Good news: McCain may be thinking about a “maverick” for VP
posted at 11:04 am on February 15, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
[T]here’s increasing speculation in Washington and among McCain’s supporters that the Arizona maverick will instead run to the center and pick a more liberal vice presidential candidate.
The theory goes like this:
Barack Obama has become his party’s front-runner because he has expanded the Democratic Party. His big rallies draw crowds of nearly 20,000, unheard of for a primary campaign…
This is a strategy that simply won’t work for McCain because there is a certain bloc of core, loyal and principled conservatives who will never vote for him no matter what he says now, who he picks to run with, or who the Democratic nominee might be…
So, McCain’s only option is to run hard for the middle and hope that his centrist ticket can beat the soaring rhetoric and high promises of a likeable guy like Obama with little experience and a liberal voting record.
Smart thinkin’, except for the fact that (a) it’ll only alienate more conservatives and (b) Obama’s sure to tack towards the center himself for the general knowing that, unlike Maverick, his base will be there for him anyway in November. Which leaves McCain fighting a stalemate in the middle while his rearguard troops — led by Limbaugh, who’s hinting that he won’t endorse McCain — melt away. How bad could the melting be? Strong black Democratic turnout in the south + weak evangelical Republican turnout in the south = dude.
But who could he pick? Giuliani’s a non-starter because of his abortion position. What he needs is someone appealing enough to counter Obama, socially conservative enough to get Christians to turn out, but squishy enough on foreign policy and spending to attract moderates…
Dude.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Because Thompson is a career lobbyist (working for abortionists, dictators and terrorists) with a voting record in the Senate that is just as bad as McCain’s – CFR, Abraham’s open borders, Clinton’s impeachment. That is why…
tommylotto on February 15, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Might make sense on paper, but whatever happened to running on your own convictions? Perhaps I am naive…likely so. But I maintain that any candidate should run on what he believes, on what he will do in office, and he should staff accordingly.
I realize politics can be a game of sorts, but I am sick of Clintonian triangulation.
Have some convictions in life people. Then stand for them.
Montana on February 15, 2008 at 11:52 AM
There has been an anti-abortion plank in the Republican platform since Reagan.
bnelson44 on February 15, 2008 at 11:53 AM
anyone see where HIllary and Obama’s people met with Syria this week, not a peep out of the press. What could they be meeting about I wonder?
If you were one to think the absolute worst of the Dems and their thirst for power, you might conclude they want to make sure Syria will ratchet up activities in Iraq leading into the election….or maybe its purely innoncent talks amongst like minds.
jp on February 15, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Dem candidates run to the Left in primaries and to the center for the general.
Rep candidates run to the Right in primaries and to the center for the general.
When they don’t, they pi$$ of their base.
That’s the way it works. Because the vast majority of voters don’t vote in the primaries, don’t give a hoot about the primaries, and don’t pay attention until after the conventions pick their candidate.
Face it — the number of true conservatives in this country is pretty small. A major reason why Fred Thompson went nowhere.
But the number of hard core leftists is pretty small also. Add the active MoveOn, Code Pink, and Daily Kos members and you have maybe a million people. That’s it.
Presidential general elections are not decided by the hard core Left or Right. They are decided by the middle. And that’s the fact.
SunSword on February 15, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Mac has ages yet to make up his mind. Don’t bank on a decision being made before April at the earliest.
J.C. Watts, or even someone like Bobby Jindal would be a good compliment, and would shore up the South in a different kind of way. Alternatively, if the economy continues to worsen, then a financial strongman like Steve Forbes would work well, bringing into play the rustbelt states of Michigan and PA.
I’d be surprised if Mac took either Romney or Huckabee – you’d just be trading one set of republican voters for another. One of the depressing things in these primaries has been to see that Mormons and Huckabee evangelicals don’t like supporting each other – just look at voting patterns in Utah, Nevada, and the South.
Pax americana on February 15, 2008 at 11:54 AM
McCain has been running on his own convictions. He is a moderate conservative, and has taken positions a lot of talk radio hosts hate. He hasn’t budged on them though.
bnelson44 on February 15, 2008 at 11:54 AM
He will definately not announce any decision while Huck is still in the race.
bnelson44 on February 15, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Since evangelical turnout has only been impressive in one region of the country, and then only in comparison to non-evangelical turnout (which has been abysmal), I don’t see how Huck does anything helpful.
To have a chance of winning, I think McCain needs to choose a qualified and uncontroversial running mate, preferrably southern and christian (but not overly so), OR he needs to do something dramatic. I don’t personally love the idea of McCain/Lieberman, but the ticket would have a lot of appeal to people fed up with the partisan bickering. It would also have a built-in and compelling narrative to counter-act Obamamania:
Charleton Heston voice over -
“Two mavericks, openly despised by their respective parties for putting their love of country first, can and will bring REAL CHANGE to America.”
I can feel a thrill running up my leg right now.
Infidoll on February 15, 2008 at 11:55 AM
I don’t think McCain’s trying to change Conservatives either. I think he sees himself as a singular type of political individual. His conservative ratings are just a bit higher than Snowe, Collins, Chaffee, Specter, and one other IIRC. I think he sees Conservatives as someone who can get on board or step off.
I understand your optimism that a moderate can defeat a radical. But I don’t share it, because his appeal seems to hinge on his credibility as CinC. And yet, where is he on the Berkeley situation? The FISA situation? He is not taking advantage of events TODAY to point out the differences between himself and the anti-war candidate.
RushBaby on February 15, 2008 at 11:58 AM
HUH?
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Fred_Thompson.htm
Maybe you haven’t seen his record.
Bladerunner1701 on February 15, 2008 at 11:58 AM
His selection will not be based on logic, elect ability or creating a unified party. It’s core to McCain’s “maverick” nature to make sure we all know he’s not swayed but such sensible arguments.
You need look no further than that pretentious idle bunk about Romney’s time-table to figure out that McCain’s so blinded by his own self-proclaimed dogma that he’ll make illogical choices just to prove that he has the choice.
The man’s got passion unrestrained by reason.
regal on February 15, 2008 at 11:58 AM
J.C. Watts is only a former Congressman, Jindal is a former congressman has been in office as governorfor one month, and Forbes has never held public office. These people may be good, but the general public will laugh at such an inexperienced pick.
Big S on February 15, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Easy now big fellah. I really was just kidding. McCain should select either Mitt or Fred. Give them some presidential campaign experience, for the next time around.
DMeNTe on February 15, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Thanks, well said.
RushBaby on February 15, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Reminds me of Rush’s McCain/Grahmam commercial “Broke Back Border”… ummm… NO
TOPV on February 15, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Blech! Then Huckbee would want to be the presumptive one in 2012! I don’t think I could take that. I can hold my nose for McCain but not Huck. He is such a fake!!!!!
texasgirl on February 15, 2008 at 12:00 PM
What about Marylond Lt. Governor, Michael S. Steele as V.P.?
Laserlawyer on February 15, 2008 at 12:00 PM
When you’re right, you’re right. Other than waffling (read lying) on what the intent of his legislation is, he hasn’t budged in terms of the kind of legislation he puts forward. It is unabashedly liberal. It will take a miracle of God, or a very strong conservative (Hunter or Steele type) as VP to get me to pull the lever for McCain.
samuelrylander on February 15, 2008 at 12:01 PM
I can see Clint Eastwood saying this…. LOL !!!
ricer1 on February 15, 2008 at 12:02 PM
That’s it….I’m switching over to Quigley and Captain Call.
Limerick on February 15, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Tell that to Reagan. Like Rush says, every time people run as true conservatives, they win. No offense, but the core problem with the Republican party is thinking like that. That’s why conservatism is on the ropes right now.
TheBigOldDog on February 15, 2008 at 12:06 PM
And the rest of us would be aghast. Bi-Partisanship is ok with me, if for example, it would mean that conservatives get what they want even once. What it means in reality is that conservatives cave and we get liberal McCain/Kennedy Shamnesty.
samuelrylander on February 15, 2008 at 12:06 PM
stenwin77 on February 15, 2008 at 11:22 AM
It is going to be real fun to watch you squirm like a rat after Mav’s inauguration with Lindsey right there by his side. You are a hack, go home and hang with the rest of your AUMISH conservative buddies.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 15, 2008 at 12:07 PM
JiangxiDad on February 15, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Second that!
Saltysam on February 15, 2008 at 12:08 PM
That’s entirely untrue. Defined as an ideology, conservatism will adapt to issues that come up that have never existed before. Sometimes the application of conservative ideology to such issues will lead to policy positions that are in direct conflict with one another, even if they were both reached via sound reasoning based on conservative principles. In such cases, one must decide which issue is the priority, and go against what conservative ideology deems proper in order to support what is decided as the best course of action. This is how policy platforms get made, and is the source of a lot of infighting among conservatives, as it is with any ideology. That will be the case for the forseeable future, as well, unless “conservatism” is defined not as an ideology, but as a simple list of policy positions that can not react to the changing world around us, with new stances grafted onto it on an ad hoc basis based on what the majority of people who call themselves “conservatives” support. Sadly, I think that the vast majority of those who consider themselves ideological true conservatives are part of the latter camp.
Big S on February 15, 2008 at 12:08 PM
How old are you son? First GOP vote?
Limerick on February 15, 2008 at 12:09 PM
Huckaby has stayed in the race to show McCain why he needs him as VP. The guy is strong in the South and Midwest where McCain simply must win to take the Presidency.
The ‘pick a strong conservative funning mate’ train has left the station. I’m pretty danged conservative and no McCain lover. But I understand what’s at stake with the liberal wing of the Supreme Court hanging on by their fingernails.
A McCain presidency, if nothing else, would solidify the Court for conservatives for another generation. That, my friends, is the BIG PICTURE.
DrW on February 15, 2008 at 12:10 PM
This is why the moderate position is so unbelievably liberal. Over the last 50 years we have been slowly drifting left so now what is in truth a moderate position (reasonable, not fringe) is now deemed right wing fringe.
samuelrylander on February 15, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Your asking him to run around pontificating about a parking permit? That’s the job of the Rush Limbaughs of the world who make a living doing that sort of thing.
The Senate already voted on a FISA bill that the president would sign. This is a House matter. McCain supports the bill the Senate passed and would like the house to pass a similar bill.
bnelson44 on February 15, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Some people are advocating that McCain run on a platform based more closely on the war on terrorism. Newsflash folks. To the vast majority of Americans there is no longer a war. With the news absent of any daily casualty counts, no attacks inside our borders since 9/11 the vast majority of Americans who have not had their lives disrupted one bit by our actions in Iraq or any of the additional security signs you might see in European countries, have reverted to a 9/10 mentality. There biggest concerns, which really haven’t changed all that much in the last five years is the availability of the latest high tech gadget and the price of gas.
It would do little good to try and campaign as if a war was going on. Most people, because they don’t see uniformed army’s on opposite sides, simply don’t believe there is any kind of war and all of this talk is merely fear mongering.
Just A Grunt on February 15, 2008 at 12:10 PM
I’d expect it from the left, but it’s frankly amazing how many conservatives forget we’re still actively engaged in two theaters of war. This time around it’s not the economy, stupid.
Blacklake on February 15, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Oh Great! Look what we’ve just learned:
And who armed them? None other than John McCain.
RushBaby on February 15, 2008 at 12:12 PM
I read your whole post to make sure I understood you. I can’t think of a single practical example of what you are talking about.
samuelrylander on February 15, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Maybe from your vantage point. But not from the vantage point of a lot of others. Think about it, would Abraham Lincoln pass the litmus test of being a Rush Limbaugh or Laura Ingrahm conservative? Would Ronald Reagan? Would Berry Goldwater?
bnelson44 on February 15, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Try immigration.
Big S on February 15, 2008 at 12:12 PM
RushBaby on February 15, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Was this before or after they slaughtered thousands of Kosovo civilians and children? Stop having sympathy for the Serbs. They all supported Slobodan Milosovic’s killing machine.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 15, 2008 at 12:14 PM
You’re kidding right?
TheBigOldDog on February 15, 2008 at 12:14 PM
I’m not following you.
samuelrylander on February 15, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Or any issue in which the dualism of the 10th Amendment engenders division among people who consider themselves constitutionalist conservatives.
Big S on February 15, 2008 at 12:16 PM
Would you mind going through the steps with this example? I still don’t understand.
JiangxiDad on February 15, 2008 at 12:17 PM
In any fight you fight to win. To heck with rules…. you want to WIN. McCain will lose if he tries to fight for centrist voters. He needs to pick a solid conservative VP to bring back the many conservatives that he’s ticked off.
I think we are screwed.
cannonball on February 15, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Wait…you’re a lib? Relativism is necessary for liberalism because liberalism is so conflicted it has to be justified from the “alternate vantage points” argument. Conservatism doesn’t have this problem. And to answer your question…yes. All three of those people qualify as conservatives.
samuelrylander on February 15, 2008 at 12:18 PM
The irony of that comment is so rich! The Rush Limbaughs are being excoriated by the Newly Branded Moderate Republican Party, and yet they are still expected to DO THEIR JOB for the good of the party. HAHAHA!
RushBaby on February 15, 2008 at 12:18 PM
My Colin Powell theory is looking more prescient.
Dudley Smith on February 15, 2008 at 12:19 PM
No I am not. The “conservative movement” has been radicalized by the radio talk show hosts. For example Reagan supported a real amnesty for illegal aliens, so he would no longer be considered a “true” conservative.
As for Berry Goldwater, I will let him speak for himself:
Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know, I’ve tried to deal with them.
…..
The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom…. I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in ‘A,’ ‘B,’ ‘C,’ and ‘D.’ Just who do they think they are?… I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of “conservatism.”
bnelson44 on February 15, 2008 at 12:20 PM
Personally, I don’t care what Rush Limbaugh does.
bnelson44 on February 15, 2008 at 12:21 PM
I KNEW you were going there, AP.
We’re in deep doo-doo…
CliffHanger on February 15, 2008 at 12:22 PM
What happened to the true conservatives in the primaries? How did Duncan Hunter do?
MayBee on February 15, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Personally, I think your candidate should take a leadership role in his own campaign, and not expect talk radio to rally the base of his own party.
RushBaby on February 15, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Tell that to Rick Santorum, J.D. Hayworth, and a buch of other ex-congress critters.
bnelson44 on February 15, 2008 at 12:26 PM
McCain’s VP choice would have to be accepted by the delegates, no?
Yet another reason to get this thing brokered.
Buddahpundit on February 15, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Mccain/Palin
Sarah Palin, Governor Alaska
Miss Alaska contestant, son in the Army, won state basketball championship as a point guard, eats mooseburgers.
What else could you ask for?
faraway on February 15, 2008 at 12:28 PM
Reagan supported the first amnesty, which didn’t work. Another difference between conservatism and liberalism, is that conservatism is actually compassionate and seeks to help people. What wasn’t obvious then but is obvious now is that these people are not seeking the American dream, they are seeking to remake America into Mexico, which will be as bad for them as it will be for us. Any decent human being will help his fellow man when he’s down (which is what Reagan did). But when your fellow man starts laying down at your feet so you can keep picking him up, you aren’t helping him by picking him up again. That’s enabling.
samuelrylander on February 15, 2008 at 12:28 PM
He has, and he doesn’t
bnelson44 on February 15, 2008 at 12:28 PM
My point on immigration is that there is a conflict between those conservatives who consider the free market the highest priority, and those who consider national cohesion and the rule of law the highest priority. Both camps start with good conservative principles to reach their conclusion as to how we should deal with immigration, legal or illegal, and then have to make a decision on which principle they hold in the highest regard. The same thing happens when state laws go against mainstream “conservative” opinion, and the roles of federal, state, and local laws, as well as the rights reserved by individuals, are in question. People can start from the same conservative first principles, and come to entirely different conclusions about policy, based on where their priorities lie. If you insist on a rigid definition of what those priorities should be in every given situation, conservatism ceases to be an ideology that can adapt and react to changes, and becomes just a list of policy ideas. Hayek saw this, and came to the conclusion that what most people call “conservatism” falls into the latter category, by which standard he said he could not be a “conservative.”
Big S on February 15, 2008 at 12:28 PM
As for your Goldwater quote…Goldwater is not Jesus. He was allowed to be wrong.
samuelrylander on February 15, 2008 at 12:31 PM
You may be onto something with Lindsey. I noticed on Meaghan McCains bloggette.com website, there are several pics of Graham and Lieberman. One has a caption that says “my two favorite senators”. As a right leaning moderate conservative myself, I think Lindsey would be an awesome pick. It will be interesting to see the radical righties tip-toe around his record and paint him as a liberal.
myamphibian on February 15, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Conservatism is a political philosophy that tries to preserve society’s traditions or norms or calls for gradual, not sudden, change. It comes from the Latin, com servare, to preserve; “to protect from loss or harm.” Obviously, the origins of the GOP were not conservative in that it called for radical change in the abolition of slavery.
Those who are conservative but who fail to adapt to those changes in society that do take place and who want to “turn back the clock” are no longer conservative, they no longer want to preserve the society as is, but rather become reactionary.
For example, being anti-abortion is decidedly not conservative. Our society has been pro-choice for over a generation now. The Democrats are conservative in trying to preserve choice. The GOP is not conservative on that issue in that it wants radical change — over ruling of precedent and changing our constitutional to reverse the Court created right to privacy. The GOP has become reactionary on that issue.
So, conservatism must constantly change with society or it becomes reactionary.
Big S said it very well, as well.
tommylotto on February 15, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Right, because the former seem to have a knack for ignoring the consequences of a free market in which unskilled labor is the commodity.
RushBaby on February 15, 2008 at 12:37 PM
There’s a more. When Reagan wouldn’t have been supported for president by “true conservatives.” Why? Because he didn’t come out against abortion until after he was in office. As CA governor he signed into law a number of pro-abortion bills.
It was Reagan who opened the door to the PRC
Regain proposed the concept behind NAFTA in 1979.
Regaen Allow free movement of people from Mexico & Canada. (Jul 1991)
bnelson44 on February 15, 2008 at 12:37 PM
I recently read Hayek because of something Ron Paul of all people said. Unfortunately, I’m drawing a blank right now and can’t respond with any specificity. However, I do recognize the libertarian/conservative split, if that is what you are referring to in this example.
JiangxiDad on February 15, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Got it. This “conflict” is no conflict at all. Free markets are subordinate to rule of law in terms of priority of implementation. So yes we want markets to be free, but at the same time we don’t sell beer to minors. We don’t give guns to criminals. There is common sense decision making which you apply to your own family decisions (if you have a family and kids you know what I am talking about) which are the same principles one draws on in conservatism.
samuelrylander on February 15, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Yeah, after he called us all biggots and told us to shut up its going to be really difficult to “tip-toe” around his record. Jeesh. Lindsey Graham would not win one state for John McCain.
Zetterson on February 15, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Speculating in terms of racial politics, Watts or Steele would be a great, especially if Hillary gets the nomination. It would play off recent Clinton offensiveness to blacks. But if Obama gets the nomination, then I think it’d be silly to use the VP slot to compete for the black vote, which is sure to go for Obama regardless. Better to compete for the Hispanic vote, as they tend historically to be averse to voting for blacks.
petefrt on February 15, 2008 at 12:40 PM
That is intellectually dishonest. Conservatives try to maintain traditional norms, or make change only slowly and incrementally, but non-conservatives are allowed to define those norms? I don’t think so Tommy.
JiangxiDad on February 15, 2008 at 12:40 PM
myamphibian on February 15, 2008 at 12:33 PM
They’re like brothers dude. The only way it doesn’t happen is if he wants another position like Secretary of State or AG. The prior probably being the alternative, but he has invested a lot of his own political capitol in Mac. Also, he has taken a lot of heat back home in SC for his sensible immigration reform stance and might be ready for more of a national role.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 15, 2008 at 12:41 PM
There are really a lot of different definitions of what a conservative is. Here is one person’s cut:
The Seven Types of Conservatives
The first are the TheoCons. The so-called Religious Right.
The NeoCons are a philosophical movement.
CorporateCons are the corporate interests who buy representatives and bills.
There is some overlap between RichCons and CorporateCons, especially as executive, CEO and Board Member salaries have soared to multiples of hundreds of times those of ordinary workers.
LibertarianCons are the ideological blade of Republicanism.
PaleoCons
MilitaryCons were created during the massive military cuts of the early nineties.
http://adamash.blogspot.com/2006/06/seven-types-of-conservatives-and-some.html
bnelson44 on February 15, 2008 at 12:41 PM
If preservation of market freedom is your highest priority, then you might be willing to put up with the negative consequences. On the other hand, those who put what they call “sovereignty” (a bit of a misnomer) first are continually willing to undermine the freedom of association, in the form of contracts between individuals, to what they perceive as an ideal path for society as a whole. Neither of these positions conform to all of the points of what we like to think of as conservative ideology.
Big S on February 15, 2008 at 12:42 PM
The base is just coming around to discussing whether we’re even going to show up to vote…he CANNOT win without the base. He’s not stupid, he won’t run with a lib. But he does need someone young and inspiring…if he chose Michael Steele, I’d be so impressed…I doubt he will though.
JustTruth101 on February 15, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Isn’t more like “17TH LOOK AT STAYING HOME”? How many “SECOND LOOKS” can you have?
Mark V. on February 15, 2008 at 12:44 PM
See… When you find and inconsistency like this it’s time to ask some questions. I don’t believe “the former” are actually conservatives…I think they are like McCain and will trot out conservative buzzwords when it is in their best interest.
samuelrylander on February 15, 2008 at 12:44 PM
The base? The base are those 35% who still support George Bush. They are solidly behind McCain. Your talking about the “true conservatives” they aren’t “the base.” Since before Bush they often voted Libertarian.
bnelson44 on February 15, 2008 at 12:45 PM
McCain is a conservative if you attempt to define conservatism as whichever way the liberal wind blows.
Saltysam on February 15, 2008 at 12:47 PM
We are so very doomed in November. Sigh.
I was thinking that maybe the Boomers might help McCain, in that they might be more inclined to vote for an experienced guy closer to their own age than a guy who is almost young enough to be their son. But McCain is older than the Boomers are, so I don’t know how far age identification would go there. Plus, so many Boomers are just aging hippies who lean liberal/socialist that I don’t think they’ll break for McCain in the end.
Did I mention that we’re doomed?
aero on February 15, 2008 at 12:47 PM
tommylotto on February 15, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Dude..you and CSDeven (Who I recently have taking a liking to) both continue to bag on Thompson about Lobbying..what was so aggregious about his lobbying? is all lobbying bad? I remind you Thompson was the first and only one of two that laid out a REAL comprehensive immigration plan for all to see, which was doable, and did not inkling of amnesty. He deserves a look for that alone!
RedLizard64 on February 15, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Good call, I also would like to see Hutchison also. She fills all kinds of spots, defense, imigration, southerner and a woman too beat
KBird on February 15, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Most boomers are moderates
bnelson44 on February 15, 2008 at 12:49 PM
aero on February 15, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Mav/Graham will beat either Billary or Hope easily.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 15, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Look at the chart at the bottom of the page for:
McCain:
http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm
Reagan:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Ronald_Reagan.htm
bnelson44 on February 15, 2008 at 12:51 PM
Oh, and Rush Limbaugh
http://www.ontheissues.org/Rush_Limbaugh.htm
bnelson44 on February 15, 2008 at 12:51 PM
Followup for TommyLotto on Thompson Lobbying
RedLizard64 on February 15, 2008 at 12:52 PM
No one knows anything about McCain’s VP pick, though McCain himself has given every indication that he’ll undertake a careful vetting process relying on historical examples and judgments of how well previous selection calculations turned out.
Quin Hillyer had some interesting thoughts on the subject in a column yesterday:
http://spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12741
Note: If you’re hoping to get names out of the article, you’ll have to wait for a future installment.
CK MacLeod on February 15, 2008 at 12:53 PM
Here’s a good piece (”Why I am not a conservative”)
Here, Hayek takes the view that “conservatism” is reactionary, and does not satisfy the requirements of an ideology that can be applied with intellectual rigor to any situation. My point is that the “conservatism” espoused by many who are steeped in the past half century of American conservative thought is one that attempts to form a coherent ideology, based on free markets and the rule of law, among other things. However, when there are conflicts between the various tenets of this ideological conservatism, the general reflex is to revert to the reactionary stance that Hayek talked about. If people want to be reactionary, that’s perfectly fine, and a valid political position. They should not, however, pretend that their reactionary stances are the definition of conservative ideology, since they often come about as an explicit rejection of one or more tenets of that ideology in favor of others.
Big S on February 15, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Is so…is not…is so….is not….that sums up the two pages pretty nicely.
The war is not the issue. It would be fought by Mac, Huck, Mitt, Fred, Rudy, Tanc, or Hunter.
Big S hit it right square on the nose……my party has become the party of patricians. Anything, and everything to make that golden parachute bigger is the paramount rule. ‘I did it so that means everyone can do it’ bullpie. In the mean time the ‘law & order’ crowd (me and mine) believe common good come before individual good. The patricians laughed at us. Told us to shut up, sit down, and do what we are told. Sorry folks….too many boys and girls will NOT forget that. Graham, Lott, Hagel, McCain, Georgie hizself, can’t get that through their brains. We all want that golden parachute, it is just some of us aren’t willing to sell out our neighbors to get it.
Pious? Too bad.
Limerick on February 15, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Thanks for linking to that. I have heard of that analysis or one like it. Interesting reading.
RushBaby on February 15, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Heh. You just made me think of a good campaign slogan for Obama:
Bill Clinton: The Man from Hope
Barack Obama: The Man IS Hope
As for your assertion that McCain/Graham would beat the Dems easily…um, no. Sad but true. There’s no excitement or momentum behind McCain, and Graham wouldn’t add any. Obama is a freaking juggernaut of charisma and empty platitudes.
aero on February 15, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Your welcome. I thought it was. Very often we turn into an echo chamber for those we agree with and don’t realize there are other views out there who consider themselves conservative as well.
bnelson44 on February 15, 2008 at 12:57 PM
If the shoe fits….if not, don’t get your panties in a wad. They both support a strong defense as well as da fence.
myamphibian on February 15, 2008 at 12:58 PM
It’s interesting that the McShamnesty zealots resort to not only besmirching Reagan but painting true conservatives as not only the problem but oh so radical.
I guess true conservatives AREN’T needed by McCain. Otherwise we wouldn’t be treated so badly. Then again, McShamnesty was never concerned with treating conservatives half as well as he treats far left liberals.
Darksean on February 15, 2008 at 1:05 PM
I think you have just illustrated in beautiful detail what is dividing the Republican Party. The Conservatives have drawn a line against the consequences. The Moderates are finding justifications for accepting the consequences and seeking to do so under the covering protection and prestige of the Conservative tent.
RushBaby on February 15, 2008 at 1:06 PM
Thanks for the Hayek link. Will read.
JiangxiDad on February 15, 2008 at 1:06 PM
I’d be interested in knowing what it is that Ron Paul said that got you to read Hayek. Paul has a very, um, interesting interpretation of libertarian philosophy, in which the absence of explicit instructions prevents action, at least where government is concerned.
Big S on February 15, 2008 at 1:10 PM
I see mostly ideologues on these pages and very few true movement conservatives.
myamphibian on February 15, 2008 at 1:11 PM
Wow. Could you have found a more anti-conservative analysis of conservatism?
aero on February 15, 2008 at 1:11 PM
aero on February 15, 2008 at 1:11 PM
My sentiments, exactly.
Saltysam on February 15, 2008 at 1:13 PM
Bill Bennett worked for Ronald Reagan. He has been supporting McCain for weeks now. But suddenly even Bennett isn’t a pure enough conservative for you folks?
Because electing Liberal Fascist Obama is better for the nation.
funky chicken on February 15, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Great series of posts BigS…I agree 100%. Good stuff from you as well bnelson.
Read (or re-read) The Conscience of a Conservative and The Conscience of a Majority by the late, great Sen. Goldwater, the father of modern conservatism, for the definitive discussion regarding what conservatism is all about. Goldwater identifies the following bedrock fundamentals/principles of conservatism:
(i) draw on the proven wisdom of the past;
(ii) don’t debase the dignity of others; and
(iii) maximize freedom consistent with necessary safety and order.
dakine on February 15, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Watch McCain pickup Hillary when she loses the Dem nomination. Nothing would suprise me at this point.
Texas Rainmaker on February 15, 2008 at 1:16 PM
And the more conservatives scream that they would NEVER NEVER vote for McCain no matter who he chooses for veep, well, the less likely he would be to try to obtain their votes by appointing a conservative to run with him.
But hey, stamp those feet and scream some more.
Didn’t any of you learn that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar? You want McCain to move right and think that your vote is obtainable to him? Quit screaming about how much you hate him and think he should lose to Obama.
funky chicken on February 15, 2008 at 1:17 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »