Good news: McCain may be thinking about a “maverick” for VP
posted at 11:04 am on February 15, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
[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: « 1 2 [3]
My point is, that if the conservative wing of the GOP is already a loss in the general election for McCain, he will be FORCED to pick a moderate veep, because you people are forcing him to run to the middle.
funky chicken on February 15, 2008 at 1:19 PM
Ronald Reagan Would Back McCain - Michael Reagan, Human Events
bnelson44 on February 15, 2008 at 1:19 PM
When you do, be sure to focus on Hayek’s own definitions of liberal and conservative thought, as contained therein. His definitions are somewhat different from what we usually like to think of as conservatism and liberalism, and you need to accept his terminology (at least temporarily) in order to follow the piece.
Big S on February 15, 2008 at 1:20 PM
Funkychicken;
When McCain was trying to sneak through an unpopular bill, what role did honey play?
Saltysam on February 15, 2008 at 1:21 PM
Sorry funky, I meant to say “unpopular amnesty bill”
Saltysam on February 15, 2008 at 1:22 PM
It’s a good insight into how our opponents see us. It also serves to tell us something about them. Elsewhere on that blog, bnelson’s author opines:
and appears to be writing a book called, “Invisible Dictatorship and the Sovereign Self: Why America is a Dictatorship Cross-dressed as a Democracy and How to Live Free in it.”
RushBaby on February 15, 2008 at 1:24 PM
According to that analysis, I must not even be a conservative. Too bad we don’t all fall neatly into our little niches.
I think some people around here tend to have the wrong idea about those of us who choose to call ourselves conservative. I’m not religious in the least, I’m not rich, and I’m not old. But I do believe in personal responsibility, following the law, and limiting federal power (we are a republic, after all). McCain is not who I see as a representative of these ideals, nor is anyone else still running. I doubt very much that I can be convinced otherwise.
What worries me greatly though is to have a candidate, supposedly on my side of the aisle, who is more representative of Democratic Party beliefs/agendas than Republican. I work hard for my paycheck, and so does my husband. Give us someone who will try to guarantee that I won’t be sending 2/3s of my paycheck to support someone who disrespects our laws (illegals) or flushing it down the Global Warming BS Toilet.
I have voted in every election, local and federal, save for one since I turned 18 (I was dealing with an office crisis during 2004, and ended up not being able to drive home in time to vote). This is the first time I have had doubts about whether to actually go or not, whether to write-in or not, because I cannot choose who would be the ‘lesser of all potential evils’ of the candidates. And to be honest, it stings a little to be told that I don’t count anyway, because I’m too far right, I’m not moderate, I’m on the lunatic fringe. I might just start taking my money and my vote elsewhere (figuratively at least).
/rant off
the goddess anna on February 15, 2008 at 1:24 PM
the goddess anna on February 15, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Amen, sister.
Saltysam on February 15, 2008 at 1:26 PM
Guiliani’s problem is the NRA. There is no way on God’s green earth that the NRA was going to stand for seeing Rudy get anywhere near the presidency. He is wrong (not conservative) on both abortion and family values. But his 2nd amendment history is what his problem was. It’s possible that a ‘conservative’ who is pro-choice and pro-gay values could be successful. But an anti-gun position is conservative suicide - that’s even more the reason that his phone stunt at the NRA meeting was ridiculous.
ThackerAgency on February 15, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Sorry, John. I don’t think Kucinich is available for VP and George Galloway is not American.
RobCon on February 15, 2008 at 1:28 PM
People tend not to fall neatly into nitches. That is why I take exception to people like Rush acting like we all should fall in line or we are not conservatives.
bnelson44 on February 15, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Okay, so we’re not supposed to get on his case for not being a real conservative. By your logic, we should capitulate to someone who doesn’t give one wit to our concerns…and if we do that THEN he’ll pay attention to us??
Or, are you just trying to say our concerns don’t count, just shut up and get in line?
And you wonder why we’re not jazzed about McShamnesty or his zealots?
Darksean on February 15, 2008 at 1:31 PM
bnelson44 on February 15, 2008 at 1:28 PM
People like me are less concerned with definition of conservative, and more concerned with trust.
I can’t trust McCain, because he’s shown me that I can’t trust him. I need a leader I can trust.
Saltysam on February 15, 2008 at 1:33 PM
Also, when you do, consider this from Wikipedia:
Hayek wrote an essay entitled Why I Am Not a Conservative (included as an appendix to The Constitution of Liberty), in which he disparaged conservatism for its inability to adapt to changing human realities or to offer a positive political program. His criticism was aimed primarily at European-style conservatism, which has often opposed capitalism as a threat to social stability and traditional values. Hayek identified himself as a classical liberal, but noted that in the United States it had become almost impossible to use “liberal” in its original definition. In the U.S., Hayek is often described as a “libertarian”, but his preference was for “Old Whig” (a phrase borrowed from Edmund Burke). In his later life he said: “I am becoming a Burkean Whig”.
RushBaby on February 15, 2008 at 1:35 PM
I have never listened to Rush… I envy people who have the peace and quiet to listen to the radio!
Why do you care what he says anyway? There can’t be that many people who hang on his every word like it’s Scripture… just let him talk, and don’t listen.
the goddess anna on February 15, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Yep…I see it coming. It won’t be McCain who lost in November…it will be us doubters who ruined the country. Exile trials are right around the corner. Pick the little rocky isle of your choice. While the people who don’t believe in universal health care, free lunches, homeowner associations, or turning the other cheek are outcast, the ‘real’ conservatives will be making sure those things don’t ‘get outta hand’. Good luck with that….I’ll be on the beach.
Limerick on February 15, 2008 at 1:35 PM
There is no such thing as a “real conservative” and the sooner people realize that the better.
bnelson44 on February 15, 2008 at 1:35 PM
McCain tells you what he will do, and then he does it. If you expect him not to do it and do what you want instead, you might be disappointed in him. But I don’t think it has anything to do with trust.
bnelson44 on February 15, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Not entirely on topic, but since I’m avoiding a paper I should be writing… I loathe homeowner associations. LOATHE!! That is all.
the goddess anna on February 15, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Do you personally fall into one or more of the niches described by Adam Ash?
RushBaby on February 15, 2008 at 1:39 PM
The fact that you have to force yourself to commit such an obvious falsehood in order to pimp McShamnesty is enough proof that he isn’t the one (though perhaps being derogatory toward conservatism isn’t so hard for you…).
Darksean on February 15, 2008 at 1:40 PM
Interesting, in light of the rise of figures like Huckabee, as well as the rising opposition to unrestricted free trade (Duncan Hunter types) and in some cases legal immigration (Tancredo and his ilk) within the Republican party. Are some Republicans inching closer to this European style conservatism?
Big S on February 15, 2008 at 1:40 PM
It most certainly has a lot to do with trust. When he wanted to sneak through the immigration bill and didn’t like me stamping my feet, he jumped on the “xenophobic/racist” bandwagon.
Ironically, the whole reason we didn’t like that bill was a matter of trust, but the spinners succeeded in hiding that fact.
So, now I’m a racist. Well…screw that. I don’t trust him.
Saltysam on February 15, 2008 at 1:42 PM
bnelson44 on February 15, 2008 at 1:37 PM
It most certainly has a lot to do with trust. When he wanted to sneak through the immigration bill and didn’t like me stamping my feet, he jumped on the “xenophobic/racist” bandwagon.
Ironically, the whole reason we didn’t like that bill was a matter of trust, but the spinners succeeded in hiding that fact.
So, now I’m a racist. Well…screw that. I don’t trust him.
Saltysam on February 15, 2008 at 1:42 PM
Saltysam on February 15, 2008 at 1:42 PM
Trust.
Telling us that he wants to get the money out of politics.
Is he an idiot or a liar.
Gimme a break.
Saltysam on February 15, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Thanks for that. I would have found it, sooner or later, but you saved me some time. I appreciate that.
JiangxiDad on February 15, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Before I address the entirety of your post, can you clarify one thing? You said “in some cases legal immigration”…was this a typo (meant to be ILLEGAL immigration) or did you mean to imply that Tancredo opposed LEGAL immigration? And if so, I would need to see some evidence of that.
RushBaby on February 15, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Are there such things as “real liberals” or “real socialists”?
Isn’t your statement above relativistic in nature, or are you saying that all relativism is relative?
FloatingRock on February 15, 2008 at 1:58 PM
“Reagan’s concession speech emphasized the dangers of nuclear war and the threat posed by the Soviet Union. Although he lost the nomination, he received 307 write-in votes in New Hampshire, 388 votes as an Independent on Wyoming’s ballot, and a single electoral vote from a Washington State “faithless elector” in the November election.[58] Ford went on to lose the 1976 presidential election to the Democratic challenger Jimmy Carter.”
And then there was 1980! I think regardless of what Michael Reagan says his dad did, that’s akin to what Mitt Romney just did and it’s expected that a Presidential Candidate will be concilatory, unlike Gore in 2000. But what matters is how the party members felt, because that’s comparing apples to apples. I suspect with John McCain you’ll see a few “faithless electors”.
Sultry Beauty on February 15, 2008 at 2:00 PM
I don’t care if McCain is standing there surrounded by the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, and they are all endorsing him, He can still go to hell.
Has anyone noticed that every single day, there is a procession of party hacks and has beens, mostly old guys over 65, propping up McCains old tired ass, standing on a stage surrounded by flags and McCain with that smirking FU smile of his, and telling us we have to ‘get in line’ and support him? Or what about the endless line of articles from schmucks at the WSJ or other RINO establishments telling us how we are all impetulant little children for not liking McCain. I haven’t seen this much PHONEY endorsing of one guy in an election ever. I don’t think they get it one bit. I don’t just dislike the man, I think he is against just about everything I am for. And he is the one who has attempted to bring half the population of a third world lawless country to our backyard through force and deception. He and Kennedy kept throwing in endless advantages for Mexicans above Americans in that shamnesty bill and lied through their teeth when the bloggers caught on and ask them about it. They tried to rush that bill through before anyone was the wiser and that’s why I could never vote for this duplicitus lying SOB. Don’t give me that crap about him being a POW, that was forty years ago! It’s irrelavent and I am retired military myself. I’m talking about what he has done recently and would do as president. That is whats important. He is an old tempermental corrupt beltway insider and a liar and he is never going to be president.
Bikerken on February 15, 2008 at 2:05 PM
An analysis of the differences between American Conservatism and the various forms taken by European Conservatism:
http://www.worldandi.com/public/1986/october/mt10.cfm
Sample Conclusion:
I perceive that this is how the Moderates prefer their brand of Conservatism. This would be a good example of some Republicans inching closer to European style conservatism.
RushBaby on February 15, 2008 at 2:10 PM
McCain has the ability to pick the next leader of the GOP after he leaves office. There is no reson to make his successor someone who will not be chosen later on by the GOP.
The logic of picking to his left holds no water.
William Amos on February 15, 2008 at 2:12 PM
He said as much in a debate last year, and it was pretty big news.
Big S on February 15, 2008 at 2:20 PM
NEVER, EVER will I vote for Huckabee in any way shape or form.
He’s not a conservative. He ran the dirtiest campaign of anyone…by claiming to be “decent and honest” while using hatchet men to do the dirty work and giving him plausible deniability.
The illegal phone push polls, the anonymous fliers claiming FRED THOMPSON was pro-abortion and killed 200,000 babies. The insinuations about people like Hannity being bought off, by using the “some say” line.
HUCKABEE IS A SCAM ARTIST.
If he’s on the ticket, I swear, I’ll vote for Obama, or won’t vote at all.
bigred on February 15, 2008 at 2:26 PM
If Huck manages to weasel onto the ticket, Utah (the reddest of red states) and the rest of the mountain West will go for Obama in a big way. This should tell you much about the state of the GOP in 2008. I will vote for Obama myself to punish such a boneheaded move.
WasatchMan on February 15, 2008 at 2:32 PM
If conservatism no longer means what it means — to preserve the societal status quo, but can be progressive on bringing democracy to the Middle East, conservative on issues like marriage, and reactionary on abortion, then it just becomes a jumbled group of conservative, progressive and reactionary positions labeled as “true conservative” for no rhyme or reason by Limbaugh and his ilk.
You true conservatives are all over the map. It is not a consistent political philosophy just a group of positions.
tommylotto on February 15, 2008 at 2:57 PM
Well, don’t you just epitomize the rational, mature point of view…..
Priscilla on February 15, 2008 at 2:57 PM
Say hello to vice president nominee Lindsey Gramnesty.
Captain America on February 15, 2008 at 3:01 PM
Now that might be pushing it, but Fred is pro-choice. On MTP he said he was against the Life Amendment and was against criminalizing women who have abortions and doctors that perform them. He claims to be pro-life because he says Roe was wrongly decided and because of his voting record on various restrictions on abortions, but not on the issue itself. On the ultimate issue he is a pro-choice federalist as he stated in 1994 and confirmed recently on MTP. His position is not that different from Rudy’s…
tommylotto on February 15, 2008 at 3:03 PM
This comment was from a while ago, but I’d like to point out that it is completely unfair. In Utah, we’ve voted for evangelicals if they have been conservative - we go red every time regardless of the religion of the candidate. I’ll admit, though that Huckabee doesn’t bring out the best in us. I assure you that it doesn’t have anything to do with his religion.
melda on February 15, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Maybe I have. Immigration. CFR. Clinton Impeachment.
tommylotto on February 15, 2008 at 3:14 PM
Oh come on. Huck’s more conservative than McCain. Maybe the old codger will kick off and Huck will take over. At least we can figure on our gun rights being protected.
fossten on February 15, 2008 at 3:24 PM
Well said. I couldn’t agree more.
Redhead Infidel on February 15, 2008 at 3:24 PM
Enlightening series of posts on Hayek and the conservative movement. Thanks, you guys, especially Big S.
I’ve been meaning to read Hayek ever since seeing Commanding Heights. With a minor in economics, I don’t understand why he wasn’t required reading. But that would have been the late 1960’s, and maybe in those days his influence wasn’t yet widely recognized.
petefrt on February 15, 2008 at 3:28 PM
Who said bringing democracy to the ME is conservative thought? Who says being anti-abortion is reactionary? Who gets to define these things? You say there is a consensus of what our society’s values are now, and to oppose any of these is not true conservatism. When did that consensus get reached? Who was asked?
JiangxiDad on February 15, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Here’s the quote you linked to:
In very clear language, he is talking about a time out while assimilation and regulation takes place. These is a pretty good idea to bring up in a debate. To translate this into actual opposition to legal immigration is beyond a stretch.
RushBaby on February 15, 2008 at 3:37 PM
If it is all about winning then McCain should come out of the closet and be the moderate conservative-hating lib that he is. On top of that, he should pick an even harder left “moderate” (lib) open-borders republican for VP. That’s how to win.
According to the logic here from most on HA, as long as he has an (R) in front of his name, republicans should and will vote for him “to keep the party together” and “to beat whatever Democrat”, etc… Conservatism is dead anyway, right? And the ones that “stay home” don’t care about the party anyway, right? I think I got it, and this is the way to “win”!
nottakingsides on February 15, 2008 at 3:42 PM
“You see, in this world, there is one awful thing, and that is that everyone has his reasons.”
Asher on February 15, 2008 at 3:45 PM
President Barak Obama.
So stay home and make history, we`ll feel good atleast. :)
ThePrez on February 15, 2008 at 3:51 PM
While I’m at it, I want to add my $.02 about the whole abortion thing. To me, there are two things about abortion that get me going - a.) personal responsibility (the lack thereof), and b.) the judicial branch trying to legislate.
a.) As a superfecund (and married) individual, I do what I have to do to not get pregnant, because we can’t afford another child. You don’t want kids, don’t do the deed. If you get knocked up, take responsibility for your actions.
b.) States should have the ability to legislate such things as abortion, not the federal government. If the people of my state want to outlaw abortion, they should be able to have the means to do so. Roe v. Wade is a bad precident, which is why I’d be in favor of having it overturned.
Tell me, someone, what is unconservative about this? Or really, give me a good arguement against it period. I had a discussion with my mother the other day about the whole personal responsibility thing - and something I’ve noticed is that every self-professed conservative (and even some who never thought of themselves that way) believes in it. Maybe we’re just looking at this the wrong way. To keep with the original thread topic, though, still can’t use McCain and conservative in the same sentence without the phrase ‘isn’t a’ between the two words.
the goddess anna on February 15, 2008 at 3:56 PM
I have never understood how people have thought huckster was so appealing and charming. From the first time I saw him, not knowing anything about him, he appearred to be a smarmy little wise ass. He is a nasty little wimp. Romney pointed out his record in arkansas and all the little sleaze could do was cry personal attack. That’s a democrat trick, don’t answer any questions, claim personal attack. His latest performance was yesterday when he attacked Romney. Hey huckster, mccain is your opponent now, you stupid arkansas politician.
peacenprosperity on February 15, 2008 at 3:59 PM
That position couldn’t be any more conservative.
peacenprosperity on February 15, 2008 at 4:02 PM
That position couldn’t be any more conservative.peacenprosperity on February 15, 2008 at 4:02 PM
Correct. Because the fundamental [American] Conservative principles underlying it include Federalism (severely limited Central government).
I would include an expectation for individuals to be responsible and self-disciplined citizens as a Conservative principle.
RushBaby on February 15, 2008 at 4:13 PM
Ach, RB strikes again. Sorry pnp!
RushBaby on February 15, 2008 at 4:13 PM
Given your view on abortion, McCain’s pro life voting record as compared to Obama’s positions offers a clear difference.
dedalus on February 15, 2008 at 4:24 PM
Nice link. Thanks! Here’s some Milton Friedman (Free to Choose) for anyone who’s interested.
Big S on February 15, 2008 at 4:28 PM
It seems like he wants to stop it indefinitely, though perhaps not permenantly.
Where would Tancredo propose that we get our science PhD’s from? We’ve been importing them for decades and haven’t done enough with our education system to grow them domestically.
dedalus on February 15, 2008 at 4:29 PM
I feel nauseuos just thinking about a McCain presidency.
Huck as a VP? If McCain/Huckabee managed to win, Huckabee would end up duking it out with Mitt again. How grotesque would it be to have Huckabee as the nominee in 2012?
Two words, third-party.
Theworldisnotenough on February 15, 2008 at 4:31 PM
Here’s some follow-up on Friedman’s position in regard to unfettered immigration and the welfare state.
JiangxiDad on February 15, 2008 at 4:35 PM
Also a good link. The growth of the welfare state is, as usual, the biggest underlying issue.
Big S on February 15, 2008 at 4:39 PM
A very good point for another participant in the debate to bring up with Tancredo. I’m not familiar enough with Tancredo’s immigration platform to venture a guess where he would come down on that.
I happen to agree with your point. For that matter, I don’t agree with his suggestion of limiting people coming into this country to family members, immediate family members, and/or refugees. I would argue strenuously against that, as a matter of fact.
But my issue has never been quantities or origins of immigrants. My issue is the cheating, sneaking, lawbreaking, hostile, entitled, and organized political aspect of illegal immigrants.
RushBaby on February 15, 2008 at 4:40 PM
…and his being in favor of firearm confiscation…
…and his sanctuary city position.
Perpetual Student on February 15, 2008 at 4:41 PM
John McCain On Democrats’ Failure To Act On FISA
bnelson44 on February 15, 2008 at 4:44 PM
Thanks, that’s reassuring.
RushBaby on February 15, 2008 at 4:46 PM
This country has officially been pro-choice for 35 years. That is almost two generations (assuming a generation to be 20 years). There have been three Supreme Court opinions upholding the right to an abortion. Right or wrong, there is a well established constitutional precedent guarantying a right to choose. Agree with it or disagree with it, the societal norm in this country for some time has been pro-choice. By wanting to turn back the clock 35 years to 1973, you are being reactionary, not conservative.
tommylotto on February 15, 2008 at 4:51 PM
Plessy v. Ferguson? Established precedent at one time also.
Perhaps the reactionary position is to be pro-abortion. The “progressive” position may be towards greater morality on this question. Abortion rates are going up or down Tommy?
JiangxiDad on February 15, 2008 at 5:01 PM
Interesting, but Friedman is full of crap. I live in So Cal. Schools are crap. ER’s are closed or crowded. The socialist in the state legislature led by Fabian Nunez (elected by only a handful of hispanic legal voters in his predominately illegal district) vote over and over again to heap benefits on illegals.
Friedman makes a good point that keeping them illegal is a win win if illegals are denied benefits, but they are not. It also is bad for security and the rule of law. Maybe we should give them some official but sub-citizen, sub-permanent resident serf-like status. It will be better for them than going back and we reap the benefits of the cheap labor. Second class citizens in America. Next we need an aristocracy, Bushes, Clintons and Kennedy’s are automatically accepted.
tommylotto on February 15, 2008 at 5:09 PM
I disagree with that, but before I explain myself, note that I’m talking about modern American conservative ideology, and not a definition of conservatism that encompasses only the desire to stick with the old ways. Many people, including those on this thread, can come to the anti-abortion position from conservative principles, such as respect for rights and responsibilities of the individual, in the case of the fetus and the mother, respectively. That’s a perfectly consistent position. On the other hand, it is possible for someone to reach the opposite, pro-choice position from conservative first principles (using the modern American ideological definition) as well, with the emphasis on limiting the role of government in individuals’ lives. In our current political terminology, the former are generally known as “social conservatives”, and the latter form a more libertarian strain of conservatives, and both groups are making exceptions to the overall mainstream American conservative ideology based on their own priorities, or values. I see a lot of blog commenters throwing around the terms principles and values a lot, often times as if they mean the same thing. I think they are different; things like capitalism, respect for traditions, and the sanctity of the individual are not values, per se, since they are not definitive. Values are the set of beliefs that one holds that allows them to make sense of which principles are elevated or subverted above or below others, depending on the circumstances. It is legitimate to vote based on these values, and many people do, just as others are more interested in the theoretical principles of conservatism. Interestingly, I think that the divide between principle-oriented conservatives and values-oriented conservatives was well-illustrated in this year’s primary, with McCain being the candidate with a foot most firmly planted in each camp, even if he managed to offend both sets at some points. My thinking on where those divisions were this year is too long to go into here and now, but perhaps I’ll do a longer post on it sometime when the opportunity arises.
Big S on February 15, 2008 at 5:21 PM
Exactly, the GOP started out as a progressive radical party seeking abolition of slavery whereas the democrats were conservative in trying to preserve the institution or sought to gradually have the institution die out. The GOP were firebrands back them, but certainly not conservative.
Abortion rates are irrelevant. What is the law? What has it been for the past 35 years? For those who can remember when pregnancy was not elective but a matter of chance, they are in menopause now and no longer need to worry. All those in child bearing years today have never known a world where abortion was not an option.
To be conservative is to preserve the status quo. To be reactionary is to turn back the clock. “Conservatives” do not want to preserve the status quo on abortion. They want the clock turned back. That’s text book reactionary.
You cannot change the meaning of words just because you do not like the labels they imply.
P.S. No one is “pro-abortion” they are “pro-choice” You can detest abortions but recognize someone else’s right to make up their own mind to make their own choice.
tommylotto on February 15, 2008 at 5:23 PM
SECOND LOOK AT VOTING DEMOCRAT.
Still not voting for McCain. And if he picks a horrible Veep, that just seals the deal.
Enoxo on February 15, 2008 at 5:30 PM
The fat lady is singing and it’s only February.
Griz on February 15, 2008 at 5:31 PM
Agreed. I am talking about what “conservative” actually means whereas you are talking about what “conservative” has come to mean in American politics.
You raised an interesting issue concerning those who reach a pro-choice position from an honestly held core conservative principle of small government (”keep your government out of my womb”). That position can be, no almost must be, reached if you believe in small government and the rights of the individual. Yet anyone who uses that core conservative principle to reach that conclusion is branded a conservative apostate and must be driven from the party — Rudy.
tommylotto on February 15, 2008 at 5:35 PM
True, and I’m not exactly sure which definition self-identified “conservatives” tend to prefer. My guess is that it’s somewhere in between, depending on the context.
Big S on February 15, 2008 at 5:44 PM
Interesting, and rather important, observations. I appreciate the discussion with you today.
RushBaby on February 15, 2008 at 5:55 PM
Why not Fred?
Southern. Evangelical. Strong on Guns, Border, etc. Conservative. Make mincemeat out of any Dem VP pick. Helps pick up the South.
whiskey_199 on February 15, 2008 at 6:05 PM
Let me add, seeing that Biden is pushing Obama’s Global Tax on America to pay for “foreign aid” aka handouts to dictators, and it contains beyond Kyoto and the ICC, a gun ban, Fred is an excellent choice.
Fred is well-rated by the NRA, and using Obama’s gun ban and McCain opposing it could help him a lot in the South and West.
whiskey_199 on February 15, 2008 at 6:06 PM
Gah. I give up.
the goddess anna on February 15, 2008 at 6:07 PM
At some point, your logic fails. If legal abortion is the status quo for a long time, as you maintain, doesn’t that become the reactionary position at some point? Don’t those who seek to maintain that status quo become the conservatives? If you truly want to see progressives, you might want to look at the ideas of those labeled as conservative today.
Up is down, black is white.
JiangxiDad on February 15, 2008 at 6:08 PM
Enjoy your eight years of President Obama. With all the government giveaways he and his congress have planned, he should be able to pork barrel his way into a second term.
dedalus on February 15, 2008 at 6:47 PM
Excellent, just really excellent, post. I look forward to your longer post somewhere down the line.
dedalus on February 15, 2008 at 6:49 PM
I do not vote for open borders candidates. My country means too much to me…
build the wall on February 15, 2008 at 9:44 PM
How long are you going to keep up this insane argument? Find pro-life politicians who will come out and say, “Sure, let’s put people in jail for abortion.” Even the strongly pro-life know it’s hard enough to overturn Roe v. Wade without giving the impression you can’t wait to throw people in jail.
You’re trying to redefine pro-choice so you can apply the label to Fred. I really have no idea why this is so important to you. But if you have to redefine the meaning of “pro-choice” to apply it to Fred, that actually proves that Fred is not pro-choice at all.
The argument that you must want a national law against abortion in order to be called pro-life just ignores that we have a federal system of government, and that many laws like this are made at the state level, not the national level.
As someone who posts a lot on the subject of abortion laws, and labels himself a lawyer, you surely can’t claim ignorance on that subject. Which makes all your posts look like sophistry.
And all this from someone who appears to believe that everyone should be pro-choice. Yet you use the “pro-choice” label, dishonestly IMO, as an attack on Fred, even if you have to redefine the word to make it fit.
theregoestheneighborhood on February 15, 2008 at 10:47 PM
Your argument that America is now “officially” pro-choice ignores several things.
1) No one ever passed a law legalizing abortion. Never.
2) The Supreme Court, in a classic case of judicial activism, declared a constitutional right to abortion that no one had ever discovered before
3) As long as the Supreme Court allows this ruling to stand, no one will be able to pass a law outlawing abortion, no matter how pro-life they are.
But I will repeat: abortion was never legalized. We have a problem with judges who went way outside of their power. The problem could be fixed easily, by Congress passing a law — no Constitutional amendment would be necessary — depriving the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over declaring laws unconstitutional. The Constitution does not actually give the Supreme Court the power to strike down ANY lawfully passed legislation. The only reason they get away with it is that they set a precedent long ago, in Marbury vs. Madison, that they had that power, and Congress accepted it.
But as a Constitutional issue, Congress has complete power to define the scope and power of the entire federal court system, including the Supreme Court.
The reason they don’t is much bigger than the single issue of abortion. It would require a fairly radical redefinition of the scope of the judicial system, and no one is willing to tackle that.
This does not constitute establishing America as a pro-choice state, officially or unofficially.
And to the point: since this “pro-choice” condition was imposed against the will of the majority of the people, and never was an official act, it cannot be labeled a “societal norm.”
If the Supreme Court had not crossed the line here, and laws permitting abortion had been passed in the proper manner by the legislature, you could speak of the “pro-choice consensus.” It didn’t, and you can’t.
theregoestheneighborhood on February 15, 2008 at 11:04 PM
What law are you talking about? There is no law allowing abortion. There is only a judicial opinion that laws restricting abortion violate the Constitution. All actual laws concerning abortion were invalidated by this decision.
Most people understand that judicial activism is inherently unconservative. The current status of abortion is a result of judicial activism, and is deeply offensive to conservative principle.
Conservative implies more than protecting the status quo. It implies protecting the existing principles of government. Since the right of self-determination is one of the bedrock principles of our government, and this is why we have a legislature chosen by the people to pass laws for the people, it should be obvious that anyone who defends the judicial activism that gave us abortion is being unconservative.
Conservatism is about more than defending the status quo. It is about defending what is worth defending: our principles. Such as the right to life. The right to defend life. The right to have a voice in the laws that are passed, rather than being overruled by 5 out of 9 Supreme Court judges. These principles alone establish that preserving the status quo of abortion on demand is itself the opposite of conservatism. If that resets the clock back 35 years on the abortion debate, that’s just an ironic consequence of asserting conservative principles.
No one who is pro-abortion wants to be known as pro-abortion, so they generally retreat to the “pro-choice” label. Yes, it’s possible to be opposed to abortions while not willing to outlaw them. But if you think that abortion is justified anytime the mother slips up on birth control, or finds out she has a boy when she wanted a girl, or decides she can’t really afford a baby just now, then it really doesn’t help that you call yourself pro-choice. You’re still in favor of allowing abortions.
theregoestheneighborhood on February 15, 2008 at 11:36 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3]