Posted on 02/22/2008 5:48:40 AM PST by Kaslin
Updated: 9:46 PM 02/21/08 Obama Scores, Clinton Flops on Copy Cat Spat Updated: 9:16 PM 02/21/08 Notes on Obama's Immigration Debate Talk Updated: 8:40 PM 02/21/08 <a href="http://ads.townhall.com/accipiter/adclick/CID=00014ba3d8d6daef00000000/site=TOWNHALL/area=TownHall.Web.Columnists.DouglasMacKinnon/POSITION=TOWN_SKY/AAMGEOIP=68.112.78.1"> <img src="http://media.salemwebnetwork.com/creative/MortgageMinuteAdSkycalcsky.swf" alt="" width="160" height="600" border="0"> </a> GOP to Conservatives: Drop Dead By Douglas MacKinnon Friday, February 22, 2008
As with small children, many of the entrenched, beholden, or power-hungry hierarchy of the Republican party, simply wish conservatives could be seen, but never heard.
In a very telling headline, The Washington Times recently reported, “McCain Refuses to Pander.” In the first paragraph of the article, the paper said, “John McCain's campaign manager yesterday said the candidate will not pander for conservative support…” Yeah, we know. Message received.
For those conservatives or talk radio hosts who still don’t get it, or who are still not prepared to compromise their principles for the party, then some elder statesmen have some names they’d like to call you. Chase Untermeyer, the former high level official for Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and the current president, said in a recent column, “At both the national and local levels, there are those who declare that certain Republican elected officials are insufficiently conservative and must be purged. Senator John McCain is getting the worst of these blasts right now, with some self-appointed tribunes of Reagan’s legacy saying they might even prefer Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama – scarcely followers of the Gipper – to McCain.”
For those conservatives who admire President Reagan but would dare question the record of McCain, Mr. Untermeyer, labeled each a “SQUIRREL.” As in “Snarky Quibbler who Undermines and Ignores Ronald Reagan’s Enduring Legacy.”
“Snarky.” I guess if you went to Harvard, called yourself “Chase” instead of Charles, and mingled with the elites of the world, then “Snarky” is a name you might assign to conservatives who have an honest disagreement with John McCain. If you’re someone like me, who grew up in poverty, barely got an education, and never met an Ivory Tower elite worth a warm bucket of spit, then you might substitute the word “ethical” for snarky.
When I first came to Washington, I had the honor to work in the White House as a low-level writer for Ronald Reagan. While certainly lacking the pedigree of Mr. Untermeyer, I did share one or two special moments with that President. In a conversation that Peggy Noonan was kind enough to chronicle in her bestselling book entitled “When Character Was King,” President Reagan and I spoke in the Oval Office about the alcoholism of our fathers, poverty, and the cruelty of life. It was actually because of Ronald Reagan’s wisdom, kindness, and suggestion, that I was able to reach out to my estranged father.
Understanding that, I’m more than proud to plead guilty to using Ronald Reagan as the template for true conservatism. As such, I just don’t think there is any way that anyone can accurately equate Reagan’s conservative legacy with McCain’s moderate voting record. Does saying that make me a bad person? Am I now an Untermeyer “Squirrel?”
The thought of voting for Clinton or Obama makes me nauseous. We are a nation at war with Islamists who mean to exterminate us. To vote for Clinton or Obama is to vote for the authority to wave the flag of appeasement or surrender. I have no intention of voting for the next Neville Chamberlain.
John McCain is a good person. I do believe he has the best interests of our nation at heart. That said, as an American, it’s my right to disagree with him on substance. John McCain heroically fought and sacrificed to give me that right, and for that, I am forever grateful. On issues such as immigration, taxes, judges, global warming, drilling in Anwar, and the detention and prosecution of enemy combatants, I take issue with some of his past comments, votes, or current positions.
Unfortunately, the message I’m getting from the Republican establishment is that conservatives should bite their tongues, do their duty, and await the crumbs that may come their way in a McCain administration. Is that what it’s come to? Party loyalty before principle?
In endorsing McCain the other day, former President George H.W. Bush said, “…no one is better prepared to lead our nation at these trying times than Senator John McCain.” Really? No one? Does this incredibly decent former president truly believe that McCain is better prepared to lead this nation than say, his own son, Jeb? Or Mitt Romney?
In his endorsement, the former president also said, “…I believe now is the time for me to help John in his effort to start building the broad-based coalition it will take for our conservative values to carry the White House this fall.”
“Conservative values.” That’s all this election is about for millions of Americans who choose to put country before party. As such, they are entitled to have McCain further define or clarify his “conservative values.” He needs to earn their vote.
Like Untermeyer, former President Bush questioned those on the right who question McCain. He called such criticism “grossly unfair” and an “unfair attack.”
If some in the party succeed in quashing the conservative voice, then they will have silenced the conscience of America. Surely, John McCain will stand shoulder to shoulder with conservatives to prevent such an outcome.
Douglas MacKinnon is a former White House and Pentagon official and author of the forthcoming novel, The Apocalypse Directive.
Be the first to read Douglas MacKinnon's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox. GOP to Conservatives: Drop Dead By Douglas MacKinnon Friday, February 22, 2008 Send an email to Douglas MacKinnon Email It Print It Take Action Read Article & Comments (27) Trackbacks Post Your Comments
As with small children, many of the entrenched, beholden, or power-hungry hierarchy of the Republican party, simply wish conservatives could be seen, but never heard.
In a very telling headline, The Washington Times recently reported, “McCain Refuses to Pander.” In the first paragraph of the article, the paper said, “John McCain's campaign manager yesterday said the candidate will not pander for conservative support…” Yeah, we know. Message received.
For those conservatives or talk radio hosts who still don’t get it, or who are still not prepared to compromise their principles for the party, then some elder statesmen have some names they’d like to call you. Chase Untermeyer, the former high level official for Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and the current president, said in a recent column, “At both the national and local levels, there are those who declare that certain Republican elected officials are insufficiently conservative and must be purged. Senator John McCain is getting the worst of these blasts right now, with some self-appointed tribunes of Reagan’s legacy saying they might even prefer Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama – scarcely followers of the Gipper – to McCain.”
For those conservatives who admire President Reagan but would dare question the record of McCain, Mr. Untermeyer, labeled each a “SQUIRREL.” As in “Snarky Quibbler who Undermines and Ignores Ronald Reagan’s Enduring Legacy.”
“Snarky.” I guess if you went to Harvard, called yourself “Chase” instead of Charles, and mingled with the elites of the world, then “Snarky” is a name you might assign to conservatives who have an honest disagreement with John McCain. If you’re someone like me, who grew up in poverty, barely got an education, and never met an Ivory Tower elite worth a warm bucket of spit, then you might substitute the word “ethical” for snarky.
When I first came to Washington, I had the honor to work in the White House as a low-level writer for Ronald Reagan. While certainly lacking the pedigree of Mr. Untermeyer, I did share one or two special moments with that President. In a conversation that Peggy Noonan was kind enough to chronicle in her bestselling book entitled “When Character Was King,” President Reagan and I spoke in the Oval Office about the alcoholism of our fathers, poverty, and the cruelty of life. It was actually because of Ronald Reagan’s wisdom, kindness, and suggestion, that I was able to reach out to my estranged father.
Understanding that, I’m more than proud to plead guilty to using Ronald Reagan as the template for true conservatism. As such, I just don’t think there is any way that anyone can accurately equate Reagan’s conservative legacy with McCain’s moderate voting record. Does saying that make me a bad person? Am I now an Untermeyer “Squirrel?”
The thought of voting for Clinton or Obama makes me nauseous. We are a nation at war with Islamists who mean to exterminate us. To vote for Clinton or Obama is to vote for the authority to wave the flag of appeasement or surrender. I have no intention of voting for the next Neville Chamberlain.
ohn McCain is a good person. I do believe he has the best interests of our nation at heart. That said, as an American, it’s my right to disagree with him on substance. John McCain heroically fought and sacrificed to give me that right, and for that, I am forever grateful. On issues such as immigration, taxes, judges, global warming, drilling in Anwar, and the detention and prosecution of enemy combatants, I take issue with some of his past comments, votes, or current positions.
Unfortunately, the message I’m getting from the Republican establishment is that conservatives should bite their tongues, do their duty, and await the crumbs that may come their way in a McCain administration. Is that what it’s come to? Party loyalty before principle?
In endorsing McCain the other day, former President George H.W. Bush said, “…no one is better prepared to lead our nation at these trying times than Senator John McCain.” Really? No one? Does this incredibly decent former president truly believe that McCain is better prepared to lead this nation than say, his own son, Jeb? Or Mitt Romney?
In his endorsement, the former president also said, “…I believe now is the time for me to help John in his effort to start building the broad-based coalition it will take for our conservative values to carry the White House this fall.”
“Conservative values.” That’s all this election is about for millions of Americans who choose to put country before party. As such, they are entitled to have McCain further define or clarify his “conservative values.” He needs to earn their vote.
Like Untermeyer, former President Bush questioned those on the right who question McCain. He called such criticism “grossly unfair” and an “unfair attack.”
If some in the party succeed in quashing the conservative voice, then they will have silenced the conscience of America. Surely, John McCain will stand shoulder to shoulder with conservatives to prevent such an outcome.
I agree that the GOP seems hardly a conservative party. But sadly, if they were to become truly and only conservative, they would never win elections. The unfortunate reality is, most of America is not truly conservative. Many lie on the spectrum somewhere around the middle, and far too many are far to the left.
While I am perturbed that they seem to think we should just shut up and vote for the "R", I find it unlikely that they are going to change.
Well, some members of the 'religious right' do that. Certainly not all.
Yes, I know, and you’d have to go back thru the numerous comments go understand that I’m pointing out a rift in perception.
By creating a backlash against liberalism that will almost certain result in Republicans taking back Congress with the next four years and, potentially, paving the way for a conservative President by 2013?
When are you going to learn voting for Republicans that aren't conservative actually can cause more harm than having a Democrat in office.
This lesser-of-two-liberals strategy has failed ad naseum with Arnold Schwarzenegger being the latest nightmare example.
All but maybe McCain claim to be and none of them are.
I define a troll as someone that encouraged conservatives to vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger. How has that worked out?
Yet, we have idiot conservatives out voting for Obama and helping the Democrats avoid being stuck with Hillary.
Okay. I'll explain it to you. With a Democrat in the White House, the Republicans are all but guaranteed to take back Congress. With McCain in the White House, Republicans likely won't win back Congress for at least a decade.
With a Democrat in the White House, there is a chance at a conservative President by 2013. With McCain in the White House, there isn't a chance for one until 2017.
The reality is the Clinton years were far better for conservatives than Nixon years. McCain is a return to the Nixon years.
Did God want Hitler in power? Or Saddam?
God allows freewill and it's the freewill decisions by mankind that put politicians in office in a democratic form of government.
No. But, God allows freewill and evil in the world. So, men that God doesn't want in power often get there.
He voted for Alito and Roberts but was part of the gang-of-14 group that opposed conservative judges.
McCain is pro-life but supports embryonic stem cell research and stated back in 1999 that he didn't think Roe should be overturned.
Do you see the problem here?
NASB Romans 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH."
We have literally hundreds of fantastic conservative elected officials who are proud Republicans at the national level and in the 50 states. Most conservatives are Republicans and most Republicans are conservatives.
we conservatives need to show more confidence and recognize that the non-conservatives cannot run us out of the party nor can they control, if *we* stick together and stand up under a unifying conservative banner.
This should not be about what we are against, this should be about - what are we FOR.
Unify around that set of principles:
- lower taxes
- judicial conservative judges
- secure the border, enforce immigration law
- less spending and regulation
- protect life, born and unborn
- protect American sovereignty from depradations by UN, global warming treaties, ICC etc.
- etc.
We can get 90% of Republican officeholders to support on 90% of this.
Over and out.
“How is electing McCain for president in tune with conservative principles?”
“Before you answer, understand that his party affilition is irrelavant.”
Party affiliation aside, McCain is distinctly more conservative than Obama.
- On Judges (McCain for Alito/Roberts, obama against),
- on gun control (Obama for DC handgun ban, McCain not),
- on abortion (Obama extremist pro-abort, McCain prolife),
- on taxes (obama for tax hikes and ending bush tax cut rates, mcCain for lower corporate taxes and keeping bush tax cuts),
- on terrorism (Obama for withdrawal in Iraq, mccain not, mccain saying to veto restrictive bill that Obama and Democrats put in place on treatment of prisoners),
- on gay rights (Obama wants gays to serve openly in the military)
- on border fence (Obama voted against bordre fence cloture vote that McCain was for)
- on spending (Obama promises a $1 trillion price tag new spending, McCain says no to new entitlements, no to pork, and an end to earmarks)
- healthcare, Obama wants mandates, McCain says no.
- Che: Obama is the candidate of Che-t-shirt-wearing left, McCain is the guy who was tortured by the Che-types in the Hanoi Hilton
In Mccain, you have a man who was ranked 43rd out of 100 on th e conservative scale last year (ACU rating), and lifetime rating on ACU scale is 80%. Obama was ranked the most liberal senator in the US Senate, so was ranked 100th out of 100. A RINO is closer to us than a leftist.
Any conservative who puts party aside and merely asks “Who is the best candidate for this country and who comes closest to representing my beliefs?” Will clearly choose McCain over Obama.
The only reason not to go this route is the too-smart-by-half attitude that somehow we have to ‘punish’ the GOP for the mistake of nominating a RINO instead of a good conservative. But who made this mistake? It was made by the GOP primary voters themselves when they gave more votes to mccain than any other candidate. So, by making Obama president we punish GOP primary voters by making us all suffer under what will be a horrible regime? Does that make sense? I dont think so. It makes far more sense by simply asking:
Who is the more conservative viable candidate.
well, I was for Romney, but many conservatives though *he* wasnt good enough. Others though Thompson wasnt good enough. I was in the “Hucks not good enough” camp. Because we never rallied around *one* *unifying* conservative - we lost.
If we split off into 3rd parties, sit-on-hands, etc. we will lose again. and again. and again.
Well we could have stuck with Grey Davis. How do you think that would have worked out? The governor is not the only politician in Sacramento. Arnold started out strong but he got steamrolled by the legislature. I think of him as a POW of the liberals.
“Repubs NEED conservatives to win and they know it. Parties want to win. Period. The Repub party can be dealt with.”
Yes it can be ... but in the primaries. We had several bad choices in the primary and few good ones. We ended up with one of the bad choices.
If this was any race other than president, we could afford to ‘throw the fight’, let the lib win, and refight in the next election.
But so much rides on the presidency for this country, that it is too great a sacrifice to America to let a left-liberal extreme junior senator become the CinC. That is so dangerous and wrong. Wrong on judges, wrong on Iraq, wrong on gays in military, wrong on taxes (will end bush tax cuts which could send us into recession), wrong on guns (likes DC handgun ban), wrong on spending (Promises literally trillions in new spending), wrong on regulation, etc.
“Because we do not embrace socialism like you and your cohorts, you now attempt to lay the blame on the coming destruction of the Republican Party on Conservatives... no sale... NO CONSERVATIVE alive will embrace what you are trying to define Conservatism as today.”
What are your top 3 things you want the president to do in the next 4 years?
How do you define it?
Instead of trying appropriate a label, why dont we simple talk about WHAT WE WANT TO GET DONE and ask ourselves who will and who will not do it?
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.