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.
What, are you drunk?
Isn’t McCain one who prefers the praise of his opponents over the cooperation with his own party?
So to me that means that anything he says is subject to disbelief.
Do you implicitly trust him?
I don’t. A lot of other freepers don’t. Conservatives can’t.
“When driving a car with a tendency to veer left, is it better to fix the car, or to redefine “road” in such a way that the road is always under the car? The GOP is asking us to redefine the road.”
GOP is not asking anything, except they would like your voting support for their candidates. GOP primary voters picked Mccain.
“The GOP establishment wants conservatives to back McCain. The problem is that the GOP has forgotten that conservatism is rooted in principle. “
McCain has not forgotten conservative principles, since he evoked them in his CPAC speech.
“And that’s what I see happening — Those who keep calling McCain a conservative are trying to redefine “conservative” to include someone who truly doesn’t fit the definition.”
Why dont you look at McCains CPAC speech and tell us where he redefining conservative inapprropriately. To his credit, McCain is not describing his deviations from conservative orthodoxy as conservative, but he is claiming to be steeped in conservative values due to his positions on spending etc. which are in line with that ...
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/02/019744.php
“Attention GOP: Instead of conservatives joining McCain, McCain needs to join conservatism. Yes, conservatives will ultimately choose McCain over the Democrat nominee — but I’d rather elect McCain because he promotes conservative values, not because he’s “better than the alternative.””
I certainly agree with that sentiment. Candidates reach out to voters not the other way around. The CPAC speech was a start, and his comments on ‘no new entitlement spending, no new taxes, end AMT,’ etc are encouraging. If he could get more real on immigration that would go a loong way too, although his ‘secure the border first’ was a step forward.
“There is only so much conservatives can do to “reach out” without abandoning their principles.”
How much abandonment of conservative principles are implied by letting the most liberal Senator in the US Senate become our President. What conservative principle are you citing when you imply that outcome of an Obama victory should be dismissed as not a concern?
What congressional district are you in? Conservatives need to support conservative Republicans in the many many races that we see a conservative v liberal running.
Hold our nose and vote mccain but put our real effort in helping downballot conservatives win. That’s the right ticket.
.. and whatever we do. do not let america elect obama. it would be a disaster.
Obama will not cause a backlash. obama will remake America the same way Chavez and Castro remade theirs.
......What, are you drunk?....
In vino....veritas
The rest will find that out in the aftermath of the bloodbath of 08.
You'd think the catastrophic drop in *donations* would've tipped them off by now.
Are you saying that the War on Terror is insignificant to you?
Are you Saying that OBama and Hillary are as fiscally conservative as McCain?
Are these insignificant differences to you?
You are walking that fine line between advocate to shill.
Real republicans actually vote republican. And real conservatives with any semblance of a sense of duty toward the country, do not hand it over to socialist tax raising defeatist pacifists at the onset of a recession and in the middle of a war.
You can spin all you like, but you aren't a conservative or a patriot, just a spoiled brat throwing a hissy fit.
Call me whatever you want if you wish. It means nothing to me. Enjoy.
READ MY LIPS. NO_NEW_RINOS
The Christian Right had no other dog in the hunt. Would you have them vote for one of the radical liberal pro-choice, pro-homosexual candidates (Giuliani, Romney), or one of the moderates that took away their voice with CFR (Thompson, McCain)?
Would that they had coalesced around Hunter or Tancredo... But then, the same could be said of the rest of the conservative factions as well. If we had been seeking a Reagan Coalition candidate, that is where we all should have been.
I teach my kids that the only thing they will ever truly own is their honor, and the only way to be honorable is to be principled and true.
McCain is a traitorous bastard. He is without honor. He is precisely what I warn my kids against.
Enjoy your liberal RINO. WHEN the Conservatives won't vote for him, he'll get what he deserves.
Brilliant!
It is this that is the root of the Reagan Coalition.
Reagan said that the vast majority of Americans are conservative, and he was right.
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.
It goes against the spirit of the Reagan Coalition to vote for a candidate who is a defcon, but not a socon or ficon too. None should be made to hold their nose. No faction should be forced to submit to the others.
It is only when we are equally in favor of (or opposed to) a candidate that any of us have power for change. But when we do unite, that power is insurmountable!
It is when we are united that the truth is revealed, and it peals like a bell across the breadth of the land. Patriots rise up, and the enemies of America (both foreign and domestic) cringe in fear.
It is highly important that we stress the meaning of Conservatism, by definition and description. We have to preach it all the time, as many now entering tis forum haven't a clue what rock ribbed Conservatism is, having only been exposed to the "big (circus) tent".
You would be correct except that the candidate would have to display some vestiges of Conservatism to qualify at all, and would have to be of sound character. Traitorous bastards need not apply.
Also, McCain is not a socialist. Look at single digit ACU rating folks like Obama and Clinton for real socialists. There is no point in abusing the term into meaninglessness.
How many Republicans are beneath McCain on that list?
No, that would be more true of McCain.
Obama seeks to destroy everything Reagan believes in.
No, that would be the Baker wing of the Republican party, and McCain among them.
Ergo, we must defeat Obama to preserve our freedom.
No: Ergo, we must defeat the Bakerites and burn down that damnable big tent of globalism, then stand untied against the enemy outside the gate. A house devided cannot stand.
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.