| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
Get behind McCain
Submitted by Walt Gilbert on Tue, 05/27/2008 - 16:48
The conservative blogosphere and internet bulletin boards are slowly but steadily showing more signs of support for the Republican presidential nominee. Yet, there remains a core of intransigent grousers who seem to scan the web looking for any item which bears his name as an opportunity to post some derogatory remark which almost invariably contains the word "RINO" (Republican In Name Only, for the uninitiated).
For the most part, these people are nothing more than embittered losers who backed some other candidate in the Republican primary races, flummoxed at the very notion that the entire conservative movement didn't line up behind their man -- Tom Tancredo. There are a few remaining Romneyites who still harbor the chronic dyspepsia of loss, by and large, they've come to accept the idea that he simply didn't put together a strong enough case with conservatives that he wasn't the same man who ran to Ted Kennedy's left in his run for the veteran senator's seat in 1994.
Then, there's the talk radio set who are still smarting over the fact that they couldn't muster sufficient forces to bring McCain's campaign to a halt in January, despite a month-long series of three-hour attack ads against him. Of all the sins that McCain has committed against Limbaugh, Levin and Ingraham, the only unforgivable one seems to be winning. Sooner or later, though, they'll have to face up to the fact that even the most devoted audience can tolerate doom, gloom and lament for only so long before they seek out someone with something constructive to say.
As someone who saw McCain's victory coming in December, and decided at that point that it was time to go ahead and get behind him, I'm somewhat surprised at the number of people we conservatives have looked to for wisdom who failed to recognize it. But, what's troubling is the fact that so few of them still have yet to accept it. Rather than come to grips with the fact that the voters chose the man who is best positioned to keep the White House in Republican hands this November, they choose to lament the fact that independents and Democrats (you know, the people whose votes will be needed in order to win the general election) were allowed to participate in the process.
It's hard to say whether these people are more disturbed by the idea that the most doctrinaire conservative in the race didn't win, or the sense that the extent to which they control the Republican Party and influence voters is waning. But, make no mistake about it; the loss of control is a major factor. And, the ongoing complaints of establishment conservative figures amounts to an attempt to reassert their influence by sowing discontent among rank and file conservatives. They figure, "If I can't take the nomination from him, I can at least jawbone him into submission by threatening to keep the GOP base in a constant state of disillusionment."
In doing so, the disgruntled conservative pundit class is doing a grave disservice to the nation. By focusing on all of the areas in which they've disagreed with Sen. McCain over the years, they seek to obfuscate what is undeniably the single most important issue of this election and every election that follows it for a generation; victory in Iraq. Despite the fact that opinion polls show other issues to be of greater importance to the electorate -- such as the economy and gas prices -- a de facto surrender or outright loss will have permanent consequences that won't be mitigated by an improving economy or cheaper fuel.
Some have sought to gloss over the possibility that Obama (or Clinton) would seek a premature troop withdrawal out of fear of being saddled with the loss. They may have a point. But, then again, they could be very wrong. Either way, it's a gamble, and there is no way on earth that the conservative movement would survive a bad bet that places America's credibility as a threat to state sponsor's of terror, or the lives of the troops who have already been lost and those that would be lost in the inevitable escalation of attacks that would ensue in the wake of an electoral victory in which the incoming president made surrender an integral part of his campaign.
But, far more important than the political fallout that would come from conservatives' failure to get behind John McCain as the nominee of the Republican Party is the damage that would likely ensue to the nation itself. The identity crisis that followed our abandonment of Vietnam led America into a period of impotence that we continue to pay for to this day. Osama bin Laden himself has cited our seeming inability to endure serious hardship and unwillingness to tolerate combat casualties in defense of our interests as a rationale for taking on the US, the world's lone superpower, through asymmetrical warfare. And it was our limp-wristed response to the atrocities of Mogadishu, Tanzania, Kenya, and the port in Yemen that provided all the encouragement needed for the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center.
Is there any doubt that, whether bin Laden remains as the face of international Islamic terrorism, or someone moves in to take his place, a withdrawal of troops from Iraq will provide the impetus for more frequent and more lethal attacks on our interests, both foreign and domestic? Is there any doubt that a Barack Obama victory in November will be seen by the forces of Muslim extremism as capitulation?
The simple fact of the matter is that conservatives have two choices. They can choose to stand behind John McCain, who has shown leadership and resolve in the single most important issue facing America for the foreseeable future while working to rebuild a conservative majority from the ground up on other issues that are of undeniable, but subordinate importance to the existence of America as a credible force in the world. Or, they can choose to stay home, teach the Republican leadership a lesson by withholding their votes and monetary support, allow Barack Obama to win in November and hope that it doesn't cost us a few thousand more lives. Or a city. Or worse.
If you're tempted to allow the Democrats to take over all three branches of government in the hope that they'll make such a hash of things that the GOP will benefit in the aftermath, you need to do some serious thinking about what that aftermath might be. You're also showing a good bit of ideological pusillanimity if you think that the Republican Party -- or conservatism -- can only appeal to voters when contrasted against the hoped-for failures of the alternative. And, if you're willing to let America suffer whatever may come for the sake of political positioning, you're much worse than any RINO that you despise. You're barely distinguishable from the terrorists themselves.
(5 votes)
Promos
Recent blog posts
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Skip MacLure
1 comments
TaylorD
0 comments
FMeekins
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
cringinghere
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Recent comments
-
Joseph Hertzlinger
-
samuelajanaku
-
Robin1
-
OzarkGuru
-
dean2
Search
Links
The American Scene
Conservablogs
Election Projection
FiveThirtyEight.com
Jonathan Martin
Marc Ambinder
Megan McArdle
Patrick Ruffini
Pollster.com
The Foundry
Government Bytes
Race 4 2008
Real Clear Politics
RedState
Ross Douthat
Soren Dayton
Infrastructure
America's Future Foundation
Americans for Prosperity
Americans for Tax Reform
American Majority
Club for Growth
Election Journal
Heritage Foundation
ATR Blog
Leadership Institute
NewsBusters
Sam Adams Alliance
Republican National Lawyers Association
Republican Liberty Caucus
Washington Watch
National Taxpayers Union
NetRight Nation
Good Lefty Blogs
MyDD
Open Left
Swing State Project
Comments
Agreed, agreed, totally agreed!
You said it, Walt. Geevum, brah! That's Hawaiian style for "Nicely written post". Or as Laura Ingraham (whose TNR subscription I cancelled due to my objection to her, Sean, Rush and all other talk radio hosts "doing a disservice to the nation") would say: Period. Dot. Bingo.
Thanks GOP Rebel
I appreciate your comments, and just wish more conservatives would understand just what's at stake in this election. Unfortunately, they've bought into a lot of myths that can't be undone in a short period of time.
I've honestly reached the point where, if the Republican Party has to fall apart in order to preserve the nation itself, so be it. They've got their priorities and I have mine. The difference is, if my priorities take precedence, everyone gets to live. If their priorities take precedence, at least some will die.
Let that be on their conscience.
You want us to vote for McCain...
...because he has an (R) beside his name? I am sorry, I can't do that and be true to my political ideals. You see, I believe in my political ideals. I believe they are what the country needs...not a fella with an (R) beside his name.
The problem with our present political process is that it has been taken over by political professionals who believe winning is the most important thing in an election. If we don't win, the country will suffer is always their lament.
Yes, the country will suffer. I dare say even a few Supreme Court judges may be appointed by a liberal administration, but some times in a true democracy the electorate makes the wrong decision. When the people make the wrong decision, they will learn from their mistake far, far quicker than the right can possibly convince them otherwise. What we don't need now is four to eight years of a guy who can't seem to make up his mind on his conservative values. Supporting John McCain now will only prolong the learning curve this country desperately needs to undergo before Reagan-Republicanism can once again be seen and valued by the electorate. Until that time we can do what we have always done in this kind of a situation...party build.
So relax. The sky isn't falling. History has shown us it may turn out to be even more beneficial to the conservative cause than we even dreamed.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Well David. . .
. . .you can stay home and guard your precious vote. But, should Barack Obama win as a consequence of your intransigence, I hope you'll come back to The Next Right and post your apologies to the families of the soldiers and civilians whose lives will be lost as a result of your acquiescence to Islamic terrorism.
You're either with McCain, or you're with the terrorists as far as I'm concerned. I'll sleep just fine knowing I voted for McCain. I hope you'll sleep just as well knowing you could have, but chose not to because you can't bring yourself to vote for anyone who isn't Ronald Reagan.
Let me tell you something, though. There weren't any Reagans in this race, there aren't going to be any Reagans for a long, long time. And there's only been one Reagan in history.
According to the standards put up by most of the chronically indignant wing of the GOP, there's only been one president elected in the history of this nation who wasn't a RINO. If you're going to be stupid enough to let the world pass by while you wait for the next one, that's your business. But, the rest of us have a real world to live in. So, if it's not too much to ask, go find something else to do besides playing keyboard kowboy until the next Reagan comes along. You're contributing nothing but fantasy in a time when the real world requires reality-based contributions.
What Else is Wrong With The GOP
Lines and arguements like this:
You're either with McCain, or you're with the terrorists as far as I'm concerned.
The American people are tired of this baseless fearmongering crap that frankly we've been serving since 9/11. Worse, it only makes the real threat of terrorism seem not real.
No kidding!
No kidding..."acquiescence to terrorism"? Good grief. Do people really believe this stuff?
If Barack Obama win as a consequence of my intransigence...
...it will be the best thing that happened to conservatism and the Republican Party, and the nation, since Jimmy Carter.
As far as our nation's Iraq/foreign policy is concerned, please be assured, campaign rhetoric aside, there is not a substantive difference between any of the three major presidential candidates in our Iraq/foreign policy. The fact is, as we all know it, we are in Iraq and will stay there until we are either driven out or we chose to leave because it is in our national interests to do so.
Now is not the time to try and redefine conservatism towards the left simply because you think it may win the next election. Now I know this may sound heretical to you and others, but conservatives have more important goals to achieve than just winning the next presidental election. We are far, far more concerned about bringing our political values to the forefront of the political debate than winning.
So, again, relax. Don't flame-out on conservatism just because you have bought into the political elite's line....their political values have been for sale to the highest bidder for a long time now.
ex animo
davidfarrar
You seem awfully confident. . .
. . .that Obama won't do anything to encourage the enemy. The fact is, his very election would be an encouragement to not only al Qaeda in Iraq, but every terrorist on the planet. It will show a lack of resolve among the American people, providing the very impetus that terrorists of every stripe rely on as justification for their methods.
The fact is that it has been demonstrated that mere media coverage that shows a lack of support for the war on terror causes an increase in attacks by insurgents in Iraq. What on earth do you think these terror groups would do in the wake of an Obama victory considering the fact the main rationale of his candidacy is his opposition to the war in Iraq?
You have your self-declared conservative principles -- none of which appear to be American victory, by the way -- that somehow forbid you from voting for or supporting the lone candidate in the race who has stood by America's actions in Iraq, and provided the key leadership needed in creating the surge which brought a horrible situation under control. I suppose that's all well and good if you honestly believe that an Obama victory will have no impact either way with regard to the course of the war on terror going forward.
But, how many American lives are you willing to bet on it? How many flag draped coffins can your precious politcal principles withstand? How many suicide bombings, beheadings, and bodies dragged through the streets of Iraq will it take for you to come around and reconsider that maybe, just maybe, America's victory is more important than the shape of your political party?
I suspect that number is a lot smaller than you think it is right now.
Seriously
Are you seriously this deluded?
And what exactly do you mean by the phrase "American victory"? I've yet to hear anyone define it in measurable objectives.
Is continued inflexible - dare I say intransigent - support of a costly and deadly war really something to be proud of? Really?
You realize that in spite of all your attempts at eloquent rhetoric, there will be a lot fewer bodies dragged through the streets of Baghdad and considerably fewer body bags shipped home when we design an exit strategy for Iraq and then execute it.
I'm sure there are plenty of arguments that can be made on why to support McCain, but your readers will lend your argument quite a bit more credence when you stop relying on so much hyperbole to make your points.
Enough of these scare tactics.
For the record, I support this nation's Iraq effort. I have always supported it. I still support it. And if you look at their records, all three presidential candidates support that effort as well. Sure there are nuances, and in a presidential campaign those nuances can and do get blown up out of all proportion to justify anything and anyone.
My point is simply this, we are engaged in a philosophical tug of war that will define this nation for decades to come, long after the Iraq war is over and forgotten, long after this election is over and forgotten. And it is to this struggle we must devote ourselves if the nation's ideals are to survive. And to give up those ideals simply to support a candidate that just happens to be the lessor of two weevils...I am sorry, I couldn't resist...seems to me to be dishonorable and self-serving.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Baseless fearmongering
Not one person who hoots down my premise has offered any alternative that shows where a failure to support the candidate who has done the most to further our progress in Iraq is anything less than acquiescence to terror. You may resent it, which is fine. But, the conclusion is inescapable.
Again, you either support McCain, or you acquiesce to terror. It really is as simple as that. If you think I'm wrong, ask an al Qaeda or Hamas member. They're four-square behind McCain's opposition.
To base your support....
...for a presidental candidate purely on the premise that to do otherwise would be an acquiescence to terror, is, in itself, an acquiescence to terror.
If you truly believe this nation's Iraq/foreign policy is in such political jeopardy the continuation of which depends on electing the right candidate on November 4, 2008, let me suggest to you that that fight has already been lost.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Well, David. . .
. . .why the hell aren't you out there campaigning for Obama?
Or are you?
You haven't addressed a single point I've raised. Not one.
That leads me to believe that either you don't give a damn about how many American lives an Obama presidency will cost us, or you simply don't want to address the issue. And, if you're the David Farrar that hails from New Zealand, I can only assume that it's a combination of both.
Again -- how many lives are you willing to stake on Obama's presidency? One? One thousand? One hundred thousand? It's your call. Give us a number.
Attacking the messenger...
...instead of the message is an indication of your weakness, not mine. How kind. Thank you.
I am not out there campaigning on Obama's behalf because I don't believe in the man's political beliefs. As I have said, the goal here is to further one's own political ideals for the sake of the country, not follow the crowd's because you think it may win the next election.
As for you assertion that I haven't addressed a single one of your points, let's try it again; shall we?
I think we both agree on the Iraq/foreign policy issue. We both believe it was the right decision made at the right time (keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of Hussein) and to create a bulwark against Iran. I believe that commitment is there and will continue to be there long after this next election, not because of the next president we elect, but because it is in our national interests.
You goggled my name? How kind. I consider that a complement. I almost feel ashamed now I haven't googled yours. Nevertheless, as far as New Zealand is concerned, I have never been there, but would like to go there someday.
ex animo
davdfarrar
David, David, David. . .
. . .how does one attack an argument like the silly notion that the war has already been lost if the next president is capable of losing it? That idea had to come from somewhere, so you might as well hit the source.
Nevertheless, as your argument is laid out, you seem to be of the mind that the mere presence of American troops in Iraq is the goal, and what they do while they're there is of no relevance. What else can you conclude from the assertion that the next election, which will determine the leadership of the effort -- from the secretaries of the armed forces, to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to the Secretary of Defense, to the head of the NSA, to the CIA chairman, to the Homeland Security secretary -- all levels of government, won't matter? If you think that none of these appointments has any bearing whatsoever on the prosecution of the war in Iraq, and anywhere else where action might be required, you'd have to be delusional.
It won't matter who the president is when it comes to dealing with nuclear proliferation in Iran, North Korea, or even Venezuela? It won't matter who the president is when Hamas feels they have a strong enough ally in the White House that they can launch offensives into Israel? It won't matter who the president is when Hezbollah decides to reassert itself in Lebanon?
OK. Well, if you seriously believe all of that, and enough conservatives concur, then I'd have to say you're correct about one thing: the war is already lost. Fortunately, I suspect that you're in a rather distinct minority in that regard.
No need to Google my name, for what it's worth. You won't find much about me. Just some other guy with the same name who has a Nobel Prize in one of the genetic sciences. And, believe me, that ain't me.
For the record...
..I don't believe the war is lost. You do. If you truly believe the political will of this country is so weak it cannot sustain its national security interest in Iraq past the next election, then by those terms, the war is already lost.
I think we both agree on the Iraq/foreign policy issue. We both believe it was the right decision made at the right time (keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the murderous hands of Hussein) and to create a bulwark against Iran. I believe that commitment is there and will continue to be there long after this next election.
Sure, John McCain is going to campaign on this issue because he knows it will keep voters' attention away from the real issue of empowering people, the true conservative objective of any presidential campaign.
ex animo
davidfarrar
What's wrong with the Republican Party?
People like Walt Gilbert.
The simple fact of the matter is that conservatives have two choices. They can choose to stand behind John McCain, who has shown leadership and resolve in the single most important issue facing America for the foreseeable future
I'm really disinterested in your opinion as to what is the "single most important issue facing America for the foreseeable future". FYI, the people voting for McCain in the primaries were people opposed to the Iraq war.
I'm really disinterested in
In which case, I trust I won't be reading any more of these insightful critiques:
This has absolutely no more bearing on my reasons for supporting him than it does on your reasons for opposing him, nor is it entirely (or even mostly) accurate. Some people oppose Barack Obama because he's black. Should we then conclude that anyone who opposes him for other reasons is wrongheaded?
This raises the question ...
Again -- how many lives are you willing to stake on Obama's presidency? One? One thousand?
... of what standard of misbehavior gets people booted off the site.
Everyone is entitled to voice their own opinion
I assume this is a conservative blog, "The Next Right". I would hope everyone would be free to express themselves freely, as long as they observed normal decorum, which I have no doubt Mr. Gilbert has.
So I am completely at a loss as to why you would want to kick Mr. Gilbert off this site.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Asinine assessments. . .
. . .of my position don't bolster your case. But, if that's the salve that soothes you, have at it. But, please, go haunt someone else's thread if you're going to try to make the simple minded case that the war on terror is somehow a "distraction" meant to keep people from thinking about their empowerment. It's not going to fly here.
You've gone from trying to make the case that Jimmy Carter was the best thing to ever happen to America and conservatism -- one of the most off-the-wall statements I've ever seen in print that wasn't penned by Molly Ivins -- to trying to convince me (or yourself?) that it doesn't matter who is president when the nation is at war, just so long as we're maintaining a presence wherever it is that the war happens to be taking place, regardless of what we're doing there.
I don't see a single passage in anything that I've written that could possibly be construed to mean that "the political will of this country is so weak it cannot sustain its national security interest in Iraq past the next election". In fact, what you've done here is attempt to cover the tracks of your own clumsy reasoning and shortsightedness by intentionally refusing to address not only the consequences that would arise in Iraq in the event of an Obama victory, but every other national security hotspot as well. I don't blame you for that. After all, to do so might reveal the extent to which your perception of the world around you is distorted by a childish, impetuous hatred for John McCain.
But, by all means, feel free to ignore the reality of the world around you and pretend that the only thing that matters in this presidential election is the utterly fatuous notion that a McCain presidency will somehow render conservatism meaningless, that it's worth gambling untold numbers of lives on the idea that Obama can't possibly screw things up any worse than Jimmy Carter did, and that some towering phoenix of conservatism will rise from the ashes of his ineptitude.
It's not me who believes that the war is lost. I think we're very much on the offensive and making daily gains as a consequence of the leadership of John McCain and a precious few others who advocated and pushed hard for the strategy that created the turnaround we're currently seeing. No, the war will be lost when people like you -- who view it as a mere distraction that gets in the way of people thinking about their empowerment, and believe that those who make up of the leadership responsible for prosecuting it are mere figureheads who exercise no real control over its course -- constitute the conventional wisdom of the political party that the people turn to for national security.
UPDATE: Edited to preserve the decorum in appreciation of my debate opponent's fairminded defense of my right to continue posting here as long as I observe the standards of decorum.
Walt,
I think you have called yourself a "Progressive Republican", a "Liberal" Republican. I am not. I am a Goldwater-Reagan Republican, who understands that to achieve victory, we must have the political will of the nation behind the effort or our cause is lost. If you truly believe this nation's political will cannot be sustained unless John McCain is elected president, than the war has already been lost. I do not believe that is the case. Both Clinton and Obama have both equivocated on their "pull-the-troops out" campaign positions.
The real issue in this campaign is the economy. Without an improving economy, again, the Iraq war effort cannot be sustained. If such is the case, our best hope will be to start "party-building" as quickly as possible to regain that national will, and there is nothing more effective to conservative party-building as a "Progressive" president sitting in the Whitehouse.
ex animo
davidfarrar
David,
I admire your perseverance. It's quite impressive.
Thank you.
Perserverance is the only thing us Goldwater-Reagen Republicans can exhibit to those who seek to redefine conservativtism in this country simply to win an election.
ex animo
davidfarrar
I consider myself more a Reagan conservative
than of Goldwater's stripe, though my perspective is colored by my relative age in the era that each held prominence. Still, I am not willing to turn the nation over to even the most well-intentioned imbeciles who will fail to keep it safe. A term under Obama might be the best thing to awaken the American people to their dire need to demand an entirely different philosophy at the helm, but if the character of the nation changes as radically as he would have it during that term, it might well be too late. The global war on radical Islamic terrorism trumps the economy hands down.
The war on terrorism.
The battlefield upon which the global war on radical Islamic terrorism is being fought is the U.S. economy.
We cannot successfully bring the war on radical Islamic terrorism to a successful conclusion without a sustaining economy. That's why the World Trade Centers were attacked and destroyed in the first place. So you see, Dan; if the goal is victory over radical Islamic terrorism, the economy wins, hands down.
A<!-- /comment-inner, /comment -->nd please, this topic is far too important to speak in silly absolutes. Obama is not an imbecile, and the character of the American people isn't going to radically change, and time will not run out. I feel it necessary here to remind you gentlemen, we are a strong nation, a strong democracy, a strong people. The inherent strength of a democracy lies in its mistakes...in the end, it is the only true way the people, as a whole, can discover the right path.
Our job as Reagan conservatives is not to allow our ideals to be stolen or misrepresented simply to win the next election, but to vouchsafe these ideals to all who will be seeking them when the right path is discovered.
ex animo
davidfarrar
You ask way too much
There is simply no way that I, or any other conservative can take it as an article of faith that Obama is not an imbecile. Hell, you couch the prospect of his presidency is those very terms when you state (hope?) that it will be such an unmitigated fiasco that it's bound to give birth to a whole new Ronald Reagan.
I'm actually beginning to question your motives here. No one can possibly be so strongly sold on the idea that Obama will be a better president than McCain and call themselves a conservative. And, if you're not saying that Obama will be a better president than McCain, and still maintain that McCain should not be elected, then you don't have the interest of the nation at heart.
As for your economic theory, you seem to have everything backwards. The economy is going to hang on our success in the global war against islamic extremists. If we don't confront the threat wherever it presents itself, it will end up costing far more dearly in blood and treasure, require much longer and more expensive engagements, and God knows how much it will cost to rebuild that nuked city.
It was a lack of vigilance and resolve that put us in this predicament in the first place. It was the failure to react to attacks on our interests that emboldened the enemy to the extent that they could inflict the immense damage on our economy that they've been able to thus far. Imagine what sort of economic boom the US would have experienced had the attacks on the World Trade Center never occurred. Imagine where we would be if we hadn't been forced to expend so many of our resources in an after-the-fact reckoning that could have been prevented by a more muscular early response.
Quite frankly, anyone who has witnessed Obama's complete incoherence with regard to foreign policy and still not be trouble by the prospect of four to eight years of an administration put together by him and his team would have to be either completely out to lunch, or deliberately trying to minimize the importance of foreign policy as an issue in order to benefit the Obama campaign.
All that aside, would you mind explaining to the rest of us just how it is, assuming your sincerity on the issue, an Obama presidency will be better for the US economy than a McCain presidency?
Now Walt,
it's going to be hard for us to cover any ground if you put words in my mouth. So tighten your rhetoric up a little bit. And try not to run around with your hair on fire on this issue. Again, we want to try and move forward and avoid repeating ourselves.
I don't think I have every stated that I thought Obama would either be a better president than McCain or that his economic proposal would result in a better economy. Indeed, quite the opposite.
For the record, and for you, one more time; I believe that neither McCain, nor Obama, has any real notion about cutting taxes to levels where it would empower the people enough to create a prosperous economy during their presidency. As a result, since this country is going to take a major economic hit, I would prefer Obama take the hit, while conservatives party-build.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Oh, David. . .
. . .any person of principle believes that you vote for and support the candidate who will be best for the nation. To do otherwise is to intentionally inflict harm on the nation.
What you're doing by maintaining that it's best that Obama take the hit is (1) glossing over the fact that Obama won't be taking the hit, but rather the American people, and (2) engaging in the kind of foolish political gamesmanship that got us where we are today.
What rests at the core of your argument is the kind of deep, poisonous cynicism that pervades Washington D.C. and symbolizes everything that so thoroughly disgusts people about their government. You don't seem to really care what people have to endure on their way to your ideological Shangri La. It's all academic to you, as far as I can tell.
I suspect that much of the reason that John McCain is the nominee today is that a good portion of the voting public is starting to get a glimpse into that insidious worldview. It also explains the unexpected popularity of Mike Huckabee.
I have to tell you, if you think that by taking the attitude that you seem to take toward the welfare of the nation you're going to bring the people back to conservatism, you're going to have an awfully long wait. There are people reading this right now who salivate at the very idea that The Next Right will take the form you seem to advocate, and those people don't have aims that even remotely resemble yours.
A person of principle...
...by definition, stands by their principles. Simply voting for the closest candidate to your principles renders true disservice to the country.
Now we have gone over this particular point before. We live in a democracy. A democracy's true strength comes in its unique ability to make mistakes and to learn from those mistakes. A key aspect of this process is people of principle standing by their political ideals. Nobody said democracy was efficient or cheap. I think you will find democracy is sometimes inefficient and very, very expensive...despots and dictators have always known this...but it does allow those governed to arrive at the right path at the right time more often than any other form of government.
So while you presently can't see the wisdom of not supporting John McCain, but instead, holding to your principles, it does serve the country's larger political interests.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Honestly, David. . .
. . .I suspect you've been living by this little set of principles all your life. Unfortunately, the world moved on without you, just as the GOP moved on without the Birchers and the militia movement.
Tell ya what. You hang out in your ivory tower playing your little parlor games and draw the benefits of the proverbial blood, sweat and tears of those of us who are out there actually participating in the business of democracy, as opposed to the theoretical self-abuse that you and other pseudo-intellectuals tend to immerse themselves in. My support of McCain will, in the end, work to guarantee your right to dispense your wisdom from on high and grant you the opportunity for all the richly deserved pats on the back that you those of your ilk enjoy dealing out to one another.
Again, though, I see that you don't have an answer for what the consequences of an Obama administration will be with regard to Iran, North Korea, Syria, Venezueala, Hamas, Hezbollah, Lebanon, and all the other trouble spots the world over. You don't seem to want to address what those consequences will bring to bear on the economy in your monomanical pursuit of tax cuts. You don't seem to want to coutenance the impact that an Obama administration will have on the courts. In fact, you don't seem much concerned with anything but the absurd notion that a brand new Ronald Reagan, only more like Ronald Reagan than the real one, is going to come a-ridin' to the rescue and restore America to some mythical pre-1913 utopia where all people spent their days in boundless wonder at the bounty that life had placed before them.
In any event, from what I gather, your entire philosophy and the guiding principles contained therein seem to be centered around nothing more than a reduction in taxes and gold buggery -- tax cuts being a most admirable pursuit, and gold buggery being nothing more than a fantasy among those who cling to a long lost, paranoiac vision of John Birch Society inspired kookery which will never return. You have my undying support on at least half of it.
I wish you luck in your quixotic endeavors and hope you, and the rest of us, survive the next four years. That way, even if all is lost, I'll have four more years of my life in which to pursue happiness, and you'll have four more years in which to perfect your theory which will undoubtedly be the basis of our next great national experiment in rebuilding a civilization.
As far as Progressive Republicanism goes
I probably should have pointed out more clearly that I don't think it's a completely accurate depiction of where I stand. I thought that the caveat in which I pointed out that the actual desire to do great things was a bit of a curse, as opposed to the blessing of the ability to do great things, would suffice to draw the distinction in that regard. So, on that point, I will cop to a lack of clarity. On that front, I would say that I actually fall right where the Goldwater Republicans overlap with Progressive Republicans, using the chart as a guide.
My point is that, at this particular time, John McCain is the president that America needs just as Teddy Roosevelt was the president that America needed and wanted in his time. Irrespective of how one feels about the way he governed with regard to ideology, he is nearly universally regarded as a great president. And, there are times in history that require great men -- men of fortitude and courage -- to lead their nations through perilous times. There's not an iota of doubt in my mind that these are the most perilous times our nation has faced in my life. And, while I'm no clairvoyant, I suspect that our nation is going to face in the very near future some extremely grave choices which I cannot bring myself to believe that Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton are even remotely as prepared to make as John McCain is.
Simply put, there is absolutely no reason that party building can't take place under John McCain's presidency. The fact of the matter is, he's not running as the GOP standard bearer, so the idea that his election will remake the GOP in his mold leaves me very skeptical. Couple that with what the Republican House and Senate caucuses looked like under Reagan administration, and I don't see how anyone could make the case that the GOP became significantly more conservative under his tenure. After all, it wasn't until 1994 that there was any real attempt at a national conservative agenda that had any impact on the ideological makeup of the party.
When it comes down to it, the election of George H.W. Bush didn't destroy Republican Party. Neither did the elections of Dwight Eisenhower or Richard Nixon. There is no reason to believe that John McCain is going to have anywhere near the deleterious impact on the GOP that so many disgruntled conservatives fear that it will. And, even if the GOP fell to pieces tomorrow, I'm quite OK with that. Right now, the highest priority should be defending the nation. Period. As I've said on previous occasions -- it's a lot easier to rebuild a party than it is to rebuild a nuked city. And I'm not foolish enough to believe that my core political beliefs matter one little bit when the threat of a nuclear-armed, state sponsored terrorist group gets its hands on a nuke via Iran, North Korea, or any other rogue state comes to fruition.
Gentlemen! You Can't Fight In Here, This is the War Room!
First, I have to agree with Lisa that David is indeed impressive - not only for persistent and civil debate, but for upholding Walt's right to free expression and debate without being booted off the site as Jon Sandor recommended. Plus anyone who uses the signature ex animo (sincerely or heartily) reminds me of my really cool Latin professor at Purdue. It (and this whole discussion) inspired me as follows:
And my personal favorite:
Those snippets are from Wheelock Chapter XXXIII on conditions. In Information Technology, we refer to conditions as "IF-THEN-ELSE" statements. For example:
I heartily agree with Lisa and anyone else who despairs of the complete lack of effective communication regarding what constitutes "victory" in Iraq. It is very frustrating to goal-oriented people like myself who prefer to deal in tangible goals and results.
Baseless fear-mongering and Bush's failed foreign policy rhetoric aside (I will leave that to David Axelrod and Barack Obama), I formulate my IF-THEN-ELSE logic on the following historical examples of what actually did happen when we precipitously left Vietnam, which are well documented in Arthur Herman's WSJ article Democrats and the Killing Fields:
If I understand Walt correctly, I think this is what he wants to say to everyone who feels it's more important to vote their principles in this election than vote for John McCain. And of course that's a choice people are free to make, but for some of us, that choice would not allow us to live with ourselves having once again abandoned an entire country to the sword of our enemies.
Since I'm old enough to remember having already experienced this absolute horror once in my living history, I'm with Walt on asking everyone to really, really dig deep before committing to do it again. For those who are younger and don't remember how we failed the citizens of South Vietnam by allowing a radically inspired group of very vocal college students, vets, emotionally distraught families and the media to manipulate a Democratic majority into allowing criminal acts of genocide and gross political negligence, my only suggestion is to read the history, hopefully weep, and not repeat the same mistake again in Iraq. Please respond after you look into it, thanks everyone.
Impressive conjugating,
Impressive conjugating, Rebel. The whole discussion rather reminded me that in matters of politics and debate style, degustibus non est disputandum.
Economically speaking...
Very classy. I can't vouch for matters of taste (which, theoretically at least, shouldn't differ greatly between us anyway), but I definitely like your style.
As Becker and Stigler might say, the "price" of appreciating my argument in favor of McCain and his Iraq policy drops as more skill is acquired in validating it. Heh.
Fear-mongering again, are we?
As I have stated in this thread on numerous occasions, with the exception of Ron Paul, the issue of an irresponsibly precipitous withdraw from Iraq has not been espoused by any of the three remaining presidential candidates. The very predicate upon which you have based your suggestion that we should all just stop thinking for ourselves and let the "professionals" do the thinking, is baseless. Let's see, "how many people do you think we can scare into giving up their conservative principles and vote for my guy, McCain, if we hang out the specter of 250,000 Iraqis dying in a sectarian bloodbath if we leave Iraq irresponsibly?
Is that the best you can do?
America's safety and security means nothing to creatures who would suggest such a betrayal of one's personal values simply to win the next election. Must you also sell our democracy out so cheap as to suggest such a course of action.
absit invidia
davidfarrar
Uh. . .
In January of 2007, Barack Obama proposed legislation that would have had all combat troops withdrawn from Iraq as of March 31 of this year. I'd call that precipitous and irresponsible.
Yes, Walt; thank you.
I think Obama has also stated he will bring the troops home in a responsible manner. What we have here is a fine example of good, old fashion pa-pa-pa-politicing -- nothing more.
But, Hey! If you want to be scared into voting for McCain by the political elite, it's your vote.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Ah, yes. The "elite".
They're always a great bogeyman, aren't they? Now, are we talking about the Council on Foreign Relations elite? The Trilateral Commission elite? Or, are we talking about the Bilderberg elite?
Still, I'm at a loss as to how it would have been possible to bring home all combat troops as of the end of last month in a responsible fashion. Do tell.
I'm also curious as to who would dispense with the politickin' and state forthrightly, "I'll abandon Iraq yesterday, I don't care how irresponsible it is." I mean, are we supposed to believe every politician even knows what the meaning of the word "responsibility" is, much less how to exercise it?
I mean, really. We're supposed to believe Obama would bring home the troops in a responsible way because he said he would? Well, if that's all it takes to convince you, I think I read a statement where John McCain said he would run his administration right down to every jot and tittle of the David Farrar philosophy of government. I'll dig up the quote if you'd like.
Yes, Walt...
As I told you before, the Iraq war is not the defining issue in this campaign, for two basic reasons: One, the economy is the real battleground in the war against global terrorism. And, two, our commitment to that theater of operations is strategic, not political. What this means is, Obama or whomever, will have their political viewpoints as candidates, but under oath of office as Commander-in-Chief, the strategic position will prevail. You and I both know this to be true.
What is happening now is the political elites (the moneyed interests) of both parties are using the Iraq war to muster support to their side. It's what we call politicking.
I understand why they are doing it. But it doesn't make it right.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Some people see the world entirely in Black and White
Ronald Reagan saw the world in Bold Colors. John McCain sees pale pastels.
The world is NOT black and white (except long stretches of Kansas -- but that is for another discussion) Disagreement with McCain does not (black and white) mean you support Obama. The decision to support McCain does not bold colors make.
I suspect, in the end, most Conservatives will hold their noses and vote for MAC (pale pastels). They will NOT send him money, they will not put up yardsigns, they will not place bumperstickers on their cars. But, in the voting booth, they will not allow themselves to usher in another liberal disaster.
Too many of us did just that in 1992....not again
Possibly
Possibly the best comment in the thread, so far.
You may be right
But will it really make a difference? I suspect not.
Massive government spending will continue under McCain, unabated. The Fed will continue to print even more money to cover the deficit because the politicians cannot go to the people and ask them directly for a tax increase...instead they continue to steal it from us without our knowledge much less our consent. Our dollar will continue to devalue, our gas prices will continue to sky-rocket as a result and we will be left wondering yet again, who can I vote for to stop massive run-away government spending before our hard work is paid for in Monopoly money?
ex animo
davidfarrar