disposition, as a rogue elephant  
11. no longer obedient, belonging, or accepted and hence not controllable or answerable; deviating,     renegade: a rogue cop; a rogue union local.  

synonyms

1. villain, trickster, swindler, cheat, mountebank, quack

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

rogue

noun
   
1. An unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person; a scoundrel or rascal
2. One who is playfully mischievous; a scamp
3. A wandering beggar; a vagrant
4. A vicious and solitary animal, especially an elephant that has separated itself from its herd.
5. An organism, especially a plant, that shows an undesirable variation from a standard.

adjective
   
1. Vicious and solitary. Used of an animal, especially an elephant
2. Large, destructive, and anomalous or unpredictable: a rogue wave; a rogue tornado
3. Operating outside normal or desirable controls: "How could a single rogue trader bring down an otherwise profitable and well-regarded institution?" (Saul Hansell).

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This rogue


    And now back to my comments.

    What we find is that a rogue is a fairly unsavory figure whether a plant, an animal, or a human.  Even in the animal and plant kingdoms, there are norms.

    If an animal starts acting out in ways that differ from the social norms, the other animals within the group will perceive a threat and single them out for destruction or ostracism.  If not, that animal will become destructive to the group.

    A plant that varies markedly from the norm is generally inferior.  It can simply die off or it can threaten the health of the plant community it is a part of.  If a plant becomes unhealthy, it may be susceptible to mutation or sterilization.  It may decoy insects who fertilize its family members into fertilizing it rather than the healthy family members.  It may also simply pass of the defect so the family weakens.  A thinning of the crop or complete crop failure may result.  As the numbers of rogue plant life increase within the family, the health and prevalence of the healthy community diminishes.

    Okay I would like to ask some questions.  Along the lines of what I have just related in the previous few paragraphs, do you think these same rules of nature apply to humans?  Can a rogue individual threaten the groups of which they are members?  Are families, communities, states and even nations subject to the acts of rogue members?

    Of course they are.  We’ve seen people act out on personal, family, community and national levels even extending to near global scopes of human destruction.  This being the case, it would be absurd to think a person could not be destructive to a movement say a movement like conservatism for instance.

    Most of us have our own definitions within a narrow parameter that define what conservatism is in our eyes.  People on this forum have demonstrated to me that they for the most part share with me a common view of what conservatism is.  We don’t always agree, but we’re in there kicking for the same goals a great majority of the time.

    What happens when someone forgets what conservatism is, and goes off the reservation?  What happens when people act as if they have never known great chunks of what it was/is to be conservative?  It drives us to distraction when this happens.  It does because there are a set of core values that we hold dear.  When someone betrays those core values, we ask ourselves, what were they thinking?  How could they do this?  And this leads to the obvious question, why can’t we do better than this, when selecting a leader?

    First, is it vital that we do better than this?  Is it really all that important?  I believe that it is.  I believe that most of you think so too.  We gather here to champion those who do right, and lament those who miss the mark.  And where we differ, it is generally where we draw the line between right and wrong along ‘human’ lines.

    “He did a great many things that were good.  He is only human.  Nobody is going to get it right on everything.”  Some seem to buy into this rather heavily.  Others are more leery of attributing away mile wide misses on the matters that affect our nation.

    We’ve touched on the core values subject, how they differ to a degree for all of us.  Sometimes there are conflicting (or seemingly) conflicting conservative concerns.  Still all in all, I believe that our core concerns remain rather solid as it applies to protecting the existence of our nation and self-determination first, protecting the values that our founding fathers passed down second, and restricting the size and power of the federal government third.

    I believe that other incredibly important things rise and fall on the conservative scale from here, but without our nation and self-determination in tact, the founding principles in effect, and the federal government in check, no other concern remains safe.

    If our states are no longer physically joined, if we can no longer join together to determine our own best destiny, if the founding principles have been so watered down that they are meaningless, and if the federal government has the power to deny you what is rightfully yours, or yours to determine, the grand experiment is over.

    Right to life is no longer safe.  Nothing else is.

    Borders define us.  Un-entangled sovereignty and self-determination protects us.  The founding principles and documents are our insurance policy.  An internally neutered government remains our friend.  It’s that simple.

    Where we veer from this, we take the life of our nation in our hands, away from life support.

    So is it important that we do better than this when selecting our leaders?  Yes, if we wish to return to the nation our founding fathers envisioned for us. No if it doesn’t matter.  Today we are so far down the road from that vision, that our nation is nearly lost.  We actually flirt with multi-national governance over self-rule.  And when challenged on that point, folks laugh.

    Why is this so?  Well, it's because they people they support agree with them and reside in our garden.

    Folks we have allowed rogue weeds to enter our conservative garden.  They are not grounded in conservatism, and when they are in our midst, they suck up all the moisture and nutrients that make it grow.  They vie for attention and get it.  They act in antisocial ways when you consider what our objectives/the norms of our conservative community are.

    They are rogues.  They are using every definition that makes a rogue what it is, to defeat what it is that we reverence, conservatism.  And their supporters frequent conserative forums because the people they support claim to be one.

    Those leaders are the rodent that has gone rabid.  They are the lone wolf that seeks dominance over the pack.  Where they gain dominance, their ideology replaces one that used to be but is no longer dominant, conservatism.

    We have allowed a cardinal rule of nature to go unrecognized.  We have allowed so many weeds to enter our garden that the flowers which used to be the only thing growing, are now choked off and dying.

    When this is pointed out, long lists of good things about weeds are posted on the forum.  “Did you know that weed has a milky substance.  That can be a great thing.  It has medicinal purposes.”  Sure it may be good for other purposes, but for the purposes of a conservative garden, it is destructive.  The 80/20 rule will kill you every time if you live by it.

    If the record of deeds performed by each conservative president achieved 80% good things, that would really impress some people.  “Why he did that, I can’t believe you are faulting him for this.  You really are a friend of Hillary’s aren’t you?”  Yep, it’s gotten that silly, what good conservatives have bought off on.

    Folks I’m not sure how many of you realize this, but if Republicans passed only 20% of the liberal agenda each term starting in the first term at 100% of the ideal conservative goal,  in 40 years or ten terms only 13% of conservatism would be left.  This fall will usher in the sixth term without a conservative, and two terms were the Clinton years in which it would be safe to say far in excess of 20% was implemented.

    Now, is it time to introduce more weeds to our garden, or do you think maybe we should start thinking about some 100% solid conservatives for a change?

    “Well, I would have voted for a real conservative if there had been one this year.”

    Here’s what we are facing folks.  We have been the party of the big tent for far too long.  We allow folks who are ideologically diametrically opposed to conservatism, or are squishy enough on the issues to do us serious harm when they hold office.

    A John McCain term would do serous harm to our cause.  The others would be just about as bad.  It’s that simple.  You know it and I know it.  We DO NOT have a conservative, or anything remotely close to a conservative to vote for this November.

    Now what?

    Please, lets think of this outside of politics for a moment.  How are we doing to get our garden to grow now that even the most healthy of our plants look pale in comparison to healthy ones?  Well, what would you do if you had a garden in this condition.

    Folks, it’s time to weed the garden, till the soil, provide some plant food and water, and watch the little suckers we’re wanting to grow, literally explode across the landscape.

    Do many of you realize that what IS NOT taking place in the Democrat party is vitally important to unraveling what is killing conservatism?  Let’s explore here for a moment.  I’ll bet most of you would say that Clinton, Obama, Kennedy, Gore, Kerry and lets include Edwards were killing the conservative ideology.  Oh heck, let’s throw in the MSM on top of that.  There, that ought to just about account for what ails conservatism these days.  Is that right?  No.

    Today, this very moment, it is by far more important what IS NOT taking place in the democrat party, than what is.  And I will add that it’s is probably ten times more important.

    We have established that our plants are being killed by weeds that suck up the life blood of our garden, leaving our flowers to wither.  How do we remedy that?  Remove them?  Do ya think?  Hell yes we remove them.  We send those weeds packing off into the nether world never to return.  And we do this by refusing to water them.  We pull them out by the roots.  We gather them together and send them packing off to the garden down the block where they value weeds.  Hey, it’s the Democrat party where weeds can thrive and not endanger wholesome plants.

    You see folks, if you remove the weeds from our garden, it doesn’t just affect our garden.  It affects the Democrat garden down the street.

    Tell me, would you rather see a Hillary or Obama weed on the left side of the isle, or a McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani or Paul running from over there?

    Folks, I think you are quite narrow minded if you think that jettisoning our rejects into the political stratosphere would only be helpful to the Republican party.  It would be incredibly invigorating for both parties.  What if we had fifteen or twenty Joe Liebermans inside the Democrat party instead of one.  What would that mean?

    What it would mean is that for the first time in nearly fifty years two factions would be vying for the leadership of the Democrat Party.  And what it would also mean is that one of those factions wouldn’t be defeating the healthy growth of conservatism inside the Republican party for the first time in almost that length of time.

    Down the road we could expect to see a major realignment of the democrat party rather than our own.  Yes!  I’ll say it again.

    If we as conservatives refuse to vote for RINOS, RINOs will no longer live in our garden.  They will move on down the road to graze in the Democrat garden. In the process, they will provide an alternative Democrat ideology for the Democrat's voting pleasure.

    Over time which direction would both parties move?  Left?  Right?

    Conservatives would once again dominate the Republican party.  Current RINOs would become 80/20 DINOs, and the whole political environment would move toward the right.

    Any questions?

    I happen to be one conservative who has sworn off thinking of politics like a game any longer.  This is serious business, and we need to get down to it if we really do give a damn.

    Folks haven’t you had enough of Big Tent Politics?  Isn’t it time to force the Unraveling of Conservatism’s Yellow Brick Rogues.

    I know it seems rather silly, but I chose to play on this little title twist for a purpose.  In the current environment, conservatives are being shut out at the federal, state, county and local levels.  That is happening because we have too many weeds in our garden at the top.  All along the Yellow Brick Road, our flowers are losing out to rogue weeds.

    RINO presidents don’t support conservative Senators, Congressmen, Governors and appointees.  RINO Senators, Congressmen and Governors don’t support conservative state level conservatives or appointees.  State level RINOs don’t support local level conservatives.
    
    Big Tent Politics is DOA for me when it comes to the Republican party.  And as for Conservatism’s Yellow Brick Rogues, it’s time to unravel the game they’ve been running on us.

    From Munchkinland to the Emerald City, we’ve got to clean up this mess.

    Rogues (RINOs), have I got a deal for you.  I’m voting no until you move on down to the Democrat’s briar patch.  The gig is up in Conservatismville.

    Read those rogue definitions again.  And when it dawns on you that you are looking at precisely the description of the men left running for the Republican nomination this year, please, I beg you, join me in telling them it's time to move on.

[DoughtyOne]

I believe so too.

[tcrlaf]

A LOT of it is that the media has been succsessful at repositioning conservatives as a “hate-group”, in the same way as they have done to Christians.

“Conservative” is now a nasty word that means beer-guzzling, bible-thumping rednecks driving pickups with Confederate flags looking for blacks to run over on the way to the NASCAR race...

And anyone who dares to stand against the “Gay Civil Rights” agenda is a “hate-group” now, doncha know...

[MacDorcha]

Of notable interest. How was Huckabee anyway, EB?

[MacDorcha]

Aside from the running over the blacks bit... I see no problem with that stereotype!

Of course, given the fact that the KKK was founded by (and chiefly consists of) democrats, it seems silly for them to suggest such things.

[ThePythonicCow]

Rogues (RINOs), have I got a deal for you. I’m voting no until you move on down to the Democrat’s briar patch. The gig is up in Conservatismville.

Unlike most freepers who have easily decided this one, I've been oscillating back and forth, in the hypothetical scenario that it's Hillary vs McCain this November, between voting for McCain ("must ... stop ... Hillary"), and voting for none of the above (as you're choosing.)

Perhaps this decision depends on how one frames the question?

If this were the last election ever, then throwing away ones vote to "send a message" is a waste. Some of the "anybody but Hillary" voters actually raise this specter -- if Hillary gets elected, it might be the last election ever. One man, one vote, one time.

But if this is not the last election, then it makes sense, as you state DoughtyOne, to vote "none of the above." If McCain or some such RINO were the Republican Presidential candidate in November, and if millions of Republicans refused to pull the lever for him, then this would send a big wake up call: pick a conservative or fahgetaboutit.

The Democrats have already done some of this purging of their rogues, driving people like Liebermann out of their ranks. This gives them a leg up on us Republicans, who are still a mix of "moderate" RINO's and genuine conservatives. The left is now more purified; pure moonbat Marxist, but nonetheless more purified, and more dangerous.

Unfortunately, the liberal media creates an environment that favors the left. Ever since FDR entered the average person's living room with his fireside chats, and public school indoctrination with leftist curricula became universal, we've become increasingly vulnerable to the leftist view of the government as acting in loco parentis.

We've got hot weather favoring leftist weeds growing amongst our cool weather favoring conservative flowers, and the weather has been on the warm side for nearly a century now.

It's not the physical warming known as Global Warming that perhaps the sun is causing that concerns me. It is the warming of the political environment by the populist media. There are nooks and crannies, such as in some books, on some political forums such as this, on talk radio, and around the lunch counters in small towns, where a cooler climate still prevails. But the majority of votes cast each election are cast by people who were "informed" by the main stream media.

How can we reverse this warming of the political environment?

[Gilbo_3]

ping to stay in the game...

[Yosemitest]

Let the "fall of Babylon" come.

You would have this piece of garbage "McCain" run the party?

We need a song based on "Next Time ... He'll Think Before He Cheats" by Carrie Underwood , " about McCain.

Ann Coulter on McCain and Conservatives
Friday, February 01, 2008

This is a rush transcript from "Hannity & Colmes," January 31, 2008. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated. [ 5 minutes 32 seconds ]

SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: And Senator John McCain is gaining momentum, but not all conservatives are jumping for joy.
Senator McCain is a polarizing candidate for many. And critics point to his stance on immigration, his work with Russ Feingold.
But with a potential Hillary Clinton candidacy on the Democratic side of the aisle, will true conservatives eventually fall in line and support the Arizona senator?

Joining us now, author of the "New York Times" best seller, "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd be Republicans," our friend Ann Coulter.
How are you?

ANN COULTER, AUTHOR, "IF DEMOCRATS HAD ANY BRAINS": Fine, thank you.

HANNITY: Your thoughts about -
Look I'm standing on substance here.

COULTER: Yes.

HANNITY: It's immigration.
It's limits on free speech.
It's not supporting tax cuts.

COULTER: It's Anwar. It's torture at Guantanamo.

HANNITY: Class warfare rhetoric. It's interrogations. It's Guantanamo. It's Anwar.
These are not small issues to conservatives.

COULTER: No, and if you're looking at substance rather than whether it's an R or D after his name, manifestly,
if he's our candidate, then Hillary's going to be our girl, Sean,
because she's more conservative than he is. I think she would be stronger on the war on terrorism.
I absolutely believe that.

HANNITY: That's the one area I disagree with you.

COULTER: No, yes, we're going to sign up together. Let me explain that point on terrorism.

HANNITY: You'd vote for Hillary —

COULTER: Yes. I will campaign for her if it's McCain.

HANNITY: If Hillary is watching tonight, you just got an endorsement —

COLMES: I just heard the word no.

COULTER: I was touched when she cried.
That part isn't true.
But the rest of it is true.
He has led the fight against
— well, as you say, interrogations. I say torture at Guantanamo.
She hasn't done that. She hasn't taken a position in front.

HANNITY: Without interrupting you, let me give you one distinction
— that's what liberals do to you. Let me give you one distinction, he did support the war —

COULTER: So did Hillary.

HANNITY: But he stayed with it. He supported the surge.
I didn't like his criticisms of Rumsfeld, but he was right —

COULTER: OK, let's get to him supporting the surge.
He keeps going on and on about how he was the only Republican who supported the surge and other Republicans attacked him.
It was so awful how he was attacked. It was worse than being held in a tiger cage.

Okay, well I looked up the record.
Republicans all supported the surge. He's not only not the only one who supported the surge,
I promise you no Republican attacked him for this. And you know why he's saying that, Sean,
because he keeps saying it at every debate, I'm the only one. I was attacked by Republicans.
He's confusing Republicans with his liberal friends.
They're the ones who attacked him for it, his real friends.

HANNITY: Hillary Clinton, if she gets her way, will nationalize health care.
She's going to pull the troops out of Iraq.

COULTER: I don't think she will.

HANNITY: That's what she's saying she's going to do.

COULTER: Compared to John McCain, she will do better.

HANNITY: She says in a hundred days she's immediately going to begin to pull out.

(CROSS TALK)

COULTER: Look, she's running in a Democratic primary. He's running in the Republican primary, and their positions are about that far apart.
When George Bush said at the State of the Union Address that the surge is working in Iraq,
Obama sat on his hands,
Kennedy sat on his hands,
Hillary leapt up and applauded that we are winning in the surge and that the surge is working in Iraq.

She gave much better answers in those debates when Democrats like Obama and Biden were saying what do we do? What do we do if three cities are attacked. She said, I will find who did it and I will go after them.

HANNITY: You want to sit back.

ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: Can I just say something — Ann -

Coulter: I would trust any republican - any republican - but John McCain - more than Hillary Clinton

.HANNITY:)Hey, you want to sit back -

COULTER: - Because with John McCain - Hillary is absolutely more conservative.
Moreover -

(CROSS TALK)

COLMES: My work is done. My work is done.

COULTER: Moreover, she lies less than John McCain.
I'm a Hillary girl now.
She lies less than John McCain.
She's smarter than John McCain,
so that when she's caught shamelessly lying, at least the Clintons know they've been caught lying.
McCain is so stupid, he doesn't even know he's been caught.

COLMES: Go.
In fact, could you fill in for me next week?

COULTER: If it's McCain, I will.

COLMES: Let me get this straight, would you vote for Hillary Clinton?

COULTER: Yes.

COLMES: You would actually go in a voting booth —

COULTER: If it's close and the candidate is John McCain, because John McCain is not only bad for Republicanism,
which he definitely is. He is bad for for the country —
He is very very bad for the country.

(CROSS TALK)

COLMES: Can I tell you the last thing that Hillary Clinton wants? Ann Coulter's endorsement.

COULTER: He will not give up on amnesty.
He will not give up on amnesty. Now -
Even now he's running as a Republican, he won't give up on amnesty. I'm at that debate the other night, he's coming in attacking profits, capitalism -

(CROSS TALK)

COULTER: I'm serious.

COLMES: I know, but let me get serious for a second, because so far I haven't been.
Look, are you telling me —
look at all the people endorsing McCain.
I'm not talking about Johnny come lately Republicans.
Nancy Reagan is wrong?
Rick Perry is wrong?
Arnold is wrong?
Charlie Crist is wrong?

COULTER: Okay, other than Nancy Reagan —

(CROSS TALK)

COULTER: No. I will explain. It's not that they're wrong other than Nancy Reagan. And by the way
we loved Nancy Reagan for loving Ron Reagan. We didn't love her for her political positions.
Who wants embryonic stem-cell research? And I'm moving Nancy reagan to the -

(CROSS TALK)

COLMES: Hello. Hello. Are all of these people are off the beat.

COULTER: I'm trying to answer the question. Stop talking.
I'm moving Nancy Reagan to the side, and I'm saying all the rest of these political endorsements mean one thing;
they think he's the front runner. They want a job in his administration.
Nothing means less than an endorsement from someone who wants a position.

COLMES: They're all hoes just looking for a job?

COULTER: No,
but they all do want jobs.

COLMES: I'm giving her the opportunity —

COULTER: They do all want jobs. What they want -
It's good to be friends with the king.
Some people - like me -

HANNITY: Will you be careful.

COULTER: Some people don't care about being the king.

Read Mark Levin

"Reagan Challenged His Party from the Right. McCain Challenges His Party from the Left. [Mark R. Levin]"

I don't think most conservatives are interested in McCain’s class ranking at Annapolis or how many planes he was nearly killed in. There have been a few posts here mentioning it.
And I appreciate all the references to Reagan's efforts to advance his agenda, which did involve making compromises with a Democrat House and, throughout most of his presidency, a Democrat Congress.
And if John McCain showed this kind of temperament and vision in his political career, I don't think most who object to his candidacy during the primaries would be objecting to it today. I think we would be enthusiastically supporting him.

Painting Reagan as a tax-and-spend Republican, who basically went along with Washington and appointed a bunch of moderates to the Supreme Court, in an apparent attempt to build up McCain's conservative and leadership credentials and mollify his critics, has the opposite effect mostly because it is inaccurate. It reminds me of Bill Clinton's supporters using Thomas Jefferson's alleged adultery to explain the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Reagan challenged his party from the Right. He sought the Republican nomination in 1968 against Richard Nixon and lost. He sought the nomination against Gerald Ford in 1976 and lost. He fought the Republican establishment in 1980 as well, including Bob Dole, Howard Baker, and George H. W. Bush, and won.
McCain has challenged his party from the Left. I don't know how many more times I and others have to lay out his record to prove the point.
To put a fine point on it, when he had to, Reagan sought compromise from a different set of beliefs and principles than McCain. It does a great disservice to historical accuracy and the current debate to continue to urge otherwise.

Let me be more specific, rather than spar in generalities. Reagan would never have used the phrase "manage for profit" as a zinger to put down a Republican opponent. Reagan believed in managing for profit because he believed in free enterprise. That doesn't mean he didn't agree to certain tax increases (after fighting for and winning the most massive tax cuts in modern American history), which were incidentally to be accompanied by even greater spending cuts.
McCain believes the oil companies are evil, and said it during one of the debates.
Among his first acts as president, Reagan decontrolled the prices of natural gas and crude oil with the stroke of his pen because, as he understood, profit funds research and exploration. Reagan had a respect for and comprehension of private property rights and markets that McCain does not. There never would have been a Reagan-Lieberman bill, in which the federal government's power over the private sector would have trumped the New Deal.

Reagan opposed limits on political speech.
The Reagan administration ended the Fairness Doctrine and the media ownership rules, which helped create the alternative media that McCain despises. Reagan's reverence for the Constitution would never have allowed him to support, let alone add his name to, something like McCain-Feingold.

As for Reagan's Supreme Court appointments, it is wholly misleading to simply list those who turned out to be disappointing as evidence of Reagan's willingness to compromise on judicial appointments or appoint moderates, or whatever the point was.
In Sandra Day O'Connor's case, he was assured by Barry Goldwater and Ken Starr that she was an originalist. While on the Court, she started out on fairly sound footing, and then lurched toward the Left, something Reagan could not foresee or control.
Yes, Reagan appointed Anthony Kennedy to the Court, but only after:

1. first nominating Bob Bork;
2. then nominating Doug Ginsburg;
and 3. again receiving assurances that Kennedy was solid.
And, again, Kennedy started out as a fairly reliable originalist, but has "evolved" over the years in ways that no president can prevent.
But Reagan also appointed Antonin Scalia and promoted William Rehnquist to chief justice, and he appointed scores of outstanding judges at the district court and appellate levels — the significance of which attorneys like me, who study this issue, fully comprehend and appreciate. (As an aside, as I spent some time at the White House working on judicial selection, Reagan refused to allow the Senate to dictate which judges he would ultimately nominate to the circuit courts.)

Reagan sought to abolish all kinds of federal programs and agencies — from the Department of Education to the Action Agency/VISTA — and the list goes on and on.
I imagine it wouldn't be too difficult for someone with the time and inclination, such as a think-tank scholar, to go back and examine the early budgets that Reagan sent to Congress. Am I the only one who remembers all the horror stories in the media portraying Reagan's budgets

as setting back the New Deal and Great Society,
creating armies of homeless,
cutting ketchup from the Food Stamp program, and so forth?
But Reagan couldn't get a lot of the cuts he wanted past congressional Democrats. However, he did shutdown the government several times to try to limit spending. Does anyone remember the media stories about Social Security recipients going without checks?

The one area Reagan drastically increased spending was defense.
And while McCain is said to be among the most capable of hawks, he used little of his political capital and media savvy to oppose the Clinton cuts — or to warn the nation about the rising threat from al-Qaeda, for that matter. He did not call for the resignation of his good friend Bill Cohen, who was a terrible defense secretary. McCain was not alone, of course. But a more fulsome examination of McCain's senatorial record relating to defense, intelligence, and law enforcement is met mostly with silence or admonitions to avert our eyes.

Reagan would not have led efforts to grant the enemy constitutional and international rights, as McCain has. I believe he would have sided with President Bush. After all, as president, Reagan rejected efforts to expand the Geneva Conventions to cover terrorists.
This is a key area of departure for McCain not only from Bush but most national security advocates. But, alas, we must avert our eyes, again.

As for the 1986 Reagan amnesty for illegal aliens, we've been down this road time and again.
The bill was carefully reviewed within the Reagan administration, including at the Justice Department (at the time, the INS reported to the attorney general). Reagan agreed that amnesty would be conferred on 2-3 million illegal aliens as a one-time event in exchange for adequate funding for border security. The bill passed in 1987. The border security part of the deal was never enforced.
To say that Reagan supported amnesty and no more is to rewrite history. There would have been no Reagan-Kennedy bill, written largely by LULAC and LaRaza.

But we must rewrite history
if we are to make the case that McCain is no different from Reagan,
Reagan is no different from his predecessors,
and Reagan's speeches weren't all that revolutionary.
And if we object to such characterizations, then the argument shifts to Reagan wasn't perfect,
the Reagan era is dead,
these are different times, etc. Then, if we criticize McCain's record we are told

the tone is troubling,
we're going to help elect Hillary Clinton if we don't unite behind McCain now (at the beginning of the primaries, no less!),
the surge is the only issue that matters, etc.

Look, I do not believe that McCain is a principled conservative.
I believe he is a populist hawk in the tradition of a Scoop Jackson. This isn't a perfect comparison, of course, but nothing is ever perfect, is it?
In my view, this is why the hawks will support McCain regardless of his record in virtually every other respect. Moreover, they see McCain as the only Republican who has the will or ability or whatever to fight terrorism. I don't.
But please, can we at least agree, on National Review's website of all places, to stop dumbing down or dismissing the Reagan record. If you are going to use it, at least be accurate about it. It isn't perfect, but it is far superior to the backhand it received earlier.

02/02 12:52 PM

Mark Levin isn't called the GREAT ONE for no reason.

ANN COULTER is ALWAYS RIGHT!!!

We'll get more CONSERVATIVES in the House of Representatives and the Senate with Hillary in the White House, than with McCain.

So I ask again. Do you really want McCain???

[antisocial]

Bump (how about giving us the Readers Digest condensed version? :<)

[sauropod]

read

[hiredhand]

I still contend that the timing of the GOP "melt down" is terrible. When we can look past it, and give everybody time to come to terms with just how badly the GOP has let us down, and regroup and reform into something that better represents us as a whole, we will be effective. The problem is that we probably don't have time before the November elections. Too many people are holding onto the misplaced idea that the GOP is the savior and keeper of conservatism here in America, while in truth, they have eclipsed and fallen by the wayside with power, greed, and the stupidity and short-sightedness that accompanies.

While the straight-ticket voters are hoping vainly that one of the mainstream RINOs will somehow manage to win, and save us all from a "liberal" in office, we know in truth that this attitude is vain, and will only bring about their worst fears. They should pay attention to us. We don't change our stand. We don't waiver. We WILL cause a shift of power simply by doing what's right. They can choose to continue in disbelief, or spit insults in response. But we're all watching these things happening now and I believe it's come to the point of being irrefutable.

[Gilbo_3]

I dont think that itll happen this cycle, unless enough rino spit causes a brokered convention, then maybe, but still doubtful imo.

Ive been burning up the threads today with the 'vote your morals message'.

while I dont really welcome an uphill battle with a socialist in charge, if thats what He needs for Glory, so be it. Anways, I'm feeling pretty good now that Im back in the fight for my values, and not picking thru the scraps served to me by the wannabe masters...

LFOD...

[hiredhand]

Let it be known that you are NOT alone. We will not vote for democrats, or RINOs. Nor will be sit-out the vote. We will write-in a best choice, such as Thompson/Hunter. People can "say" that we will topple the balance of power over to the left, if they so choose to view it that way. They could just as easily write in Thompson/Hunter.