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.
Bull friggin crap! The moderate RINOs have exclaimed that conservatism is dead. Conservatives need not apply, because themoderates can make up the difference with the indies, remember? They have made their bed, let them lie in it. CONSERVATIVES WILL *NOT* MAKE THE DIFFERENCE, because there isn't a Conservative to vote for.
The Liberals aren't winning. The Democrats aren't winning. The Republicans are LOSING. They have sullied themselves and will no longer be tolerated.
Deal with it.
I disagree. The starting point of the discussion is that McCain is a traitorous bastard, who confidently betrayed his fellows many, many times. He is without honor.
There can be no justification, and no compromise.
It is a life change for the best to leave a family of rogues and thieves, drunk on wine and living by the sweat of another's brow.
Some would call it an honorable and principled decision.
I am a conservative. My conservative principles are of no use if they are not exercised to advance the cause. So I advance it as I can: Contributing to good candidates and speaking out on issues, etc. And of course voting. I always try to vote for the more conservative candidates. In the primary, that makes me anybody-but-McCain, but in the general election, McCain is easily the better choice over Obama.
Whenever a politician studies a problem or event and looks for government to become involved, I want those decisions to fit into and be a part of the Conservative ideology. If a decision runs counter to these principles, then it is the wrong decision.
Nice idea. And yet we lost good conservatives like Santorum and George Allen and a gaggle of conservative congressmen, like JD Hayworth and others in 2006. Voters were not as discerning.
I am tired of politicians taking the easy way out or doing things the liberal way because of PC or personal gain. What do I want from my President? I want a true Conservative... no more and no less. Anything less will continue the slow march to rino-socialism that we have been on for far too long.
The next president will not be a 'true Conservative'. He will be a 75% on our side moderate/RINO-type Republican or a dangerous far left liberal Senator with little real experience.
I am pro-Life... pro Second Amendment... pro Law Enforcement... I agree, and fair enough. And how are the candidates on these - McCain 3, Obama 0. Obama is a pro-abort guy who supports DC gun ban and has been an anti-law-and-order guy (many votes in statehouse on that).
pro Border Security... pro Immigration Law Enforcement... both are zeros there, even though McCain promises to build the fence first, he's not stepped up to the plate on fullfledged enforcement first ... but Obama worse for being for drivers licenses for illegals, that is totally nuts. give him -1.
pro Military... pro use of the Military against all enemies (foreign and domestic if it comes to that) McCain the war hero and survivor of hanoi hilton torture is the clearly superior candidate and most pro-military candidate we've had in a while, in the best sense of the word. Obama, another zero there. Those folks arent proud of our military, only ashamed, and get proud only when they are cut down by the rise of leftist 'hopes'. McCain 2, Obama 0.
... I am for shrinking the enormous monster that is the Fed... I am for TAX CUTSNobody elected will touch the Fed. McCain will continue the Bush tax cuts, wants to lower the corp tax rate and end the AMT, good positions, even if he was wrong on Bush tax cuts. Obama OTOH, is simply awful - not only for ending the Bush tax cuts, but for adding more taxes on the 'rich' and 'windfall profits' grabs of money. McCain 1, Obama 0.
... I am for spending reductions - McCain is pretty good there. He voted against the prescription drug bill, is anti-earmark and anti-pork. Obama has proposed literally a trillion in new spending in his promises. McCain 1, obama 0.
... I am for building up our Military... I am for helping those amongst us that need our help... but not the one’s that scam because they are lazy or think that the cut of their jib defines their special needs. I am for term limits... Good positions. McCain is 2 out of 3 there. Neither will help on term limits. Obama 0.
I am for strong Constructionist Justices...
McCain will appoint Roberts/Alito types vs Obama will appoint far-left jurists like himself. McCain 1, Obama 0.
I am for tearing down and rebuilding of the CIA from the ground up... I am for the cleaning out and disinfecting of Foggy Bottom... and I am for the total destruction of islamic radicals... and I want iran to pay a price so large that any future islamo-satanist will cower at the thought of our anger...
Some good stuff. some hopeful stuff that may never happen. Will we ever fix the CIA. With McCain, doubtful. With Obama, egads, he'll make it worse. Obama will be like Carter, but worse, and Carter put a horrible liberal in there that broke the CIA for quite a while. Reagan restored it. But did GWB fix the CIA after 911? No, he kept Tenet. I dont think McCain would do worse than that.
Still, you have in McCain a man who will give you 2/3rds of what you want, who have some solid conservative inclinations and some distressing (eg open borders) ones vs. you have in Obama a Ted Kennedy liberal (maybe even worse, due to marxist pals, afro-centrist church values, and politically correct/academic leftist mindset), who is a total and absolute ZERO for us. The total above score was 10 (McCain) to -1 (Obama). A 100% conservative would be 15+.
ALL that I ask of my representatives is to measure any plans and decisions against sound Conservative Principles and ideology... if it fits, do it... if it does not fit, change the plan or decision until it does fit.
All you ask is for your Representative to be like you - phew! - I lived in several states, and in most of them, for MOST OF MY LIFE, they were two-bit worthless Democrats who were the opposite of what I believed. For 12 years in Austin, i was under the thumb of Lloyd Doggett. Only the GOP redistricting saved me from him.
I could have wished as hard as I wanted, but I didnt get the Representative I wanted because these awful Congresscritters would get re-elected. Despite being anti-conservative anti-freedom anti-constitutional and anti-taxpayer and in many case anti-military.
Now, it will be hard to impossible to get a President to believe these things you want them to believe if we dont get 51% of the people to believe these things too. So the real question is not about the candidates, but about the VOTERS. How do we move the minds of the voters so we get a majority for this?
All I would submit, finally, is this: I have never had the pleasure of voting for any candidate in serious political office who agreed with me 100%; that's because I suppose, I never ran and only I would agree with myself that much. So when given candidates in the general election, I choose the one closest to my views and with the most competence and character. In every single case with but 1 or 2 down ballot exceptions, in the last 20 years, they have always been Republicans. Republican candidates have always been the more conservative qualified candidate.
And so it is here as well. McCain is the more conserative candidate. He is imperfect, annoying, wrong on a few things (and one things that's really important to me - immigration). but Obama is worse on immigration and worse, far worse/leftist on fundamental tax, spend, military, national security, judges/consitution issues. It's not even close.
The fundamental conservative rule should be to vote for the more conservative candidate.
It would have worked out best if McClintok would have reached office, which was a real possibility before conservative nit wits rallied behind Schwarzenegger.
There couldn't be a worse a scenario than a liberal Republican in governor's office or White House. Everything that goes wrong gets blamed on the RINO while Democrats gain or maintain control of the legislature.
Reagan himself supported Republican candidates who were not allies on all issues. He supported pro-choice candidates.
Reagan said that the various factions of Conservatism belong together, and need each other, not only for voting purposes, but because all of the conservative ideologies are interdependent, and require each the others- AND HE WAS RIGHT.
Yes, but the whole point is that it *IS* a coalition. A coalition and a cult are two different things. We cannot expect everyone to have the same view.you say:
It is when we are united that the truth is revealed - okay, but uniting means coming together. If we are going to unite fiscal, national security and social conservatives, we cannot force members of that coalition to adopt 100% the same views, or the coalition would break down. As you say - "No faction should be forced to submit to the others." Just as others should not force us to submit, we cannot force them to submit. The way out? Recognize that we need to support eachother without giving up on our ideals.
Reagan knew that. That is why he threw himself behind Ford, that is why he was willing to put Bush as his VP. that is why he campaigned for moderate Republicans, etc. if this is a 'what would Reagan do' question, then the answer is to do what Reagan did in 1976 after the primary was over - he endorsed the Republican nominee and worked hard to get him elected.
“The rating is meaningless and manipulated.”
False. ACU rates votes and scores the legislators. It is a reliable metrics, and if you dont like ACU there are dozens more metrics but they show the same - Obama and Hillary are liberals, McCain is not, he’s a center-right RINO.
Worse scenario = Obama gets elected.
National security threatened.
defeat in Iraq.
Judicial picks go extreme left.
military goes openly gay.
administration is stocked full of leftists.
sovereignty given to UN.
taxes hiked.
spending on leftism increases.
Mandates and socialized medicine rolls forward.
the list goes on.
bttt
“Isn’t McCain one who prefers the praise of his opponents over the cooperation with his own party?”
Huh? You have a quote. he’s a media hound but he’s never said that.
“So to me that means that anything he says is subject to disbelief.”
Why? He may not agree with you or me, but he is an honest man who speaks what he believes.
“Do you implicitly trust him?” - He has a long record both good and bad. I trust, based on his actions that he will both please us and displease us in part. But again, even if he’s a RINO, he’s an honest RINO.
“I don’t. A lot of other freepers don’t. Conservatives can’t.”
Why cant we? Sure we can - we look at his track record and make a conclusion. You ought not talk about conservatives like you own the term. You dont. The vast majority of conservatives will think this through and come to that same conclusion I came to. Despite our differences with McCain, our common ground is great enough and he is distinctly more conservative than Obama his opponent. Thus, the right conservative vote is to vote McCain over Obama. He is also the only candidate qualified to be CinC in this time of war, not a consideration to be taken lightly.
Yes, you are making it clear that you have no interest in the success of the Party of Reagan.
“if Conservatives ever had anything more than just a seat at the table” All a coalition is, is a group of people where they each have a seat at the table.
I direct you to #291 on how we’ve screwed conservative cause and good leaders by not uniting and instead dividing.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1974442/posts?page=291#291
Conservatives who are not interested in stopping a sharp left turn in America are what I call “suicide conservatives”.
Obama will be the worst president of my lifetime. The worst so far was Carter, but Obama can outdo even him.
>>You are walking that fine line between advocate to shill.<<
I think WOSG may be underestimating the dangers of McCain, but calling him a “shill” would be wrong.
McCain has not yet convinced me to vote for him. I will vote for Duncan Hunter in the Texas primary and vote for my own conservative local and national candidates, including my US House Representative John Carter, who called last year’s amnesty bill “intolerable.”
So, instead of a Ginsburg, we get a Souter. I feel better already.
This will be a difficult election for true Republicans. We’ve been getting watered down by RINO’s like McCain and his ilk and I’m almost, no thoroughly convinced this is a conceived plan to push this Country further left...
I don’t want him but I fear the alternative...
“So, instead of a Ginsburg, we get a Souter. I feel better already.”
Actually, McCain has praised Roberts as the model Supreme Court Justice. Instead of a Ginsburg, we get a Roberts.
Sorry... no sale.
LLS
Good post. My thoughts exactly.
It’s going to take me awhile to reconcile between the two camps... I am not yet sure what to do in the general.
On the one hand, McCain may be our best hope against completely losing the WOT. On the other, he may be the last straw in completing the GOPs de-evolution into liberal chaos, with no way back from the abyss.
Obama being raw and inexperienced on top of his liberalism may help us. He may fumble in putting together and executing the liberal ideas he’s trying to sell. On the other hand, he could actually succeed on some of his agenda. In either case, he has a distinct possibility of being so Carter-like as to completely turn off the American public to Dimocrats, then we can revolutionize 1994 style.
I really don’t know how it will turn out. Both avenues are mighty grim. Makes me wish I could see into the future!
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.