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 »
This is the first thing I have ever seen you post anything resembling a “principle.”
Having said that, and totally meaning it as a compliment, the word “principle” may have too much “religious” weightiness for your taste; or be too “rigid;” or too much over an overtone of “right wing zealots” {like little MAYOR Boris - fellow panelist?}, but I do believe you revealed much about yourself.
As always you will be in my prayers: along with the departed souls of HRH Diana, Princess of Wales, and Mother (soon to be Saint) Theresa of Calcutta. {btw, I pray for all the posters here because I love the this country’s ability for robust debate with LIBERTY FOR ALL.
TTFN
Branch Rickey on May 18, 2008 at 2:53 PM
patrick neid
As usual, patrick is telling fibs. I’m not a “paulie”. Anyone trusting a word patrick writes is asking for trouble.
Sure, I’ll trust you on that, when you demonstrate some knowledge of even Conservatism 101.
You were one of the anti-conservative faction at CQ I recall. Sadly it looks like Ed brought his following here with him.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 2:55 PM
I think it’s referring to this.
Your arguments about Reagan not being a firebreather are true, however, and flenser displays all of the hallmarks of your average reactionary 23-year-old who does not remember Reagan and beleives everything he/she/it reads on the internet.
Big S on May 18, 2008 at 2:56 PM
I’m assuming this is for me. Yes. The troll’s absolutely righteously indignant that anyone should disagree with its obvious superiority and logic and purity.
Dissenting opinions only come from fools, don’tcha know?
It’s been an interesting little tantrum on display for a lazy Sunday afternoon. Lots of sound and fury signifying nothing, such as is were.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Kid, I was posting here when you were in diapers.
What? Oh. Well, when you were even younger than you are now.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 2:57 PM
By a Lady’s finger-nails, by her blouse-sleeve, by her shoes, by her dress-knees, by the softness of her forefinger and thumb, by her expression, by her blouse-cuff - By each of these things a woman’s calling is plainly revealed. That all united should fail to enlighten the competent inquirer in any case is almost inconceivable.
Holmes on May 18, 2008 at 2:57 PM
Branch Rickey on May 18, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Thank you for your prayers. Many of my friends/acquaintances/relatives do the same, and it helps a lot.
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 3:00 PM
I lived through the Reagan years, Big S. I remember all the shrieking over his fire-breathing talk about the Soviet Union. Remember the “Evil Empire”? Remember “we start bombing in five minutes”? Remember the “Raygun” talk?
Some people who were liberals at the time and had to admit that he did good seem to have converted him in their minds into sme kindly old man. But in 1980, he was seen as some combination of Tancredo, Hunter, and Paul. It was thought that the GOP would lose by nominating such a “extremist”, as he was widely, and rightly, seen. But his “extremism” was what the people wanted to hear.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 3:03 PM
By his putting on heirs he shall be known….much like The Maverick {translation: trashed conservative PRINCIPLES} Republican “presumptive” Nominee….
Branch Rickey on May 18, 2008 at 3:03 PM
…and that I consider the blessing of today.
You’ve still not told me whom to vote for this year, just whom not to vote for.
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Can’t hurt. ;^D
Branch Rickey on May 18, 2008 at 3:04 PM
MB4,
If you want to distort my quotes, have at it. Either vote for McCain, hillary/Obama, stay home but meanwhile shut the F’up.
Does that pass your purity act?
patrick neid on May 18, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Holmes, I take your word for it, of course. But you must see my predicament. Whilst using this infernal “internet” contraption, I am quite unable to discern the ladies accoutrements.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 3:08 PM
That’s some deep thinking there, neid. Sure you don’t belong at DU or Kos?
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 3:10 PM
RIGHT ON!
and if the MSM was posing him as an international terrorist he was either a bumbling fool and at the same time a mastermind at domestic genocide. I remember Bozell’s organization had a piece about an NBC a.m. morning show spot about fire resistible children’s clothes and Bryant Gumbel took that story in 2 degrees of separation or less to somehow President Reagan’s fault for signing the legislation.
I remember the 70s, 80s and 90s vividly.
Branch Rickey on May 18, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Entelechy, like me and several others you’ve gleefully insulted today are charter members here at HA. Here since before official registration was even opened. There’s a reason she told you to google her posts. But of course, that would require you to shut up and learn something, and that you simply will not do.
Personally, I’m finding you to be a sandy little butt-hole. But we’ve seen many sandy little butt-holes come and go. Just a matter of time with you, I suppose.
Ah well… better things to do than engage in a battle of wits against an unarmed opponent.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Dude, the closest Reagan came to being a firebreather was in the New Hampshire debate in 1980 when he raised his voice in a loud tone stating that he “..paid for this microphone!”
Ahh….thanks. I’ll have to get that one. I’m in the middle of “Ronald Reagan in Private” by Jim Kuhn at the moment. Its been an interesting read so far.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Reagen was a nice man. I don’t think he ever once said anything like, “#uck you. I know more about this than anyone else in the room!!!”
MB4 on May 18, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Yes, it does seem a straightforward question, yet he/she resists commitment.
a capella on May 18, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Aber Ich bien “Der Treue Husar”.
Johan Klaus on May 18, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Reagan “shrieked”?
I don’t think so.
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 3:13 PM
The phenomenon is noted, but hardly universal.
Too far I think. They don’t want to be the ones to push the plunger. Conserve means save. I think maybe we’re going in circles now.
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Flenser,
There was a time when I identified myself as conservative. I even thought I knew what conservatism was. Now, all conservatism reminds me of is the knee-jerk liberalism I used to hate.
Alan on May 18, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Branch Rickey on May 18, 2008 at 3:14 PM
So the redefinition of Conservative continues? Cool. Well I tell you what. Here’s what I’m going to do. I’m going to redefine Progressive to mean that we’re in favor of smaller Government, individual liberty and freedom. Welfare and Social Security reform, strong national defense, and immigration reform and enforcement. You can redefine Conservative to mean bigger government, more regulation, and more government intrusion if you want.
Snake307 on May 18, 2008 at 3:15 PM
Hehehe….can’t argue with that. :)
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Ouch! (btw, has this ever worked with MB4?)
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Sure, he’ll vote, always, for Goldwater :)
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 3:19 PM
You don’t quite get this whole concept of political blogs and commenting, do you?
See, I make arguments for certain positions I hold. Then other people make arguments for why it’s better to do something else. Or even to hold different positions.
Then we have a third group, people like you, people who contribute nothing at all to the debate but whose sole purpose here seems to be to stroke their own egos.
I get that you think you’re wonderful and smart. I just don’t much care, especially considering that you never actually try to say anything that would allow people to evaluate you for themselves. Your prefered mode of commenting consists of constant self-congratualtion, with an implied put down of all those people who you could wipe the floor with, if you were not so busy being amused.
But wrenching the topic back from how marvelous you are for just a moment, can I trouble you to say anything about politics?
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 3:19 PM
You mean, she actually considers this one of the better weapons she can use?
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Answered like a true Democrat. Harry Reid would be proud. If you had actually been a Republican, you’d have done something stupid like actually answering the question.
Well done, Flenser!
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Alan
What did you use to think it was? What change do you think has come over it? I’m arguing for Reagan style conservatism.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 3:22 PM
And still it does not answer.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 3:23 PM
By far the weakest thing you’ve said today, IMO. It’s a perfectly reasonable question to pose to anyone who objects to McCain so much. Either suggest the alternative, or say you won’t vote for President.
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 3:24 PM
Really. Are you sure?
Duncan Currie of Weekly Review had an interesting article on just that. What is a Reagan Conservative?
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 3:25 PM
patrick neid:
“That said, I put it to you that our core beliefs are only two, fiscal restraint and small government bias.”
I’d suggest that fiscal restraint logically derives from small government bias, and I would add a bias toward local vs. federal control. On that basis, I would also argue that while social conservatives dress themselves in the ideological clothing of the right, they do not, in fact, share those core principles. To whit, per flenser:
“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.”
Over the past decade, social conervatives have been engaged in a long incremental battle to define the fetus as “person” in law. When challenged, this is billed as the only realistic response to judicial overreach. That does not, however, make it a conservative response. This effort actively seeks to create not just a government interest, but a federal interest where none heretofore existed.
Similarly, where there is certainly a conservative argument to be made against government funded stem cell research, the pro-life insistence that life, and thus ultimately legal personhood, begins at conception, creates an overriding federal, statist, interest in every fertilized egg in existence, whether in utero or out. This is an invitation, nay a clarion call, to federal intrusion upon and regulation of intimate reproductive processes at almost every level. Social conservatives who are so quick to sound alarms elsewhere, willfully ignore the stark and frightening dimensions of this particular slippery slope.
I, personally, believe that pro-life/pro-choice issues, more than almost anything else, have stood the fundamental ideological distinction between left and right on its head. There’s more than irony at work when “liberals” are fighting to keep government out of our bedrooms, our sex lives and our wombs, while “consertives” embrace flagrant exercises in social engineering like abstinence only sex education.
JM Hanes on May 18, 2008 at 3:26 PM
I in no way distorted your “quotes”.
And just who was it now who died and appointed you Fuhrer, potty mouth?
Your comments don’t pass any kind of test. None at all.
MB4 on May 18, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Well done, GT!!
I’m very proud of you!
Gee, this is such an effective means of conveying information, isn’t it? Or at least, it’s a cool way for you to convey your emotions.
See, there was no “question” asked. She made one of her usual empty and snarky remarks. I asked her to stop doing that and start giving her views.
And then YOU responded by making an empty and snarky remark of your own.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 3:27 PM
Technically correct, though evasive.
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 3:29 PM
I used to think it was individual liberty and free markets–markets where banks had to actually worry about risk when making financial decisions. I considered myself more a Goldwater conservative. But by today’s standard he died a liberal.
Alan on May 18, 2008 at 3:31 PM
I will discern the ladies accouterments, you shall battle the angry villagers in the street.
Holmes on May 18, 2008 at 3:31 PM
Yes, but lots of background noise. Probably just wants to eat his waffle in peace.
a capella on May 18, 2008 at 3:32 PM
Please explain why this is a bad thing? The two party system has been the reason for this nation’s decline. Less choices has led to more corruption because we too often are choosing between “the lesser of two evils”.
This is why the average citizen and his or her vote doesn’t really matter anymore. The perception that we either have to vote Republican or Democrat has led to the reality of both parties working together to limit the chances third parties have to work their way into the process without anyone raising a fuss over it.
Basically we’re screwed as a nation. Eventually the two main parties will cause our economic collapse by continuing to spend money we don’t have, the fit will hit the shan and maybe after all that we can finally get our country back…if we’re lucky. Of course the politicians will have long since relocated to other countries on the money they made from lobbyists while they were in office. So it doesn’t matter to them what happens as long as they get their share of the loot.
Benaiah on May 18, 2008 at 3:32 PM
LOL. Why waffles?
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 3:33 PM
It’s one of the few areas where the term “liberal” still applies, in its original meaning, to contemporary American politics.
Big S on May 18, 2008 at 3:34 PM
I agree. I think Evangelicals need to create their own party and put forth their own candidate. There are enough Christian voters in the U.S. to make this viable. Not a Christian? You have a big problem in the afterlife, but politically speaking Christians hold conservative values which are appealing to believer or not. It would work. Just do it!
apacalyps on May 18, 2008 at 3:37 PM
The problem with that argument is that the moment Roe v. Wade was decided, it became a federal interest. As a result, conservatives have no other option but to respond accordingly.
I don’t support your assertion that conservatives have embraced flagrant exercises in social engineering. I think that a more accurate description would be that they are responding to the flagrant exercises in social engineering.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Heh.
Starting to remind me of Mustafa in ‘Austin Powers’. You have to ask it the question three times before it’s forced by its own tic to answer.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 3:39 PM
I would disagree here in that the best hope for stopping the liberals was Governor Mike Huckabee. Governor Huckabee is the best speaker and the most charismatic of the Republican candidates — a true conservative — with an Reaganesque ability to communicate. He would have won over many on the left had the GOP elite backed him and given him the full support he and the country deserves.
apacalyps on May 18, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Actually, the question was asked…..
GT on May 18, 2008 at 3:44 PM
flesner, for someone who’s not “seen” me here before, you sure are great at the art of surmising. I’m one of the most self-deprecating people, and don’t believe in anyone’s greatness. I don’t bow to self, nor to Hollywood, nor to anyone.
In my long HA tenure I’ve tried very hard to stay on topic, with the exception of some Fred-threads, during which we goofed around a bit. Therefore your comment about politics is weird, as most threads here are about politics.
If you are a liberal, accept it and be happy. If you are a Paulite, accept that and be happy. If you were for Romney, I’m just as sad that he didn’t make it.
No one can reach your superior way of thinking, and I gladly submitted to that when you first called me slow.
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 3:46 PM
what he said
funky chicken on May 18, 2008 at 3:46 PM
IMAO on the real players in this year’s race - GOP should have gotten rid of Nixon when it could.
When, THEN, is the time to take, ” your admittedly principled stand?”
Branch Rickey on May 18, 2008 at 3:48 PM
You mean the same huckster preacher that made a joke about obambi ducking because someone pointed a gun at him at the NRA convention? That Reaganesque communicator?
There are only two gop choices that were worse than McC. One was the huckster and at the very bottom of the list ron paul.
Please take your lyps off the hucksters… um… well, we’ll let it go at that. Oh, and take your kneepads with you.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 3:49 PM
I don’t think this is good at all. This is what I have been saying all along. The Republican elite (not grass roots conservatives) are moving the Republican party to the center. Notice what Schwarzenegger just said. “Let’s let the party come all the way to the center. Let those people be heard as much as the right.” These “politicians” have ruined the GOP mainstream chance of getting a President who will deal with their needs and not only Wall Streets and the Insiders. This provides a good look at their true colors.
apacalyps on May 18, 2008 at 3:49 PM
Precious little works with MB4.
MB4 on May 18, 2008 at 3:50 PM
I’m curious as to hear the answer on this myself. One would presume that the answer would be the primary, but we need primary reform before that can be effective.
Spirit of 1776 on May 18, 2008 at 3:51 PM
It is simple; just follow the Constitution. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people”.
Johan Klaus on May 18, 2008 at 3:52 PM
I will offer a choice, not an echo.
- Barry Goldwater
It’s a great country, where anybody can grow up to be president… except me.
- Barry Goldwater
MB4 on May 18, 2008 at 3:55 PM
But that’s not always clear, since there are some parts of the constitution that are pretty vague. For example:
The President…shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
Big S on May 18, 2008 at 3:56 PM
I had asked before, as GT noted.
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 3:56 PM
Thanks for taking the time to read the Levin piece. As you say, it offers a means for the conservatives and the center to ally in reformation for the good of the nation. The ideas here have an appeal to what much of the nation is looking for as far as direction for the present and for the future.
McCain, I think, would be agreeable to many of the ideas, and the conservatives would have a role in limiting government (sticking to Federalist principles) and in being fiscally sound in achieving these ends. The relationship of the president (if McCain) does not have to be adversarial within the party, especially if the economics of the issues are pointed out to McCain. I really believe that a McCain/Romney ticket following Levin’s suggestions would trend our country in the right direction.
onlineanalyst on May 18, 2008 at 3:56 PM
Yes, this is very frustrating for true conservatives. The millions of everyday Americans living in medium to small towns who make this country what it is. What you have are a few people pulling the strings in the GOP establishment taking the Republican party in a direction everyday conservatives don’t want. If they get what there will be little difference between the right and left.
apacalyps on May 18, 2008 at 3:57 PM
If only SCOTUS understood that when it decided “Roe v. Wade”.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Uh oh! >>>Crickets>>>
a capella on May 18, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Hey Apacalyps, I was a little harsh there. Sincere apologies.
I just hate to see those that are most likely good Christian folks so deluded and led astray by a religious fraud who manipulates them so transparently (and badly, I might add).
Wise up and see the serpent for what he is. A pure politician cloaking himself in the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ and claiming authority he does not possess.
That’s just wrong, imho.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Johan Klaus on May 18, 2008 at 3:52 PM
We fully agree. Ausgezeichnet!
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 4:03 PM
You make the point I was talking about the other day. People like YOU are what’s wrong with America today. Mike is a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment right of Americans to own firearms for self-protection and he was speaking on YOUR behalf for the continuation of those rights. The guy makes a simple joke about someone who might take away YOUR guns, and you jump all over him to the point of calling them ‘evil’? It’s Political Correctness like that the left are using to destroy America’s culture. Pathetic.
apacalyps on May 18, 2008 at 4:06 PM
I’m still trying to figure out what’s so great about centrism. Seems to me that the folks with no coherent philosophy are centrists.
misterpeasea on May 18, 2008 at 4:07 PM
I apologize, sincerely, for transposing letters in your screen name. It was unintentional. I’m really sorry,
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 4:08 PM
Seems straight forward to me. That is what Clinton did when he fired every U.S. attorney except one and appointed his own.
Johan Klaus on May 18, 2008 at 4:11 PM
I must say that this flenser bares more than a passing resemblance to a raging bull goring both friend and foe alike. It may be best to just stand back as he gets some of the hormones out of his system. He may be in the process of giving up smoking in which case I would recommend trying a nicotine patch.
Sigy on May 18, 2008 at 4:12 PM
Add to that, the question where has compromise truly helped us? The great compromises of the early part of the country’s history may have been necessary, but still they too had to be undone and at a cost of blood.
Spirit of 1776 on May 18, 2008 at 4:12 PM
It’s not that straightforward. So-called “Constitutionalists” revere the federalist tenets of the Constitution, but ignore the passages that allow the creation of new offices, and the appointment new officers to fill them. Every time I hear that some Department of the federal government is unconstitutional, I think of these passages.
Big S on May 18, 2008 at 4:16 PM
Oh, they pass one of my tests..patrick could join the MLB’s (McCain Lemming Brownshirts) He’s sounding the battle cry and he hasn’t even read the orientation handbook yet..’Vote McCain! He’s the nominee so shut the f**k up!’
I’m quakin’ Pattie. Watcha gonna do if I don’t? Call me a ‘Paulie’? What is it with you guys that get so belligerent with those who won’t vote McCain? I’m not trying to sway anybody or change minds. All I want to do is live in my little unrepresented ghetto and be left alone. But no. Here come the cheerleaders with their nerf bat arguments. You’re not convincing anyone. You want converts? Go find a democrat. That’s what your candidate is doing; they probably have a few undecideds who may not like Obama, and may go McCain because of his record on things like Immigration and Global Warming. There are no converts left in the GOP. You have the lemmings, like you Patty that think it’s a football game and have the elephant ear hat with the space for beer cans and straw; you have the pragmatists who are going to vote McCain because they feel it’s a better decision than letting Obama in; and you have the others, like me, who won’t vote for McCain for a variety of reasons. Rather than scream filth at us, go try to sell your candidate somewhere that you might have a prayer of picking up some votes. It’s not like there’s a whole bunch of us on the right who aren’t voting for him.
austinnelly on May 18, 2008 at 4:19 PM
I accept your apologies. I’m just happy you had the sense to realize the vulgarity was out of line. That tells me your conscience is still working. Alot of people don’t know the difference between right and wrong anymore, or don’t care, their hearts have been so hardened. I’m very worried about them. Anyways, look, I don’t mind reasonable and even sharp criticism of Huckabee go ahead. We disagree I think Huckabee is a true Christian who loves the Lord. Sure, there are things I disagree with him, little things, but in my viuew he was the best candidate to lead this country back in good standing with the Lord. Thanks.
apacalyps on May 18, 2008 at 4:20 PM
Bingo. My next question is, do we really want the government to compromise and work together to “get things done”? Especially when “compromise” means “turn left”? I’d rather have partisans who don’t agree on anything, and who only “get things done” when large portions of the country want those things done, and pressure their representatives to do those things. Give me a Do-Nothing Congress, please.
—————
McCain: I’m at a loss. How does a self-respecting conservative or Republican show his disapproval for McCain and, umm, centrists like him? Politicians respond to incentives like everyone else does. Reward wishy-washy centrism, reward abandoning your party, reward liberal policy- and law-making, and you’re going to get more of it.
The other side is always going to be less desirable, so how to express disapproval for your own side without being accused of helping the other side win?
misterpeasea on May 18, 2008 at 4:22 PM
Me Too! A Congress that can’t get things done trumps a Congress that gets a lot done everyday. The only time I really wish we had more unity is on the issue of war.
Spirit of 1776 on May 18, 2008 at 4:26 PM
I have two answers, perhaps inconsistent. One, we take it now, as you suggest by your question, and encourage enough Republicans to make it clear we’re not coming to this election. McCain can have his party, but few will attend. Obama wins, and perhaps the conservatives/republicans whatever reconstitute themselves.
I choose the second. Some other time. Why? It’s personal. I especially don’t want my kids to face a US led by the Obamas and their ilk. I don’t feel I have any weapons in my arsenal to stop anything they will try to do. I’m not prepared for them. I don’t want to fight them from those relative positions of power (controlling 3 branches of gov’t). I’m not prepared. There’s no leadership. Maybe you are. Go for it. I wish you success. McCain can serve as caretaker while the sides re-group. This is my opinion. Not a prescription for you.
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 4:28 PM
JM Hanes
A real live thoughtful comment. Thanks.
Factually inaccurate, and not at all responsive to what I said. In fact, I rejected the idea you are attributing to me - that “social conservatives” are attemping to define the fetus as “person” in law.
That’s not the case, and I think you need to offer up some solid evidence before I go any further with it.
Well, it certainly can be a conservative response, depending on your definition of “conservative”. If you believe that innocent human life is being taken, as many “social conservatives” do think, then it’s a conservative response to try to stop that.
Sure. But by that definition the Feds had no business in getting involved with slavery.
Leaving aside the rather libertarian and unconservative way in which you framed that, the basic point is correct. But you seem to be implying that they think this way in an effort to get their grubby statist fingers on power. Perhaps they really believe that life begins at conception? Perhaps it does? Then what? Must that argument, even if correct, be dismissed on the grounds that it leads to an increase in state power?
I think you’re making a libertarian case here, more than a conservative one.
Really? More than the GOP embracing Great Society level government spending? More than the GOP nominating somebody who takes the liberal position on speech, immigration, taxes, and global warming? I think you’re way overreacting here.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 4:29 PM
Thanks, I appreciate the frankness of your answer. But I don’t mean to suggest anything by my question other then to flesh out your views. I don’t pretend to have the answers, though I am troubled by the problems.
Spirit of 1776 on May 18, 2008 at 4:31 PM
I think the only answer is that Conservatives are going to have to get off their duffs and educate the electorate as to just what a conservative is rather than letting the libs and the MSM do it. (if only we can stop bickering amongst ourselves as to just what defines a conservatism)
Secondly, we’re going to have to get more directly involved in the leadership of the party. By our very nature, conservatives are not very “activist-minded” like those on the Left are. That may have to change.
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 4:31 PM
I think you’re misinterpreting. That bolded part is referring to the process by which the officers and officials are approved, not the substance that the President can create any ol’ office or department.
You have to keep in mind, when looking at any specific passage, the entire thrust, the entire goal of the Constitution: to limit and specifically delineate the powers of the federal government. It makes no sense to take a passage here or there and attribute to it a meaning that contradicts the document as a whole.
And there just aren’t too many truly vague parts. Not when you use the Federalist Papers and other contemporary writings to help interpret.
misterpeasea on May 18, 2008 at 4:32 PM
Another deep thinking centerist offers his insightful comments on the political scene.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 4:32 PM
I cannot see any interpretation of the Constitution that would allow the E.P.A., OSHA, the department of education, assualt weapons ban, welfare, ect. and for that matter income tax.
And the worse tax is property tax. We are only renting our property from the govenment. If you do not think so, do not pay your taxes and the government will take your property.
Johan Klaus on May 18, 2008 at 4:36 PM
Entelechy
Then will you be making some comments about politics on this thread, or will you continue to make snarky remarks about me?
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 4:37 PM
Meanwhile, Flenser continues to duck the question….
Come on. Answer the question.
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 4:37 PM
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.
And that is always a big winner for Republicans. Think Dole, Ford and Bush in 1992 after his willingness to reach out to Democrats was exposed.
Conservatives need to dismantle liberalism. There really is no purpose for a Republican Party that’s primary purpose isn’t to totally destroy the leftists’ handiwork.
One of those two paragraphs is sarcasm.
Buddahpundit on May 18, 2008 at 4:37 PM
Saying that the RINO is a myth in response to these data points is only valid if you think ‘voting the party line’ is voting on Republican (conservative) values. Having the party line vote for massive budget increases and “comprehensive immigration reform” (amnesty) just means that there are more RINOs than there are legitimate Republicans.
Myth busted.
raiderdav on May 18, 2008 at 4:42 PM
It still doesn’t overrule the “If not specifically given to the federal government - its a states job.”
So therefore is unconstitutional. Not only unconstitutional, but a big waste of money.
The constitution is there to protect individuals and state governments from over intrusion by the federal government. This allows a state like California to totally mess things up for its citizens without destroying the country in the process.
Corsair on May 18, 2008 at 4:43 PM
techno
Your delusions of granduer are duely noted.
Very witty.
Can anyone explain how commenters who call other commenters “sandy little butt-holes” don’t run afoul of posting rules?
Says the dipstick who thinks he is being witty by calling somebody a “sandy little butt-hole”. I’d hate to see you when you’e actually trying to be crude, stupid, and obnoxious.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 4:44 PM
A lot of this is explained in Strauss and Howe’s book “The 4th Turning.” This division is based on generational alignment. Currently, the Boomers are essentially running the government. Boomers are an idealistic generation and are very resistant to compromise.
Boomers replaced the Silent generation, who rely on compromise. Such Silents are McCain, and other types about his age.
Don’t expect more compromise in the future. As time passes, less Silents are in government, while Boomers and Gen-Xers, who are closer to Boomers in their ability to compromise than Silents, move in to fill the vacuum.
Weebork on May 18, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Well said.
Johan Klaus on May 18, 2008 at 4:47 PM
GT, vote for whoever you want to vote for. It’s still a free country.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 4:48 PM
Maybe this will help with prognostication.
http://www.boomerdeathcounter.com/
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 4:50 PM
I agreed with Doctor Zero, repeatedly, and with BadgerHawk, so as to not repeat myself. I added my “pro death penalty” to BadgerHawk’s comments.
Aren’t these political statements, on topic?
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 4:50 PM
If that is true, then this chart is void and utterly useless.
No doubt.
apacalyps on May 18, 2008 at 4:51 PM
GT, you claimed that Marl Levin said this;
What makes you think Mark Levin said those words? Why did you say he did?
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 4:52 PM
Followed by this
I know I’m slow, but trying hard to make sense of the irony.
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 4:52 PM
I don’t know about flenser, but as someone who sides with him on McCain(not the rhetoric mind you, just the conclusion) I am taking a close look at the Constitution party. I hope they will be on the ballot here in Texas. There is no way I will vote for OB or Hill. If you are going to vote your conscience you don’t vote for the worst possible person. You need to find someone who represents your beliefs. I am still looking at other long shots, and McCain could still win me back (it would take alot)
Corsair on May 18, 2008 at 4:54 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 »