McCain fallout: What’s conservative talk radio’s next move? Update: Whither immigration?

posted at 10:53 am on January 30, 2008 by Allahpundit

Medved used McCain’s last victory to flog the industry for being irrelevant, a dubious point given the fact that he’d won only open primaries to that point but decidedly less dubious this morning with J-Mac and Mitt splitting conservatives in Florida, 33-33. (It was independents registered as Republicans who put him over the top, natch.) What now? The Observer previews the spin:

[One claim] would be that the conservative punditry actually “won.” Mr. McCain has been getting stronger, they would argue, by embracing conservative positions in order to gain the nomination. Mr. McCain confessed that he had learned the lesson about immigration reform, that border control is essential before pursuing any legalization plan for those already here. He promised to retain the Bush tax cuts. He embraced his support of gun rights and touted his pro-life voting record. This, the conservatariat could contend, and not Mr. McCain’s global-warming ruminations or his role in the Gang of 14, is what helped him win.

They could, except that they’ve spent weeks accusing McCain of being a liberal Democrat who’ll quickly resort to his natural ways once elected. To claim now that he only won by tacking right is to admit either that the base is full of gullible morons or that they’re not listening to talk radio. The likelier spin, also identified by the Observer, is to follow the left’s playbook after Kerry lost in ’04 and shoot the messengers by blaming Romney, Thompson, and Giuliani for being bad candidates. That would at least have the advantage of being true and would theoretically absolve talk radio — although if the knock on Mitt is that he can’t convincingly sell conservatism, the question becomes why, if Rush and Hannity are so influential, their own salesmanship isn’t enough to compensate. The answer may be that they, and he, can sell conservatism, but that “conservative” doesn’t mean “Republican” to quite the same extent it used to. Just a theory for now, but ask me again next Tuesday night if Maverickmania sweeps across the land.

My own hunch, which isn’t really a hunch so much as what I’d like to believe, is that McCain won because he’s the hedgehog to Romney’s fox. Mitt knows many things but McCain knows one big thing, i.e. Iraq, and when push comes to shove the GOP wants to win the war above all else. I’d like to believe that, only because the thought that Maverick won on the merits across the board is too dismal. Anyway, exit question: How does talk radio handle this week? Short of formally endorsing Romney, Limbaugh’s played every card he has on McCain, including an extravagant election day attack and a veiled threat earlier not to vote Republican in November if certain unnamed candidates are nominated. Does he go all-in by breaking his rule not to endorse in primaries and campaigning for Romney in earnest? If so and McCain sweeps Super Tuesday anyway, it’ll be final confirmation of the Medved thesis and the most humiliating rebuke since, well, since Giuliani’s vote totals last night.

Update: Yes, I’m aware that the exit polls put the economy ahead of Iraq as the most important issue, 45-14. And yes, I’m also aware that the guy who won admits publicly to not understanding economics as well as he should. I’m just … trying not to think about it.

Update: Another exit question: Is talk radio in better or worse shape than border enforcement right now? David Brooks and Bob Novak are already crowing about the irrelevance of Romney’s comparatively hard line against amnesty. That can be spun for the moment by pointing to Florida’s big Cuban minority. Same result next Tuesday, though? Not so much.

Update (Bryan): I think Brooks and Novak are intentionally missing the point re immigration. The fact is, McCain had to publicly track to the right on that and enough voters evidently bought it, at least to the extent that it neutralized Romney’s stance. Those voters didn’t hear about Juan Hernandez or the rest of the evidence that McCain’s conversion is insincere because the MSM didn’t report it. Talk radio didn’t do much with it either. Laura Ingraham brought it up, but I don’t think Rush or Hannity have. Novak and Brooks also fail to take into account the recent trio of immigration enforcement wins in NY, MI and MD. Those occurred under Democrat governors responding to pressure from the electorate, and the one in NY rattled the Clinton campaign for a while.

So those two are sticking to their preferred storyline, but they’re wrong.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

They don’t want states to decide. They want everyone to be forced to accept homosexual marriages. Period.

You’re absolutely right. But even a state like CA, where liberal thought dominates the media and population centers, was able to pass a measure against gay marriage. We can fight the Social Progressive movement this way — we don’t need to seek a Constitutional Amendment.

HebrewToYou on January 30, 2008 at 3:19 PM

Here’s where we’re headed.

Gregor on January 30, 2008 at 3:24 PM

Spirit of 1776, that exactly what the Bill of Rights does: enumerates the rights, endowed by our Creator, that cannot be trampled on. That is why the Tenth Amendment says, essentially, that everything else is either legislated by the states or determined by individuals.

HebrewToYou on January 30, 2008 at 2:44 PM

Not so, my friend. Not only is that congruent with the philosophy from which the document is derived, it is also incongruent with the document. For example the 9th reads, “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That is, of course, separate in both place and terminology from the tenth, but as you noted even there are the people: “powers…are reserved to the States, or the people.”

In short you are using the language of the Declaration of Independence to explain the intent of the Constitution. This is not appropriate as they served two different purposes. The former was a declaration and justification of that declaration by appeal to violations of both common and natural law. The Constitution, on the other hand, is a framework to direct common law.

Spirit of 1776 on January 30, 2008 at 3:25 PM

For example the 9th reads, “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Which is why the Tenth Amendment then states that those other rights are to be determined by the States — which is mentioned BEFORE the people — and if not the state, then the individual.

So, in order:
The Federal Gov’t enumerates the rights endowed by the creator and recognized nationally. The State then further refines those rights to match the will of the citizens of that state. Anything not covered by those two parties is then left up to the people.

There is no mention of marriage in the Bill of Rights. It is then up to the states to decide what to do with that issue. If the state doesn’t weigh in on the issue then it’s simply decided by the individual.

HebrewToYou on January 30, 2008 at 3:34 PM

Which is why the Tenth Amendment then states that those other rights are to be determined by the States — which is mentioned BEFORE the people — and if not the state, then the individual.

Not quite. First, again the Constitution is not the same in intent when commenting on rights; I leave my previous comment to elaborate on that. Second, the tenth amendment is about powers, not rights. That is to say jurisdictions of government, which is the development and application of common law, not natural law. Look for example at the language of the 1st or the 7th, which even uses the phrase common law

The 9th states that not all rights (again not powers) are enumerated within the Constitution. The list in the Bill of Rights in not intended to be exclusive. Not even the Declaration attempts to do that as it’s language is “among these rights are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

The 9th makes it plan that other rights are retained by the people. The point of the BoR is not to enumerate rights, but to explicitly state those which the federal government has no authority to alter.

To argue whether marriage should be determined by the Federal or state level, you must first yield it to the power of common law, as opposed to the dictates of common law. Which is frankly why I don’t understand why people are so supportive of a FMA. As that would take what was not under the dominion of common law, but natural law and put it firmly under the power of Federal regulation. I don’t understand why people are eager to cede that power to the government. As it stands right now, government has some power over it, but that power has been granted in the guise of recognition of a pre-existing civil function, one that was typically preformed in a religious context. Someone may very well have made that point already, apologies for repetition if they have.

Spirit of 1776 on January 30, 2008 at 3:57 PM

Pardon my typo: …you must first yield it to the power of common law, as opposed to the dictates of common natural law.

Spirit of 1776 on January 30, 2008 at 3:59 PM

Spirit of 1776 on January 30, 2008 at 3:57 PM

Good post. You’re correct about Ninth Amendment, of course. But I believe we’re in agreement that a marriage license is not a right but rather a privilege bestowed by State governments. Individuals are allowed to form whatever relationships they like — they can even have a marriage ceremony to commemorate it. But at the end of the day each State has their own laws when it comes to recognizing the legitimacy of a marriage.

HebrewToYou on January 30, 2008 at 4:12 PM

But I believe we’re in agreement

I’m just about to find out! I have the time to read the whole thread now. Looking forward to it.

Spirit of 1776 on January 30, 2008 at 4:17 PM

nothing less than to force their beliefs down the throat of the citizens of the United States

Two other people marrying doesn’t force their belief down other people’s throats. I didn’t “approve” of Britney Spears getting married, but its her right for better or worse (certainly worse). One can look at infertile couples marrying, interracial couples marrying, or old men marrying very young women and think–”I don’t like that”. So be it. Letting people choose who they want to commit their lives to seems a pretty fundamental part of exercising liberty.

Conservatives can do better making straight families with children believe that they are really focused on their economic well-being instead of obsessing on whether gay people make a legal committment. Voters care more about the declining values of their homes.

dedalus on January 30, 2008 at 4:20 PM

Letting people choose who they want to commit their lives to seems a pretty fundamental part of exercising liberty.

Committing your life to another person doesn’t require a marriage license, dedalus. It requires patience and understanding, not a certificate from the State you live in.

HebrewToYou on January 30, 2008 at 4:25 PM

Committing your life to another person doesn’t require a marriage license, dedalus. It requires patience and understanding, not a certificate from the State you live in.

I agree. The vows are between two people and come before the license whether it is straight or gay. My point above was that the marriage or relationship doesn’t interfere with the rights of straight people to marry.

It is not unreasonable for the state to provide gay couples the ability file taxes together, inherit property or collect survivor benefits.

dedalus on January 30, 2008 at 4:37 PM

Two other people marrying doesn’t force their belief down other people’s throats.

dedalus on January 30, 2008 at 4:20 PM

No, but forcing legal action to require us to accept it does indeed do exactly that.

Currently, a marriage license is issued only to members of the opposite sex. You’re not asking for the laws to remain the same. You’re asking for it to be “changed” in order to allow something to take place that the people of this country have overwhelmingly been opposed to. Yes, you are forcing it down our throats.

At the same time, this forced recognition in turn puts a requirement on other private parties and private businesses to honor your personal choice. Banks, hospitals, and any person or group who recognizes the Institution of Marriage of a bond between a man and woman would now be forced by law to give the same recognition, benefit, or acknowledgment to two people of the same sex.

Also, it continues to be ignored that there’s a big difference between a “legal contractual” marriage and a personal choice to bond with another person for life. There are absolutely no laws which prevent homosexuals from making a life commitment with another person of the same sex.

When you attempt to force us to recognize that “personal bond” for the purpose of obtaining government benefits, you’ve gone too far.

Gregor on January 30, 2008 at 4:40 PM

It is not unreasonable for the state to provide gay couples the ability file taxes together, inherit property or collect survivor benefits.

dedalus on January 30, 2008 at 4:37 PM

Yes, it is unreasonable, because “the state” and “the people” do not recognize those couples as being a legitimate legal marriage.

Gregor on January 30, 2008 at 4:49 PM

When you attempt to force us to recognize that “personal bond” for the purpose of obtaining government benefits, you’ve gone too far.

The government supports divorce. If I’m not in favor of divorce and remarriage are other couples sticking it down my throat when they end one marriage and begin another?

What about interracial marriage? When the laws against that were struck down wasn’t that unfair to people who find it disgusting?

dedalus on January 30, 2008 at 4:50 PM

The Equal Protection argument for allowing so-called “gay marriage” has always seemed very weak. Homosexuals are not prohibited from marrying, and many homosexual men have married women for different reasons. Just ask Judy Garland.

The fact that most homosexuals are not interested in marriage for the obvious reason does not therefore entitle them to the creation of a new form of marriage more to their liking.

Make no mistake: gay marriage is not just extending marriage to gays, it is redefining marriage itself. That is the opposite of conservatism.

In fact, once marriage is redefined to include two men or two women, the same argument works just as well for defining marriage to be three women, or three men, or two men and a woman, or two women and a man, or four …..

theregoestheneighborhood on January 30, 2008 at 4:57 PM

The government supports divorce. If I’m not in favor of divorce and remarriage are other couples sticking it down my throat when they end one marriage and begin another?

dedalus on January 30, 2008 at 4:50 PM

I believe you would find that support BY THE PEOPLE is overwhelmingly in favor of recognizing divorce, don’t you think? I think you would be hard pressed to argue that divorce is being shoved down the throat of the “AMERICAN PEOPLE.”

What about interracial marriage? When the laws against that were struck down wasn’t that unfair to people who find it disgusting?

Of course. The race card. That works.
Same argument. What percentage of the AMERICAN PEOPLE do you think would vote that they find interracial marriage “disgusting?”

Gregor on January 30, 2008 at 4:58 PM

Yes, it is unreasonable, because “the state” and “the people” do not recognize those couples as being a legitimate legal marriage.

And if that changes by a majority, then so be it? I probably don’t disagree with that.

The majority of people in most states agree with you with regard to marriage. I think that is changing over time, but righ now the majority probably agrees with extending hospital visition rights and other practical rights to gay couples. Certainly many Fortune 500 business are already extending these kinds of recognition.

dedalus on January 30, 2008 at 5:00 PM

righ now the majority probably agrees with extending hospital visition rights and other practical rights to gay couples. Certainly many Fortune 500 business are already extending these kinds of recognition.

dedalus on January 30, 2008 at 5:00 PM

I have absolutely no problem with people, businesses, or organizations who want to “voluntarily” recognize gay “couples” for whatever reason. This doesn’t change the fact that they are not “married” and it’s far different than having a court or government mandate that we MUST recognize it as legitimate.

Gregor on January 30, 2008 at 5:04 PM

Of course. The race card. That works.

Looking at history works when one is evaluating an appeal that tradition must dictate how we live our lives today. Most of the time I’ve seen the race card played it has been over black and white relations, but interracial marriage restrictions affected Chinese people as well and so my point isn’t related to a particular ethnic group.

dedalus on January 30, 2008 at 5:08 PM

I think you would be hard pressed to argue that divorce is being shoved down the throat of the “AMERICAN PEOPLE.”

What people do with their personal lives is their business. I may think divorce and remarriage is wrong (since you took a vow ’till death) and I may be in the minority, but whether 1% or 99% of the people agree with me about divorce it is hard for me to make a case that another couple’s divorce is going to threaten my marriage.

If gay marriage were dilutive of my marriage, if, say, I had a stock certificate in Marriage, Inc. and someone just started issuing more certificates that made mine worth a smaller percentage, then OK. But gay marriage, straight marriage, gay or straight divorce leaves my marriage in whatever shape my wife and I produce.

dedalus on January 30, 2008 at 5:15 PM

What people do with their personal lives is their business.

dedalus on January 30, 2008 at 5:15 PM

Actually, that’s my point. Unfortunately, you’re arguing that we should make gay marriage the business of everyone. How many times must I repeat this? Gay people can hook up and bond with anyone, or anything they like. I don’t care. A man can buy a ring, put it on a goat’s penis, and live as a couple with that goat until death do them part. Doesn’t concern me. At least, not until they tell me I have to allow them to come into my business and that I have to treat them the same as a husband and wife with three children. I won’t, and I don’t want anyone telling me I have to.

Gregor on January 30, 2008 at 5:35 PM

At least, not until they tell me I have to allow them to come into my business and that I have to treat them the same as a husband and wife with three children.

If you are a landlord, you’d be legally obligated to rent to them in many states whether they are married or not. Gay people individually have many protections from discrimination whether they are married or not.

Unfortunately, you’re arguing that we should make gay marriage the business of everyone.

Actually, I’m arguing from a practical standpoint that my neighbor’s marriage is not my business and they don’t stick it down my throat. If they decide to build an addition to their house that violates the setback ordinance of the town, that’s another story whether they are a straight or gay couple.

I’m arguing that we stop looking to the government to tell us what is morally right or wrong, but rather to protect our individual liberty to pursue our live without interference from our government, our fellow citizens or foreigners.

dedalus on January 30, 2008 at 5:55 PM

Good post. You’re correct about Ninth Amendment, of course. But I believe we’re in agreement that a marriage license is not a right but rather a privilege bestowed by State governments. Individuals are allowed to form whatever relationships they like — they can even have a marriage ceremony to commemorate it. But at the end of the day each State has their own laws when it comes to recognizing the legitimacy of a marriage.

HebrewToYou on January 30, 2008 at 4:12 PM

There are two things at work here, theory and reality. In theory the government has no power over marriage. As an institution is not a promise to the state. It is a promise from one individual to another (and if religious) a covenant to God. Nowhere in there is there any appeal or authorization by the state.

Now, in reality, the state has assumed some authority already. I think that marriage licenses began to be issued in the early 20th century, I believe. Unlike a certificate, a license interjects the state into the equation.

As such, I see three possibilities. I’ll answer yours first. Marriage defined by state. I think this is fundamentally flawed because I, like the founding fathers, don’t believe the state has authority over natural law, but in the situation in which we find ourselves, it requires no further abdication of freedom. In other words, the state has already absorbed power to regulate marriage with it’s licensing.

Second, marriage defined by the federal government. Having already invited the state into a covenant of which it is not involved, this answer involves yielding more power to the government. In a sense, however, an amendment would legalize what the marriage licenses have already assumed. As Lincoln said, of, by, and for. Amendments certainly represent that. That is it would make marriage the exclusive domain of civil, or common law, instead of the quasi shared situation it now has. That would fundamentally change what marriage is.

This to me is akin to yielding Czechoslovakia after yielding the Rhineland. Having given up some power already, the hope is that the complications that have arisen from that abdication can be resolved by given up more power. The hope is that the restrictions will stand, but I think that is the most dangerous of the positions because if the mood of the country changes and such an amendment is appealed, the grounds for recourse to natural law (by religion etc) have been already yielded. I don’t care for it at all. John Adam’s once said that our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. That means a pre-existing situation. I don’t care to yield the ability to regulate moral and religious power to an instrument that depends on it’s pre-existence to function well.

The third is to remove marriage from the jurisdiction of government sphere, to return it to its original place. This seems to me to be the far best situation. That would be what we had pre-early 20th century. I highly doubt the fathers foresaw the absorption of the state to define marriage. That would have been categorically dismissed as an encroachment by the state on religion. The problem is, of course, the monetary issues involved. Having integrated marriage into our tax code, inheritance laws, etc, it’s probably near impossible to remove now. Hence my opening comment on theory and reality.

That’s the long answer to say, yeah, the states are probably best equipped to deal with the freedom that has already been ceded, but the FMA is probably of great legality, and neither is the right solution in my estimation. I hope have communicated this clearly.

Spirit of 1776 on January 30, 2008 at 5:55 PM

If you are a landlord, you’d be legally obligated to rent to them in many states whether they are married or not. Gay people individually have many protections from discrimination whether they are married or not.

dedalus on January 30, 2008 at 5:55 PM

Actually, not necessarily true in all states. Landlords have in fact been victorious in defending their rights to refuse to rent to “un-married couples” on religous principles. This includes heterosexual couples as well. But this is besides the point, because again you’ve gone off topic.

It’s not a “benefit” given to married couples to “rent apartments.” A benefit would be a “reduced rate” or “discount” based on being legally married.

Gregor on January 30, 2008 at 6:13 PM

Spirit of 1776 on January 30, 2008 at 5:55 PM

Unbelievably good post, and I agree wholeheartedly. I’m actually amazed you waded through the whole thread to comment. My ideal world would have marriage simply be a cultural/religious ceremony with no state licensing. Our tax code would then have to change to something much simpler.

But that will never happen because so many Institutions of Gov’t require the state’s “blessing” to verify married status. Oy vey.

HebrewToYou on January 30, 2008 at 6:42 PM

Unbelievably good post, and I agree wholeheartedly. I’m actually amazed you waded through the whole thread to comment. My ideal world would have marriage simply be a cultural/religious ceremony with no state licensing.

Completely agree with your point on state licensing and on Spirit of 1776′s excellent post–really a very good read.

dedalus on January 30, 2008 at 6:56 PM

HebrewToYou on January 30, 2008 at 6:42 PM

Thanks, that’s kind of you. I did wade through, but the argument interests me enough to warrant it. :-)

My ideal world would have marriage simply be a cultural/religious ceremony with no state licensing. Our tax code would then have to change to something much simpler.

I completely agree.

Spirit of 1776 on January 30, 2008 at 7:08 PM

Actually, not necessarily true in all states. Landlords have in fact been victorious in defending their rights to refuse to rent to “un-married couples” on religous principles. This includes heterosexual couples as well. But this is besides the point, because again you’ve gone off topic.

It’s not a “benefit” given to married couples to “rent apartments.” A benefit would be a “reduced rate” or “discount” based on being legally married.

Gregor on January 30, 2008 at 6:13 PM

Agreed that it varies from state to state and that the size of the building usually comes into play–if you are renting a room in your house it is different than running a high-rise with hundreds of apartments.

My topic is the role and scope of the government, in this case as it relates to marriage.

As it relates to this post, I think the conservatives within the GOP can do better by focusing more on issues that make life tangibly better for people. Married people with kids care more about a safer more prosperous country than whether the gay homeowners nearby are married or just living together.

dedalus on January 30, 2008 at 7:11 PM

All you people who think “gay marriage” is something that won’t affect you are dead wrong. Remember, there is no “right” at stake in the question of whether people of the same sex can be legally married. It’s not like the government will only allow two men to have sex if they have a marriage license. It’s not like any man, gay or straight, can’t name another man as a beneficiary or assign him a power of attorney.

This whole push for so-called “gay marriage” is about exactly one thing: forcing people to recognize “gay marriages” as equal in every way to traditional marriage. In other words, the whole point of “gay marriage” is to force full recognition from others.

Once “gay marriage” is legally required and mandated, we will start seeing lawsuits against those who refuse to recognize them. I suspect some of the first lawsuits will be against churches which refuse to perform such “weddings”, or against Christian schools which refuse to accept students from a “gay marriage” home.

theregoestheneighborhood on January 30, 2008 at 9:25 PM

It’s not like any man, gay or straight, can’t name another man as a beneficiary or assign him a power of attorney.

Not quite. A power of attorney doesn’t address leaving an estate or survivor benefits. In medical emergencies power of attorney can take time for hospital administrators to validate. Also attorney time can be expensive for some people.

In other words, the whole point of “gay marriage” is to force full recognition from others.

Is it possible that some don’t look to the government to validate their personal choices? Is it possible that some people want to get married for each other rather than as a demonstration to others?

Churches don’t have to perform weddings they don’t want to, even straight couples get turned down by churches.

dedalus on January 30, 2008 at 9:57 PM

A power of attorney is a separate issue from estate or survivor benefits. All that’s really necessary for that is to set up joint ownership of the property, which is why it’s often abbreviated as JTROS, Joint Tenancy with Right Of Survivorship.

Power of attorneys, on the other hand, address control rather than rights, and can be for a single specific purpose, or a general power of attorney that is extremely broad.

But you don’t have to duplicate all the rights and privileges of marriage in excruciating detail to see that homosexuals have no need of official marriage on practical grounds. It’s all about the recognition and the validation of being able to say “We’re married, too, just like you are.” And that is a social recognition, which means it’s not about them, it’s about others having to accept them.

Which means that, even if they were to get everything they want in terms of “gay marriage,” they will not be satisfied with it. Simply put, recognition of them as “married” will still not really force others to accept them. So the end of all this effort is essentially unachievable.

But no matter how you try to justify it, the fact of the matter is that the state only has the power to recognize marriages. Marriage was not created by the government, and since the government didn’t create it, it has no power to redefine it.

Properly speaking, there should be no need for a marriage amendment. Properly understood, the suggestion that the government has some say in the definition of marriage should just be laughed at.

But instead, we’re going to have groups of people turn this into some sort of crusade. And the only way to make the whole issue go away is to either specifically allow it, or specifically end the whole discussion with a law that says, in effect, “No, and don’t ask again.” And since the Supreme Court has arrogated to itself the right to declare any law to be in conflict with the Constitution, that’s going to lead us further and further along the path of a Constitutional amendment just to put this issue to rest.

Great. Just great.

theregoestheneighborhood on January 30, 2008 at 10:54 PM

NO ON 93!
Posted by The John and Ken Show @ 9:45 am

The Governor has gone to the dark-side to join the likes of Fabian Nunez! He’s done a lot of stupid things, but this takes the cake! Give him a call and tell him NO on 93!

List of 42 legislators who will be termed out if Prop 93 is squashed
You have the opportunity to rid state government of “Colostomy Bag” Lloyd Levine, Mexican Socialist Fabian Nunez, “1 bill” Gil Cedillo, Don “Crackers” Perata and more!

Sacramento State Capitol
Phone: 916-445-2841

DfDeportation on January 31, 2008 at 2:04 AM

Mitt knows many things but McCain knows one big thing, i.e. Iraq, and when push comes to shove the GOP wants to win the war above all else.

— Allahpundit

Therein lies the rub. If not for that issue, Ron Paul would be front and center conservative candidate number 1. Too bad.

fossten on January 31, 2008 at 8:46 AM

Spirit of 1776 on January 30, 2008 at 5:55 PM

My compliments on such a principled and illuminating post.

RushBaby on January 31, 2008 at 12:06 PM

Maybe the Talk Show host are slowing being uncovered as self serving people who put their personal interest over the causes they claim to support?

jero_jones on February 1, 2008 at 12:39 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4