The Myth of the RINO?
posted at 9:02 am on May 18, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Two weeks ago, I directed readers to an analysis by Keith Poole of UC San Diego on the relative ideological positioning of the three main candidates for President. Poole provides an excellent analysis of Congressional voting patterns called the Poole Report, which provides the broadest basis used for rating members of both the House and the Senate. The Poole Reports use roll call votes that have at least 0.5% of members voting in the minority. For example, the 2007 session of the Senate had 388 data points, as opposed to the ACU’s 25 and 107 for the National Journal, which gives a much more complete look at the partisan nature of voting for both Republicans and Democrats.
Poole’s analysis shows a fascinating and perhaps disturbing trend. Despite the perceptions of many in and out of the blogosphere and punditry, the parties have moved away from compromise, not towards it. Poole’s charting of partisan voting behavior over the last 40 years makes this plain:
Note the progression of the voting pattern, and where today’s candidates would have scored on this timeline with their 2008 positioning. In 1968, McCain would have been on the right wing of the Republican Party, and both Obama and Clinton would have been significantly on the left side of the Democrats. By 1988, McCain exists squarely in the GOP’s mainstream, and both Obama and Clinton remain on the left wing of the Democrats. Now, McCain’s fixed 2008 position puts him on the moderate side of the party, while the mainstream of Democrats have just barely reached Obama and Clinton’s position.
Now re-run the animation and look at what happened to the center in American politics. Forty years ago, members in both parties routinely overlapped, and their mainstreams existed closer to the center. The crossover point came just to the right of center and about halfway to the peak of both parties. In 1988, the crossover point hit about the same spot but much lower on the density scale, and the overlaps of both parties extended much less into the density of the opposition. Now, there is almost no density at the crossover point and the overlap has all but disappeared entirely.
What does this mean? It shows that RINOs and DINOs exist largely as mythology. Congress has become a place where party-line votes prevail on an almost-exclusive basis. Those who believe that we lose elections because of a lack of party discipline and loyalty in the legislature have targeted the wrong culprit. Neither party has a lack of discipline, but both may have allowed a critical gap to open with the American electorate that could threaten the two-party system.
Much has been made of independent runs from Bob Barr, Ron Paul, and Ralph Nader, but this shows that they also miss the point. The opportunity for political traction doesn’t come from the extremes of the Left and Right, but from the center. At least in Congress, both parties have abandoned American voters in the center, and are to this day still trending away from them. This could be the greatest opportunity in decades for a real third party to form and represent the gap that the last 40 years has opened between the parties. That opportunity will not be realized at the presidential level, but rather in the House and Senate.
This gap does have meaning in the presidential race. Even though Republicans have many structural problems in this election, they may have nominated the one man who can actually engage the center better than any of the two dozen candidates who ran in this cycle’s primaries in both parties. Not only does McCain occupy a spot on the spectrum closer to the center than anyone else, he’s also perceived to be more centrist. He has a track record of independence in his voting record that frankly is almost nonexistent in today’s politics. While that certainly (and legitimately) frustrates conservatives, it speaks to a wide range of American voters who find themselves lost in a deepening and widening valley between two peaks.
If McCain can capitalize on that and can find messages that resonate with those voters — and especially if he can demonstrate the hard-Left credentials of his opponents — he may find a treasure trove of support in a year where Republicans elsewhere are likely to take a beating.
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 4 5 6 7 »
Indeed it has, thoughtful lady. HA is better for your presence.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 11:20 AM
The data is interesting. The crossover was significant during the mid 60’s, civil rights and a Democrat party that had not yet been hijakced by the left, and again (I assume) in the 80’s, when Reagan’s influence among blue collar Democrats forced them to the middle. The recent shift to the edges is more a symptom of left wings Democrats and crossover Republicans forcing the hand of other Republicans. The fringes are creating the gap in the middle. The ideological fissure is what is happening to congressional votes.
I cannot say that this data erases evidence of RINO’s We’ve have a myriad examples of Republicans voting the wrong way.
Lindsey Graham. Arlen Specter. Lincoln Chafee. Chuck Hagel. Ted Stevens. John McCain. Mike DeWine (especially relevant, the non-conservative. I was dead set on voting for Sherrod Brown, DeWine did not deserve my vote, and a lot of Republicans agreed). Arnold Schwarzenegger.
I’m sure these Republicans could have their voting records assesed and be found to be solid conservatives, which is to say one can completely ignore the gap between what Republicans stood for when I was a kid and what that means now. The unescapable truth no matter how you finesse the numbers, there exists a small group of Republicans that vote the wrong way, often. From global warming, to ANWR, to the economy, to ethanol (remember your post on the farm bill?), Republicans have failed to deliver. Honestly Ed what if we had approved drilling in ANWR in 2004? Where would the Republican brand be? Our country would be very much different right now had the Republicans used their majority to legislate conservatively.
What conservative reforms took place when the GOP had the majority? Bush increased our unfunded medical liabilty to seniors by 40% with the stroke of a pen, according to David Walker former head of the GAO. The GOP subsidized ethanol driving food prices up. Bush purposely stopped enforcing the border, we can argue whether or not it was purposeful but the numbers are hard to ignore, Bill Clinton was tougher on the border than Bush. Bush suspended immigration enforcement in the gulf to get illegal aliens in to rebuild, and screwed the people from the area as they were shut out of the jobs. How many governors are face down in the tank for illegals? Was a single oil refinery built? We had 6 defectors vote against drilling in ANWR. What ever appened to tort reform? Texas did it and it works. The Republicans had power but did not have enough conservatives willing to vote conservatively to reform a single thing. The RINO’s did us in. (I beleive that RINO’s prevail due to the lack of leadership, McCain would not dare cross the gipper on ANWR)
Why we need to rid ourselves of RINOs.
Theworldisnotenough on May 18, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Sure. I can’t speak for everyone, but here’s what I believe: I support smaller government, less spending and the line-item veto. I support a strong military (I’m making a career out of it, in fact). I’m pro-life, but think that just outlawing abortion is the wrong way to go. Judicial activism drives me crazy. I’m an environmentalist who doesn’t believe in man-made global warming. I think the government should be spending money to develop solar and other forms of energy, and drilling for oil here at home, rather than turning food into fuel. I’m against the death penalty and strongly for gun rights. I want the border fence built.
It’s not that I’m uniformed and vote for whoever has the catchiest ad (though I’m sure a lot of centrists/swing voters do). It’s that my views can’t be boxed in with either party, and I swear allegiance to neither party.
BadgerHawk on May 18, 2008 at 11:21 AM
No kidding. Then don’t even try to keep up with my speed. Simply attempt to respond to a few simple questions to the best of your ability. For instance, what do you believe in, as a “centerist”?
GT
Best not to confuse this one by actually quoting Reagan.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 11:22 AM
GT, Arnold doesn’t even qualify to polish Mr. Reagan’s shoes. And, yes, Mr. Reagan believed in a very wide tent. I heard him say so, when I couldn’t vote yet.
flenser, fleas are indignant today. And just so you have a bit more to chew on, I’m a lady.
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 11:22 AM
He came to my mind too along with Zell Miller.
Oldnuke on May 18, 2008 at 11:23 AM
techno_barbarian, thanks, but please don’t slow yourself down for E now :)
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 11:24 AM
You’re just factually, emperically wrong. You are very young, and have been mislead, which is very sad. You are on the internet, so I advise you to look up McCain’s actual voting record. Look as far back as you would like, and you will find that he has pretty consistent votes against organized labor, expanded government entitlement programs, stupid things like the ethanol subsidy program, etc.
He has been a consistent foe to organized labor and the push to eliminate secret ballots for unionization.
The origin of folks hating McCain from the far right can be traced back to the scumbags who hate him because he exposed their fraudulent behavior in promoting the “live Vietnam POW” myth to grieving military families back in the late 1980s. It’s pathetic but true.
funky chicken on May 18, 2008 at 11:24 AM
bronco,
I don’t have a bubble to be burst.
What I am certain of, despite the shrieking that shows up here, is that there is a huge gap between Obama/Clinton and McCain on several fronts. As such I will vote for McCain. What I won’t do as so many trolls do is waste my time in circle jerks pissing and moaning about purity acts and my candidate for president not getting the nod.
Having said my piece about fiscal restraint and small government bias you can well imagine I give a shit about much else. I put every policy through the prism of fiscal restraint etc before I make any decision. When I run Obama/Hillary through I vote for McCain. Is he the second coming? No? I’m not idiot enough to think that’s possible.
patrick neid on May 18, 2008 at 11:25 AM
thank you for that. It’s always good to be reminded of ways to kindle optimisim when things look gloomy.
A friend of mine speculated last night that per. Toffler’s Future Shock, the pace of change is exploding and becoming almost asymptotic (think that’s the proper description.) Furious and fast, careening the wrong way often, and leading us to near peril. Ex. global warming hysteria, taxes on production– Insanity! No breathing room btwn world wars (like btwn I and II), just a breathtaking juggernaut aimed at brick walls that we toss ourselves against.
But then he says the corrections will come just as fast and furious. We back away quickly from the precipice we just raced towards. His 40 years-in-the-future vision for America is extremely rosy. This coming from a guy who is presently armed to the teeth, and claims to have a 20 year supply of food, etc. He says that after the great deluge that will swamp us sometime in the next ten years, things can recover as quickly as they went south. So he has reason for optimism, even though many may perish btwn now and then.
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Broadly speaking, you sound like a conservative to me. But “I support smaller government, less spending” sure seem to contradict “I think the government should be spending money to develop solar and other forms of energy”.
Then you’ll be delighted to observe that the “right wing” is not atempting to outlaw abortion, but to overturn Roe. I’m sure you are aware of the distinction.
I don’t see a lot of centerism there.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 11:26 AM
Hmmm. good stuff…I’m pro-choice and pro-death penalty though. LOL call me pro-death I guess.
I’ve been called worse :-)
funky chicken on May 18, 2008 at 11:26 AM
If I may, Flenser, I don’t think you’re going to find much respect or affection on the vocal nutroots side of the Left, which is currently revoking the basic humanity of Hillary Clinton. The average Democrat voter is another matter. You don’t need to win over a whole lot of blue-collar Democrats to flip a state into the Republican column.
McCain hasn’t done a lot to win the affections of conservatives lately, but he really is the only game in town. If conservatives sit out 2008, they’ll get an Obama presidency they have absolutely zero influence over. I think McCain dislikes anyone who strongly disagrees with him, and that’s mostly been conservatives lately. He can be made to understand that he must take that portion of his electorate seriously, and his early voting record suggests some degree of intellectual sympathy with the Right on many issues (although illegal immigration is, sadly, not one of them.) To put it simply, we have a chance of getting McCain to hear us, or at least forcing him to make concessions to our issues. With Obama, you get a President who thinks conservatives are monsters, surrounded by a constellation of friends and advisors who feel the same way about Americans in general.
Doctor Zero on May 18, 2008 at 11:26 AM
But overturning Roe v Wade wouldn’t bother me. Letting my current home state of Alabama outlaw abortion by a majority vote of her citizens wouldn’t bother me either.
See, I’m pro-choice…and if Alabamians don’t want legal abortion in their state, that’s their right to make that choice.
funky chicken on May 18, 2008 at 11:28 AM
BadgerHawk on May 18, 2008 at 11:21 AM
All that, except I’m for the death penalty, and in addition to the borders, which can never be 100% secure, we need to enforce the current employment laws. So long as they are not enforced the wasps will draw toward that steak, no matter what the status of the border is.
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 11:28 AM
patrick neid
The price tag for McCains amnesty and global warming schemes will run into the trillions of dollars. You want fiscal restraint, you need to look elsewhere.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 11:29 AM
Actually, Reagan supported amnesty.
From to the book, “Reagan: His Life in Letters”, he is quoted as saying - “I believe we must resolve the problem at our southern border with full regard to the problems and needs of Mexico. I have suggested legalizing the entry of Mexican labor into this country on much the same basis you proposed, although I have not put it into the sense of restoring the bracero program.”
Even though he signed the 1986 IRCA, he still insisted on provisions that legalized illegal immigrants already in the US.
Here’s a hint. Its called “amnesty”.
The question I have is after 20 years of evidence to the 1986 IRCA’s failures, would Reagan reconsider his opinion?
I honestly don’t know. Ed Meese thinks he would. Who knows.
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Pretty good summation of McCain, without all the BS rhetoric. Outlines, IMHO, why he’s the best candidate still in the game.
Oldnuke on May 18, 2008 at 11:33 AM
You’ll notice I wrote centrists/swing voters. It’s tough to be centrist on something like the death penalty (I don’t want to kill him, but we should rough him up real bad?). I use the term centrist because a lot of views overlap, and I call myself center right because my most important issues are smaller government and military.
I guess I should have said ‘create incentives for companies to develop alternative forms…’ like no taxes and the such.
BadgerHawk on May 18, 2008 at 11:35 AM
subsunk’s response :
funky chicken on May 18, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Nice.
BadgerHawk on May 18, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Thanks, but if you read the thread you’ll see that it was mr chicken who said that the left has respect and affection for McCain. I made no comment at all about the vocal nutroots.
As in the last ten years?
No, he is not. The only game for conservatives is conservatism. I’m not taking sides in an intramural fight between liberals, which is what a contest between McCain and his “good friends” on the left will be.
Can you point to any evidence at all in support of this belief? McCains reaction to people who try to make him understand anything, from the right, is rage.
Then why on earth should we support him? You concede that he is not a conservative. (To put it mildly.) Why is McCain style liberalism superior to Obama or Clinton style liberalism? Electing McCain kills conservatism in the GOP. You can’t deny that.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Agreed.
Then explain the quote I provided.
It has been said that Reagan supported a “Big Tent”, but I think you’ll be hard pressed to find anywhere he was willing to sacrifice core principles so the Party can get more votes.
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Tks. I had even read what Subsunk said, but didn’t put it together.
btw, my friend is a luke-warm McCain supporter, but will certainly be voting for him, as will I. And he does expect things to get much worse before they get much better.
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 11:39 AM
If every executive and manager of places like that Agriprocessors plant up in Iowa got fitted for a nice orange jump suit, and got to serve in a regular state (or federal) prison for a nice, long while (like over 5 years) I think the whole illegal alien employment problem would solve itself.
And, yes, I damn sure want at least the 700 miles of border fence that were promised to be built…like yesterday. I donated money to minutemanhq when they started building that fence on the ranch in AZ. Unfortunately they aren’t building fence anymore either. Very frustrating.
funky chicken on May 18, 2008 at 11:43 AM
GT
Actually, he did not. He signed the bill as part of a deal to secure the border. His contemporaneous writings make that clear.
That is a lie, GT. Don’t do that.
In your mind, this is supposed to be an endorsement of amnesty? I’d have to see the basis proposed, but from this snippet it sure sounds like he’s talking about a guest worker program, not amnesty.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Ed, aren’t you assuming here that the American voters are in the center? Maybe they have polarized as well?
bnelson44 on May 18, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Link to discussion of Reagan and 1986 bill.
Reagan;
Meese;
Of course McCan and his allies still insist that his bill is NOT an amnesty.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 11:55 AM
As long as people keep voting left while hoping for movement right, I can guarantee that things will contine to get worse. You’re not really helping things by trotting along behind the GOP as it gallops off to the left.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 11:59 AM
I’d just like to urge those who are bored with the same endless, frequently vicious and ugly fights within the right’s own camp, to read the article linked above. It may seem a bit wonky to those who get their jollies throwing tomatoes and harder objects, too, in the direction of the presumptive nominee and his supporters, but it would be worthy in my opinion of its own thread, or several threads for that matter.
Could the right and center unite around a conservative reform/American renewal theme, joined to an attack on “back to big govt. liberalism”? McCain/Romney or something like it might be a great ticket to advance such a program, and it might give the Republicans in Congress, currently scurrying around like ants whose hill has been stomped, something they could run with, too.
CK MacLeod on May 18, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Keemo and Subsunk, you two are great Americans. Thank you both for your service, and for setting the pontificating records straight. An Obama presidency would go way beyond teaching the conservatives a lesson, it would ruin this wonderful country exponentially, and irreversibly.
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 12:01 PM
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Only lunatics demand a Messiah for political candidate for POTUS. Lunatics on the left love their Obamassiah, and lunatics on the right love their “Dr. Paul.”
The task is to reach people who might be influenced by the lunatics on the right and convince them that suicide isn’t the way to a brighter future.
funky chicken on May 18, 2008 at 12:02 PM
“Having said my piece about fiscal restraint and small government bias you can well imagine I give a shit about much else. I put every policy through the prism of fiscal restraint etc before I make any decision.” Patrick Neid
The price tag for McCains amnesty and global warming schemes will run into the trillions of dollars. You want fiscal restraint, you need to look elsewhere.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 11:29 AM
You force me to repeat myself….
Flenser, god love ya, but you have been full of shit as regards McCain for a long time. He’s the nominee. Get over it. Either vote for him or not, but for the love of god shut the F up about his not doing what you like.
You are basically a troll working for either Paul, Obama, Hillary or some delusional alter ego. Get over yourself we don’t care.
patrick neid on May 18, 2008 at 10:58 AM
patrick neid on May 18, 2008 at 12:02 PM
They’re out there, ya can smell ‘em.
normsrevenge on May 18, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Krydor on May 18, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Lieberman doth not a majority make.
“RINOs and DINOs are a myth”
There are well known RINO voters.
But where is the DINO voting block?
OK, DINOs ARE A MYTH.
maverick muse on May 18, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Isn’t that the truth.
Dern, another of my favorites here turns out to be of the female persuasion. How come most of the brainy posters are wimmen?
petefrt on May 18, 2008 at 12:14 PM
Not enough checks and balances on where the money goes in those private enterprises. Too much donated money offers too many temptations. When Alan Keyes saw the financial potential and got involved with his web of non-profits, it was game over in terms of donors getting value for their money. There were other factors but that was a big one.
a capella on May 18, 2008 at 12:16 PM
To Flenser (flenser on May 18, 2008 at 11:45 AM)
Yes, he signed it. I don’t think anyone will disagree with you there.
Are you really that thick-headed, Flenser? Reagan did insist on provisions legalizing illegal immigrants already in the US. Just ask Ed Meese…
He also agreed with the legislation in adjusting the status of immigrants—even if they had entered illegally—who were law-abiding long-term residents, many of whom had children in the United States. Illegal immigrants who could establish that they had resided in America continuously for five years would be granted temporary resident status, which could be upgraded to permanent residency after 18 months and, after another five years, to citizenship. It wasn’t automatic. They had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register for military selective service. Those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible.
Now, I don’t know about anyone else, but I suspect Ed Meese knows a bit more about Reagan than you ever will.
In your mind, this is supposed to be an endorsement of amnesty? I’d have to see the basis proposed, but from this snippet it sure sounds like he’s talking about a guest worker program, not amnesty.
Um, no. I would say that his November 1977 radio address on the subject of illegal immigration and his insistence on provisions for the illegals already here (1896 IRCA) provides pretty strong evidence on his support for amnesty.
Now, before you start calling someone a liar again and end up making a fool of yourself, I suggest you take the time to look some of this up. You might get a surprise.
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 12:17 PM
What specifically have I said which has been “full of shit”, as you so eloquently phrase it?
Actually, you ignorant jackass, he’s not. Not yet at any rate.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Yes, corrections can and do come fast and furious!
The pattern of collapse and correction defines several important historical epochs. The barbarian infiltration of the Roman Empire was gradual, but the dam finally broke and Rome was lost in the 5th century. Yet to call what followed a “dark age” is liberal distortion. What actually followed was reverence for, and preservation of, the treasures of Western Civilization. You can’t read Augustine, or Boethius, or St. Anselm, Venerable Bede of England, or any of the Celtic arts and letters of the period, and tell yourself these were dark times. There was a renaissance after the bariarian sack of Rome. It upsets academic leftists to admit that Christendom successfully recovered from what, by all expectations, should have been the end of civilization as we know it.
This is the reason for my hope. The great philosopher Alasdair McIntyre coined the term “communities of character” to describe the enclaves of those who will carry on the principles and traditions of Western Civilization, come what apparent darkness may. Neither illegal immigration, nor even terrorist threat, can extinguish the flame.
jeff_from_mpls on May 18, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Give it a rest and avoid the liberal knee jerk, please.
Actually, the Nixon GOP era DID play by the progressive rules of Chicom appeasement following the Vietnamese “peace with honor” that fulfilled Nixon’s campaign BIG SECRET promising to end that war without surrender. Exactly what did we get from making China SPECIAL TRADING PARTNER? We enabled the situation in which we find ourselves at present. Anyway, when McCain was first elected, he was not Goldwater then any more than he is Goldwater today. Most Republicans then wanted peace and prosperity then just as they do today. Then, though, the GOP had no idea just how far LEFT the DNC was to go. With the exception of the radical fringe, EVERYONE was offended by the SDS and Black Panthers THEN. Today’s political spectrum is vastly different than in the Nixon days. Terrye made a valid point.
maverick muse on May 18, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Apart from the fact that you want me to take this 1977 radio address as his last and only word on the topic, you don’t even cite it in its entirety. What does it actually say?
Really? What evidence can you offer to support your claim that Reagan “insisted” an amnesty for illegals as a provision for signing the bill?
You then quote Meese, cited by me, as saying the exact opposite of what you imagine he said.
You - “Reagan did insist on provisions legalizing illegal immigrants already in the US”
Meese - “He (Reagan) also agreed with the legislation in adjusting the status of immigrants—even if they had entered illegally—who were law-abiding long-term residents, many of whom had children in the United States.”
If you really don’t understand the difference between “insist on” and “agreed” then you need to sue your high school teachers.
Reagan DID NOT insist on amnesty as a condition for signing the bill, and you are a bare faced liar for saying that he did.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Only if you think we need to go back to the days when the GOP was run by the Rockefeller Republicans. I know Terrye does think that. Do you?
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 12:29 PM
GT, that you accuse me of being “thick headed” in the process of quoting Meese contradicting you is simply priceless.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 12:30 PM
And if the Right stays home and hands the country to Obama, I can guarantee that things will get a LOT worse, and I’m afraid it will come with a horrendous body count. I sympathize with your feelings about how the Republican party has slipped away from its conservative roots, and I’m not happy about it either… but there are, for the foreseeable future, only two political parties, and one of them is made of socialists, delusional lunatics, and spoiled children. We’re the other one. I honestly can’t say if I think the idea of abandoning the Republicans to ignominy for an election cycle or two would bring them back tinto the conservative fold - maybe yes, maybe no. I do know that the price America would pay for that kind of discipline is just too high. We are better advised to work within the party we have for influence. Imagine the media narrative after an Obama victory and re-election. I don’t fancy the task of picking up the smoking ruins of the Republican party after such a debacle, and trying to turn it into a working political machine again, fighting uphill against the media all the way.
He’s a politician, surrounded by advisors. Those advisors view the entire Republican party as their constituency. McCain and his administration will be open to persuasion from voices on the Right. It won’t be easy, it won’t always work, and McCain may indeed react with sputtering rage. The Right’s influence with Barack Hussein Obama is exactly zero. We are not even allowed to use his full name.
Three words: War on Terror. If we lose that struggle, none of the others matter. Our country stands on the verge of surrending the rest of the world to the jihad. If we elect Obama, we send a message of weakness and naivete that will prove decisive in the Middle East, and provocative to those who might attack us at home. We will, in essence, signal that we no longer believe in ourselves as a country, that we can turn our backs on fallen heroes. We put a man who takes the Daily Kos seriously in command of our destiny, and tell the world that free democracy is too weak to fight for its beliefs - that victory can be plucked from the jaws of defeat against America at any moment. I think we need to win that battle, decisively. And as for how much domestic damage President Obama can do, just scroll through the Hotair archives and notice how many legal atrocities are perpetrated by Carter and Clinton appointees. The Left will not be timid in excersising its power, especially since they will view an Obama victory as legitimizing the farthest fringes of liberalism. Do you hate McCain enough to think you can handle Ayers and Dorn sleeping in the White House? I sure don’t.
Doctor Zero on May 18, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Good point.
Reagan compromised, not realizing the extent to which that compromise would lead us into our current situation. And therein, one should be suspect of RINOs bearing gifts, McCain included.
maverick muse on May 18, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Nice attack… lets see… scumbags, pathetic, wrong, hating, young…
Well.. I’m not young. I don’t HATE, I’m not a scumbag, and my problems with McCain have little to do with VietNam…
McCain Feingold… ever hear of it? McCain Kennedy? How about that one? Or maybe just that he has been a PART of Congress selling this country down the river… that he cast a vote to NOT allow us to drill, and that single vote killed drilling in Anwar once…
I don’t HATE McCain… he, like many other politicians are just wrong, and underserving of my vote…
What I do HATE is people who go overboard with rhetoric, and think their OPINIONS are fact, and then go forward and INSULT others.
As to the charts? They show more about Party Loyalty, than idealogical loyalty… they just show that the parties have acquired much more power as the campaign laws changed, and party affiliation became more and more important… even though less and less of the electorate identify themselves with the partys…
Romeo13 on May 18, 2008 at 12:33 PM
I believe so.
You can’t be serious. McCain is a perfect symbol of everthing that’s wrong with government in America. He’s stupid, out of touch, has only disdain for the American people, and has been in power WAY too long.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Thanks again for that. I’m going to read some of what you suggest, considering they must have something to say (implied at least, if not explicit) on renewal after decline, writing in the time they did.
One other wrinkle: The grand sweep of history might be towards “progress”, and of course that is encouraging, but I’d like to find some high ground for me and mine in the here and now. This native NY’er isn’t sure how to do that. For ex, it doesn’t seem from what I’ve heard and read that mpls is the place (i.e. red state exile.) But I’m searching.
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 12:36 PM
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 12:29 PM
There you go again. Catch your breath. Terrye asked you to read Terrye’s comments with Terrye’s references in mind. I would do that for you, as you may note @ 12:31, without ostricizing or creating a fission where none need be. I have found more often than not in dialogue that those who make DEMANDS of another do so without regard for decency. That would be my opinion. You can have your own.
maverick muse on May 18, 2008 at 12:37 PM
+1
a capella on May 18, 2008 at 12:38 PM
So, illegal immigration is not important and the myth of man made global warming is ?
Johan Klaus on May 18, 2008 at 12:38 PM
It’s not true. There are good ones from both camps, and the true ladies do like the gents.
You are also one of my favorites and your blog is a riot.
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Right, right, right!
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Nebraska is nice, other than tornados, Hagel, and a rebuilding time for Big Red football. However, Hagel will soon be gone, Big Red will heal, and only tornados will remain.:) Plus, you can carry rifles in a pickup rack.
a capella on May 18, 2008 at 12:45 PM
With all due respect, which I mean sincerely, I think that Obama v. McCain 2008 is not the time to be making your admittedly principled stand. We have an absolute abomination vs. someone who is often stupid. And there it is.
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Ed, after reading most of the above comments, and taking into consideration my own views, it would appear that a future analyst would conclude that, in voting for McCain, conservatives have moved to the left. Whereas, in fact, they voted for the only one on the ticket - not for their preferred choice.
OldEnglish on May 18, 2008 at 12:46 PM
LOL! My uber-liberal insane law professor brother-in-law, and Nebraskan native derides the state endlessly. For that reason I had already added it to my list of places to check out!
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Why does it always come back to Romney? Moderate Independents can’t stand Romney, as has been shown by many polls goin back almost a year. They liked him fine in Massachusetts when he claimed to legitimately represent their views, but when he remade himself for the 2008 presdential run, he not only did a bad impression of a hard right winger, but made himself look like another sleazy politician in the process. A few recent surveys have shown that adding Romney to the republican ticket (with McCain at the top) would cause a 10 percent swing in favor of the Democrats, with Obama on the top of the ticket. While other commenters here have been quick to call such polls meaningless, they fit perfectly with the rest of the evidence we have about Romney, who only remains popular among a small fan base.
Big S on May 18, 2008 at 12:49 PM
My grandchildren call each other names, but as much as I love them, if they do it in my house they get a whipping.
Johan Klaus on May 18, 2008 at 12:50 PM
True, it is is a forced position, but more conservative choices were offered in the primaries and didn’t make the cut.
a capella on May 18, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Oh, come off it. The so-called “War On Terror” is a very inconsequental matter. I supported the invasion of Iraq for practical reasons. I never bought into this absurd fiction that we’re in immediate danger of being overrun by militant Islam. Get a grip.
Bush is, in theory, a lot more open to voices from the right than McCain is. And he’s frozen those voices out for the most part. Why do you think McCain, who has made no secret of his dislike for conservatives and who has openly reached out to the left in preference to them, will suddenly do a 180?
I’m not sure how you have not noticed, but OUR party has been taken over by the same “socialists, delusional lunatics, and spoiled children”. And you want to ratify that takeover by supporting the prefered candidate of those people.
Eight years of Bush has brought the GOP to the brink of oblivion. Four years of McCain will polish it off. If you don’t want the party to be a smoking ruin you need to vote for anybody but McCain.
It does no good to complain about liberalism while voting for it. As long as Republican voters dutifully go out and vote for whover the party gives them, the party will continue to move to the left.
The American people want liberalsim. Lets give them Democratic party liberalism, not GOP liberalism. That way, when they recoil from it, there will be a party left to offer them something different.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Doctor Zero on May 18, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Eloquently said, if only it will be persuasive to the “spoiled children” in the conservative party. Some will go with Paul, others with Barr, others will stay home, others will vote with Obama (kill me, before I understand) - I just hope you will reach some to prevent an Obama presidency. I prefer Hillary to him. All three will hurt this country, but in this order, from worst to least:
1. Obama
2. Hillary
3. McCain
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Why thank you!
petefrt on May 18, 2008 at 12:53 PM
I think that says a lot about “moderate independents”, and its almost all bad. They only know what they get from newspaper headlines.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 12:54 PM
A mixture of socialism with Marxism are very hard to pull back from. Besides, there’s no Reagan waiting behind a curtain. And, this is not 1980.
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 12:55 PM
I’d mostly recommend reading Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy, bearing in mind that even as Boethius composed this dialog on the great, timeless principles, he was awaiting his own unjust execution in a prison cell, and ultimately died a horrible death.
P.S. you’re right about Minneapolis, it’s Red Square.
jeff_from_mpls on May 18, 2008 at 12:56 PM
I’ve noticed that cerain female commenters love to make remarks such as this. Do you imagine that this sort of silly and childish name calling actually advances your position? What do you imagine you accomplish?
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Though I am angry at McCain’s RINO votes, I think that going too far in condemning McCain you lose the argument. Learn a lesson from Romeo in staying level headed to make the point hit the target.
Now here we are, stuck with McCain on the ticket. I squawked as loud as anyone, swearing while Thompson was in the running that McCain would NEVER get my vote because of his RINO votes. But the facts remain. Give an inch to the LEFT and they take a mile. And once taxes are passed and subsidies are granted, there’s no negating them from the books. The only “relief” ever achieved since FDR has been VERY temporary, reverting further LEFT as soon as the “relief” expires. So there is no reason to dream that electing a thorough LEFTIST (DNC candidate) will benefit conservative Americans. That is folly to presume. Though the GOP will rise again someday, there is no way to make liberal legislation evaporate once it’s in the books. To make a long story short, I see that I will end up voting for McCain in order to lose less ground than with the Democrat Progressive.
And flenser, if you haven’t figured it out yet, I’ll stand by what I’ve said all along: to hell with all of the Rockefellers.
maverick muse on May 18, 2008 at 12:57 PM
We’ve got a real genius here.
Then stop supporting it.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 12:58 PM
True. It’s the baggage, always the baggage.
OldEnglish on May 18, 2008 at 1:01 PM
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 12:57 PM
I was quoting Doctor Zero. “Spoiled” is not a possession of just the left.
p.s. You thought I was a slow male. Now you have all the ammo why I’m so slow - I’m a female.
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 1:01 PM
a capella on May 18, 2008 at 1:01 PM
Red Square Americana with a smile–aren’t Charles Shultz’s Peanuts’ characters enshrined in bronze? As was the fad in 1970, you can say anything with a smile.
maverick muse on May 18, 2008 at 1:02 PM
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Why don’t you take the time to look it up. I understand that there is a terrific tool called “google”. You should try it. If that doesn’t work, why don’t you ask Weekly Standard’s Duncan Currie. Or do you want to resort to calling the Weekly Standard a liberal rag?
Well, I suppose we could start with your own post (flenser on May 18, 2008 at 11:55 AM) where you quoted the following…
Note that this path to citizenship was not automatic. Indeed, the legislation stipulated several conditions: immigrants had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register for military selective service. Those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible. Sound familiar? These are pretty much the same provisions included in the new Senate proposal and cited by its supporters as proof that they have eschewed amnesty in favor of earned citizenship.
The difference is that President Reagan called this what it was: amnesty. Indeed, look up the term “amnesty” in Black’s Law Dictionary, and you’ll find it says, “the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided amnesty for undocumented aliens already in the country.”
Then we have Reagan’s own words…. “We have consistently supported a legalization program which is both generous to the alien and fair to the countless thousands of people throughout the world who seek legally to come to America. The legalization provisions in this act will go far to improve the lives of a class of individuals who now must hide in the shadows, without access to many of the benefits of a free and open society. Very soon many of these men and women will be able to step into the sunlight and, ultimately, if they choose, they may become Americans.”
So, combine Reagan’s 1977 radio address, his 1980 letter to a supporter where he said “I believe we must resolve the problem at our southern border with full regard to the problems and needs of Mexico. I have suggested legalizing the entry of Mexican labor into this country on much the same basis you proposed, although I have not put it into the sense of restoring the bracero program.” and his signing statement statement above, its pretty reasonable to say that Reagan supported amnesty.
The question is, knowing the failure of the 1986 IRCA would he still support it? I’d like to think not, but honesty requires us to say we don’t really know.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 1:03 PM
Ladies and gentlemen of HA, I present to you flenser!
I lived in it for a long time. I hate it with every fiber in my being, and I will fight it with my last breath. Therefore I will do all in my power to prevent an Obama presidency. I love this country too much to condone it.
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 1:05 PM
…in a nutshell. Well put.
And greetings. But signing off just now; the kids came home to visit.
maverick muse on May 18, 2008 at 1:06 PM
In supporting McCain, you’re giving the left that mile.
I’m not going too far. McCain is a liberal, if the word has any meaning at all.
Sure there is. You just need to support people who think in a conservative fashion, as opposed to a liberal one. You can’t decry the drift to liberalism while being a part of it.
It’s a free country. Contrary to what most of you believe, you don’t have to vote for a member of either the Democratic or Republican parties. You don’t have to accept the McCain will be the GOP nominee.
There is a fatalism on the right which is very alien to the spirit of Reagan.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 1:06 PM
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 12:27 PM
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Flenser, your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 1:06 PM
Well, I’m not personally a huge Romney fan, but I’ve liked him a lot more since he ended his candidacy, I don’t take hypothetical-match-up opinion polls very seriously, and I guess it was also partly my own McCainiac way of reaching out to the section of the hard right that isn’t too far gone in McCain-hatred and Bircheresque simplisms.
One of the things I liked most about the Yuval Levin article was that it focused on achievable, recognizably conservative, and highly attractive approaches to vexing problems - from immigration to the earmarks to entitlements to health insurance to intelligence failings. At the same time, it not only doesn’t contradict McCain’s campaign and public persona, but is completely in line with them. IF selecting Romney helps unify the party around such a program (a good goal, but some will always feel left out), then that’s fine with me.
If it’s too late for congressional Republicans to rally around a reform/renewal agenda, I fully expect a new generation of House Republican leadership to take it up. Under a McCain presidency, working with blue dogs, they might even have an opportunity to enact some of it. At the very least, they could begin to re-brand the party around something forward-looking, and provide a way to oppose a Democratic program as something other than pure obstructionists .
CK MacLeod on May 18, 2008 at 1:09 PM
GT, don’t work too hard today. It’s Sunday.
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 1:09 PM
GT, the previous comment was in regards to
GT on May 18, 2008 at 1:06 PM
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 1:10 PM
I know. I’m just bored and he’s fun.
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 1:10 PM
If not now, when?
This exact same “argument” will be trotted out in 2012 and 2016 to justify voting for the next liberal Republican for President. As it was in 1996 and 2000 and 2004.
The implication is that sure, at some point you’ll be willing to make a principled stand. But only when it’s safe to do so.
But it’s never going to be safe to do so. And to be principled means doing whats right because you believe that that’s the best thing to do in the long run, even if its awkard in the short term. To say “I’ll be principled later” is to admit that you’re not principled now.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 1:13 PM
Germany and France are having a hard time trying to pull back from socialism.
Johan Klaus on May 18, 2008 at 1:13 PM
You read Meese as saying that Reagan agreed to go along with amnesty as meaning that Reagan “insisted” on amnesty, and you think that my reading skills are lacking?
Why do you liberals always argue like this? If you were prevented from making snide insults you might as well be gagged.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Yes, the Charles Shultz Peanuts sculptures are everywhere. I notice them mainly at drinking establishments for reasons I’d rather not get into.
Minnesota fancies itself a happy place, but before you get too excited, remember these people also think Garrison Keillor is funny.
jeff_from_mpls on May 18, 2008 at 1:17 PM
You are not “fighting it with your last breath”. You are supporting it.
I’m sure that in your own mind, you just said something brilliant! And with an exclamation point!
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 1:19 PM
Flenser,
Lets see if I can help you with your lack of understanding that Reagan did “insist” on amnesty…
You said…
Nowhere did I say that is was a condition for signing nor did I ever allude to such a thing.
What I said was the same thing Mark R. Levin said in his May 21, 2006 article for the WSJO titled “Reagan on Immigration:
GOP nativists lose one for the Gipper.”
To quote Levin….
It’s true that in November 1986 Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which included more money for border police and employer sanctions. The Gipper was a practical politician who bowed that year to one of the periodic anti-immigration uprisings from the GOP’s nativist wing. But even as he signed that bill, he also insisted on a provision for legalizing immigrants already in the U.S.–that is, he supported “amnesty.”
In his signing statement, Reagan declared: “We have consistently supported a legalization program which is both generous to the alien and fair to the countless thousands of people throughout the world who seek legally to come to America. The legalization provisions in this act will go far to improve the lives of a class of individuals who now must hide in the shadows, without access to many of the benefits of a free and open society. Very soon many of these men and women will be able to step into the sunlight and, ultimately, if they choose, they may become Americans.”
Do you want to call Levin a liar too, Flenser?
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 1:19 PM
flenser, you’re not only a genius, you’re also an amusing one. That’s a great combination, really.
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 1:21 PM
You read Meese as saying that Reagan agreed to go along with amnesty as meaning that Reagan “insisted” on amnesty, and you think that my reading skills are lacking?
Why do you liberals always argue like this? If you were prevented from making snide insults you might as well be gagged.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Dude. Grow up.
Just because you don’t pay attention and try to put words in people’s mouths doesn’t make them “liberals”. It only makes you look like a fool.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 1:22 PM
I think McCain is doing exactly what is noted in the analysis; attempting to capture the vacant middle. I also think some here are reading too much into the charts - they show how congress is trending, not the electorate. I believe the chart is an accurate representation of what is happening among congressional delegations, but it does not represent the will of the voters, who are still slightly to the right of center. Bush’s mistake was to pull the party right on social issues, and abandon the fiscal conservatives. Rectifying that is a winning tactic. Hence, if in November McCain can occupy > 50% of the chart, he can win, even if he does not hold the 3-5% on the far right of the chart. In other words, for those who want to stay home on election day because McCain is ‘too liberal’, he can probably lose your vote while capturing 3 from the middle ground.
Think_b4_speaking on May 18, 2008 at 1:22 PM
You lost me there.
In what way is Mcain’s “persona” completely in line with conservative approaches to immigration? He is the poster child for opposition to conservative approaches to that.
The same holds true to a lesser extent for the other items you mention. What makes you see McCain as a natural spokesman for the conservative approach on entitlements?
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 1:23 PM
You shouldn’t take individual matchups too seriously when looking at raw numbers, but the shifts of voter opinion within a single respondent sample confirm all of the polling results we’ve seen since last summer. Also, long-term trends are important. During the primaries, match-up polls would routinely show that Romney would pull 35-40% of the vote vs. 50-60% for his hypothetical Democrat opponents. McCain, Giuliani, and even Thompson would match up much better. Interestingly enough, Romney’s numbers vs. a Democrat have always been in line with the “generic” matchup of a Democrat and a Republican, which the Republican loses by quite a bit in our current political climate. That is fitting, since Romney spent so much money and energy remaking himself into a charicature of a “generic Republican.” There is overwhelming evidence that people don’t like Romney (outside his small base), and it’s not because they don’t know him. He’s poison to the Republican ticket, and if McCain wants to win, he won’t take him as his running mate.
Big S on May 18, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Bush one and Bob Dole were rejected for their disdain for conservatives, and I think that the same thing may happen again.
Johan Klaus on May 18, 2008 at 1:28 PM
GT
So when you said this;
or this;
what exactly did you mean by “insisted”? That certainly counts as “alluded”, and probably as much more.
Note the dictionary definition of “insist”;
To be firm in a demand or course; refuse to yield
So according to you, Reagan “refused to yield” on his demand for amnesty as part of the immigration bill. But at the same time, this was not setting a “condition”?
I repeat, you not only don’t know how to read, you don’t know the meanings of words.
I’m quoting your own words back to you. If you’re too dim to understand what you are saying, that’s not my problem.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 1:31 PM
I knew McCain reminded me of a C.R.E.E.P., but couldn’t put my finger on exactly who it was. Thanks for helping me out there, Ed.
Branch Rickey on May 18, 2008 at 1:32 PM
I’m sorry, but I don’t see how this makes any sense. It is because voters see too little of a difference between presidential candidates that they don’t feel the need to vote. Having someone more moderate than John McCain run would only further prove that feeling.
Esthier on May 18, 2008 at 1:33 PM
If that means we get back a conservative Congress, great. That’s what I’m aiming for.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 1:33 PM
On the other hand, they may not have. So that pretty well covers it.
MB4 on May 18, 2008 at 1:34 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 »