Pajamas Media

83 Comments

H. Short:

“Ahhhh … I love the smell of irony in my politics.”

Actually you probably just love the sound of your own voice, since your lack of coherence and deficiency of principle says it all for you, as it does for all who are in lip synch with the latest talking points of the morally bankrupt.

However, for those who stand by their principles adversity can take the form of opportunity. This travesty of attempting to stampede the base into throwing aside principle in order to salvage an election lost has brought out in considerable numbers those, such as yourself and those others you so helpfully pointed out, who owe their allegiance elsewhere.

Your comment that: “… there is only one answer, one way to separate the RINOs from the CINOs, the corrupt “establishment” from the incorruptible TCs, and to allow the Talk Radio True Conservatives to save face: secession. The TCs are going to have to start their own party..”, simply demonstrates the goal you and the others of your ilk have been working toward: the break up of the one politically organized group which has been able to thwart the ambitions of the liberal elite and their dupes. You may get your wish; however, there is a good chance you will not. Hopefully you and your ilk will be left wandering in limbo after failing to hijack the party and the political movement you have infiltrated over so many years. Purges can be a positive thing at times, especially if they rid the party of such as you.

This country survived Carter, Clinton, and others. It will probably survive another Clinton or Obamba. In any case no one with any morals is going to sanctify the ambitions of this utter fraud McCain, by giving their support to him. It matters not how many may hold firm to this, or how many, such as yourself, attempt to drown them out with your incessant mind numbing yapping and howling. The fact that you can’t understand that, and your tiresome repetition of the derogatory slurs and name calling from the scripts sent out over the liberal network, is simply a testament about you.

Feb 19, 2008 - 1:35 am syn:

irony in politics?

Senators running for president who voted to continue the procedure of sucking out fully-formed baby’s brain endorsed by Methodist ministers; that’s some moral standing within America’s religious institutions.

Senators who are members of the high and mighty country-club defending slave traders because they both claim to care about Mexicans suffering so much in their own country they force poor Mexicans to cross a barren desert just to make enough money to feed their families back home; everyone who doesn’t agree with this high and mighty do-gooder country-club stance is a racist, bigoted nativist.

Senators who are against drilling in ANWAR however dictate people put in their homes new-agey mercury bulbs by banning the incandescant bulb.

Senators against making tax cuts permanent but promises not to raise taxes.

Senators who believe Big Parma is evil yet garners the elderly vote by promising free drugs.

Senators with wealthy campaign backing intruding upon the 1st amendment in order to control free speech for less-funded political campaigns.

Senators using the military and their mission to politically blackmail voters into voting for you.

Yeah, my head hurts too.

In any case, I’m voting for the troops and their mission even if it means I’ll get McCain.

Feb 19, 2008 - 4:24 am bruce caldwell:

Your article is full of your contempt for conservatives who express their opinion. I also notice you do not answer those concerns. Your whole piece says that all those who believe that McCain will act as a liberal President should just sit back and accept him and support him. You don’t try to answer how a conservative(who is not a politican or work with the RNC) can support a man who trys to stop political speech, open the borders and destroy the American heritage, work with every Democrat, and so many other concerns. You may think this is junk but most of us conservatives do not. You may think principals are easy to change but most others do not

Feb 19, 2008 - 4:26 am RE:

That’s it, Anchoress, keep throwing more gasoline on the fire.

At least they are incessantly yapping and howling about issues - not whining about people who won’t fall into line like good little lemmings.

Your own incessant mind numbing yapping and howling about their incessant mind numbing yapping and howling is getting quite tiresome.

Feb 19, 2008 - 4:40 am Dave:

There is one thing I’d add–

Unlike other examples of politics that seem to be similar to this one, Anchoress, the unique point here is that we DO have principles, and our problem is that other people do NOT.

I hope that earns us at least a tenth of a point here. I’ve read your blog and you do not seem like someone who doesn’t or can’t understand that.

We aren’t angry because we’re prickly or have egoes. That’s McCain’s territory. We’re angry because our principles are breezily dismissed, with snarky comments, as if adherence to principles is unreasonable or wierd.

Even old Bush 41 got into the act, still annoyed that the same thing happened to him. But his annoyance is proof that it was the TRUTH. If he were, if McCain were, a real conservative, why would they have to explain it all the time?

You aren’t someone I’d have expected this from. It’s disappointing.

All the same, I’ll vote McCain on principle– because the destruction awaiting us at the hands of the left must be avoided.

But I’d have preferred Romney. Down here in Texas we don’t get to participate in primaries. THey’re over before anyone gets to us.

And that makes me mad too, on principle.

Feb 19, 2008 - 5:19 am john mcglasson jr.:

This is idiocy, arguing over varying degrees of conservatism and varying degrees of socialism. You can’t be “conservative” on one thing but not on another, and your support of the invasion of foreign nations is not a gauge for conservatism, the Constitution is. And that outdated rag has proven most inconvenient for so-called conservatives who believe that a strong national defense really means a vicious global offense, and for leftist dems and repubs who know the Constitution doesn’t allow for ANY degree of socialism. Nobody even mentions the Constitution of the United States anymore because it doesn’t allow the existence of this gov’t, PERIOD. You’re all a bunch of sellouts.

RIP GOP
RIP DNC
RIP USA
Hello NAU

Feb 19, 2008 - 5:22 am Pierre Legrand:

You mischaracterize Rush and Coulter to build a strawman all the while you are beating on the very group you SAY you hope votes for McCain. Is this some new strategy I have not read about? Call your friends names and hope they come to your party?

And PJ Media thinks this is important enough to feature? I guess this dovetails nicely with Roger’s similar rants earlier this month. But both of you are terribly misguided.

Why not answer McCains critics? Explain how Juan Fernandez will help secure the “damn border”? Explain how someone as informed on law as Ed Meese could call the McCain Kennedy bill amnesty? Explain how a “straight shooter” like McCain could so distort what his bill would do?

As I have pointed out to many of you who write these sorts of rants. I will vote for McCain. Just stop telling me that this pile of crap doesn’t smell bad. Its only redeeming feature is it smells better than the other two piles of crap. Quite a choice we have this year.

Answer this post Vote for John McCain and he won’t work with Open Borders Ted Kennedy anymore! Cross His Heart Hope to Die! Doing the Jobs Americans won’t do…FBI’s Most Wanted Murderers, Surprise Many Come from…ding ding Mexico!

Feb 19, 2008 - 5:34 am Big S:

The wicked irony here is that the “true conservatives” (or TCs) who are busily kicking every flawed Republican to the curb will tell you in a heartbeat that they are “conservatives first, Republicans second” - which means, if we’re being logical, that they, the “true conservatives,” are actually the “true RINOs.”

Not only that, but those who would rather see Hillary or Obama than McCain (who they are much closer to ideologically) are really talking about sacrificing an impure conservative so as not to sully the conservative nature of the Republican party. That is, they’re putting party ahead of principle, although they probably don’t even realize it.

Feb 19, 2008 - 5:41 am Curly Smith:

“Its only redeeming feature is it smells better than the other two piles of crap.”

True, but what happens in the next election? Once the elitist scolds have convinced you that you must, nay MUST, vote for the Party Nominee, no matter who she or he may be, then you will have rendered your views and principles irrelevant.

The RNC has made the determination that it has all of the Conservative votes locked-up, it’s now on a mission to capture the liberals. It wants to “expand the tent” by bringing in all of the liberals that it can by… by what? By running clones of the Democratic candidate on a liberal agenda. Now ask yourself this, if the Party runs liberal candidates on a liberal agenda will they be more or less inclined to implement a liberal agenda? Yep, more inclined so as to satisfy all of their new voters. They, after all, have your vote locked-up.

Whether you vote or not, hold your nose or not, make sure that understand all of the ramifications of endorsing a liberal Republican Party.

Feb 19, 2008 - 6:16 am Pierre Legrand:

Not only that, but those who would rather see Hillary or Obama than McCain (who they are much closer to ideologically) are really talking about sacrificing an impure conservative so as not to sully the conservative nature of the Republican party.

Project much?

Many are worried, rightly so in my humble opinion, that a Republican working with a Democratic Congress will enact all sorts of dumb laws. McCain has an afinity for that sort of nonsense….McCain/Kennedy anyone? McCain/Feingold? Hello? With a Democrat in the Whitehouse at least congressional Republicans will be moved to fight…with a Republican in the White House the lemmings in the Congress will simply vote Yea.

Is that a legitimate worry? Is that worry a bigger problem then nominating conservative judges? That is a point for legitimate debate…something that seems beyond many of you on your side of the debate.

I plan on voting for McCain but he smells like a pile of crap…just a smaller pile than the Democrats.

Feb 19, 2008 - 6:18 am jummy:

The fact is that the only “principle” at play here is a racist obcession with having to “press one for english”. There is little else which seems like it would make McCain unacceptable apart from this strain of border enforcement zealotry which appears to have infected the party a few years back.

Since this psychotic nonsense is such a recent phenomenon which rarely expresses itself amongst people you can actually see (apart from the jilted Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage and some loony conspiracy cranks at WND) I tend to assume this is just a massive trolling effort on the part of dedicated white supremacists and, accordingly, ignore them.

To the extent that this is a real group of “conservatives” I think the party should consider itself enriched by their absence.

Feb 19, 2008 - 6:19 am DoDoGuRu:

With their inflexibility, grudge-holding, and eagerness to evict heretics rather than seek converts, too many of conservatism’s leaders sound like the custodians of a dwindling religious denomination or a politically correct English department at a fading liberal-arts college.

This sentence presents a choice that doesn’t exist. McCain isn’t getting any more likely to “convert” on anything. If his voting record is any indication, this scenario is getting less likely.

Feb 19, 2008 - 6:28 am hoosiertoo:

No dog in this hunt. I pray for a plague on both major parties. A particularly virulent one.

I am libertarian - once of the card-carrying big “L” variety; there has been a home for secular TC’s for many years.

Of course, having to depend on the cooperation of the bi-factional ruling party - although to be fair it’s getting harder and harder to tell the difference between the factions - insures that more effort is put into staying on the ballot (Our Demopublican overlords keep moving the target.) than in actually building a party.

For you Christian TC’s, may I suggest the Constitution Party. That’s likely where I’ll end up.

The demise of the Republican Party would suit me just fine. Since there is no real difference between a big government liberal Democrat and a big government Republican, who needs Republicans anyway?

The war on terror is a joke anyway. Fighting terrorists in the ME makes no sense if you can’t even begin to keep them out of the country. You could swim an elephant across the Rio Grande and no one would notice.

May the demise of the GOP be swift.

Feb 19, 2008 - 7:06 am Pierre Legrand:

Since this psychotic nonsense is such a recent phenomenon which rarely expresses itself amongst people you can actually see (apart from the jilted Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage and some loony conspiracy cranks at WND) I tend to assume this is just a massive trolling effort on the part of dedicated white supremacists and, accordingly, ignore them.

Yea ignoring them is exactly what Jorge Bush tried with his 3 attempts to pass Amenesty…all three times those invisible people threw him back across the Rio Grande. Racist eh…what a bunch of baloney. Throw around names to silence folks is what your side of the issue are best at.

I do not want to turn the Southwest of the United States into Mexico. I do not think that the Mexicans have done a fabulous job with their own country. Why should I want to invite them into this country to screw this one up to? Why this is so hard to understand is quite beyond me.

Btw these invisible people consist of folks like my mother who after being a hardcore FDR Democrat all of her life, recently switched parties because the Republicans seemed like the only ones who “MIGHT” do something about the illegals. Illegal immigration is a lot bigger issue than anyone understands.

Feb 19, 2008 - 7:12 am Dave:

This was a very nice read but I feel that it misses the point. I am a conservative in the mode of less government, honor individuality, originalist interpretation of the Constitution. The Republican party/leadership has abandoned these principles.

I voted with the Republican party because I realized that this was the best chance I had to see originalist judges appointed to the Supreme Court which is the Supreme Power in the US.

John McCain is anathema to most of the political ideals I hold. He authored the McCain-Feingold act which is a real affront to my free speech rights. McCain led the group of Senators that prevented the rules in Congress being changed when it came to Presidential appointments. This has directly led to most of the Bush appointments languishing in committee. These two items alone disqualify Senator McCain in my mind.

Now I am faced with voting for a man that I believe put personal power above the people of America or a man/woman that will move us terribly closer to a Socialist state.

Am I a Rino? No, because I have removed my name from the rolls of the Republican party this year. I have no party that represents the belief in government as the members of the Constitutional Convention saw it.

Feb 19, 2008 - 7:15 am hoosiertoo:

Oh, and bravo on this one:

I tend to assume this is just a massive trolling effort on the part of dedicated white supremacists and, accordingly, ignore them.

Right from the leftard playbook:

You disagree with me. You must be a ______!(choose one: white supremicist, racist, fascist, religious zealot, etc.)

Whose playbook? What difference again?

Lately the PM Daily Digest has been landing in my spam folder. I’m beginning to think I should leave it there.

Feb 19, 2008 - 7:25 am mishu:

I do not want to turn the Southwest of the United States into Mexico. I do not think that the Mexicans have done a fabulous job with their own country. Why should I want to invite them into this country to screw this one up to? Why this is so hard to understand is quite beyond me.

But don’t call him a racist.

Feb 19, 2008 - 7:34 am hoosiertoo:

mishu -

What’s racist about that statement?

I don’t think Californians have done a good job with their own state. Why would I want them to come to my state and mess it up too?

Way to replace thinking with buzzthought. I see the public schools are doing their job well. I swear 80% of the electorate is brain dead.

Feb 19, 2008 - 7:43 am DuMaurier-Smith:

Time for a name change, Anchoress. You ought to be all out for holding fast. At this point in history it should be clear to everyone that the two parties are not oriented by principles but by the pragmatics of power, and they do not want to administer the government for the the people. They want to rule.

The longer we hold our nose and vote for the party–either party–the farther eroded will be the principles upon which the country was founded. Gingrich has it right; conservatives should declare themselves independent of the Republicans. Let that party wither, as it so richly deserves, and start building a new party based upon real representative government instead of rule by a Roman-styled Congress.

But to be successful,conservatives have to shed a lot of bad baggage before they take their case to the people. They will have to be clear that conservatism is about individual freedom as the first principle of government, rather than economic freedom with the devil taking the hindmost. As individual freedom requires autonomy, the primary social program of the government will be directed toward promoting and enabling individual autonomy. That’s the antithesis of promoting a disabling dependence.

But it may be too late.

If you’ve made any sense at all of why Congress and the President are promoting illegal immigration and present international trends, you surely see what’s in store if we continue to drift along with the two parties. We’ll have an Americanadamex nation organized on economic principles–a large peasant class to compete with China, a tech/middle management class, and the managers. Welcome to the age of international corporatism, “Rollerball,” not “Brave New World” or “1984.” Bernard Gross called it “Friendly Fascism.” No, it’s no great conspiracy; it’s nothing more than allowing power to drift as it wishes. It seems everyone wants the US to dissolve into corporatism. The UN desires it. The Euros, having done it themselves, desire it. Multinational corporations desire it. And our own government, increasingly modeled upon corporate principles, apparently desires it as well.

One thing is clear, if we continue to bury our heads in the sands of party politics as usual and hold our noses to vote, the great American experiment is over.

Feb 19, 2008 - 7:57 am T-Robert:

I do not see the importance of choosing between McCain, Clinton, or Obama. We are witnessing the death of a great nation. It is like a condemned man choosing between the electric chair, firing squad, or hanging. Death is death. Anyone of the candidates will irrevocably destroy the sovereignty of our nation to the new world order. That is the future we have sadly left for our children.

Feb 19, 2008 - 7:58 am Barbula:

Not that I relish the thought of an Obama Presidency, but I will take great pleasure in the coming months watching the noxious Hillary and McCain, with all their insufferable supporters, go down in flames.

Feb 19, 2008 - 8:25 am Morgan Farmer:

The only “true” conservatives are the ones that want to turn this country into a theocracy. I say we send them to the Taliban and give them a taste of a what a REAL theocratic society is.

Whatever happened to the US Constitution?

Feb 19, 2008 - 9:10 am hoosiertoo:

DuMaurier-Smith:

Thank-you.

No, it’s no great conspiracy; it’s nothing more than allowing power to drift as it wishes. It seems everyone wants the US to dissolve into corporatism. The UN desires it. The Euros, having done it themselves, desire it. Multinational corporations desire it. And our own government, increasingly modeled upon corporate principles, apparently desires it as well.

In a nutsell.

Feb 19, 2008 - 9:20 am mishu:

Hoosier, it may not be racist if he said that he’d welcome Hondurans or Nicaraguans over Mexicans but I didn’t see that distinction. The fact of the matter is that this nativist position “true conservatives” embrace is a loser politically. Most Americans are descendants of immigrants and they can’t relate to this position. Not everyone in this country can trace their ancestry back to the Mayflower or Jamestown.

Feb 19, 2008 - 9:26 am Pierre Legrand:

I do not want to turn the Southwest of the United States into Mexico. I do not think that the Mexicans have done a fabulous job with their own country. Why should I want to invite them into this country to screw this one up to? Why this is so hard to understand is quite beyond me.

But don’t call him a racist.

Hmm…so then race is what screwed up Mexico? I thought it was the people of Mexico that screwed up Mexico. I thought that Mexico was made up of all different races.

Thanks for the update.

Btw you can call me whatever you want. That trick of namecalling to silence a person does not work on me.

Feb 19, 2008 - 9:28 am Curly Smith:

The fact of the matter is that this nativist position “true conservatives” embrace is a loser politically.

Sorry mishu, saying it doesn’t make it true. Let’s take a look at the poll numbers on last fall’s immigration bill:

- 23% of voters supported the Senate bill
- 50% of voters are opposed
- If the current bill passes, 69% of voters say that it will “still be necessary to pass another law that focuses on securing the borders and reducing illegal immigration.”
- The perceived need for further legislation is felt by 78% of Republicans, 63% of Democrats, and 66% of those not affiliated with either major political party. Only 11% of all voters say that additional legislation will not be needed.
- Seventy-two percent (72%) of voters believe it is Very Important for “the government to improve its enforcement of the borders and reduce illegal immigration.”
- Among those who favor enforcement-first policies, 59% also favor a national policy goal that welcomes all immigrants except national security threats, criminals, and those who would come here to live off the U.S. welfare system.

data here: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/support_for_senate_immigration_bill_falls_49_prefer_no_bill_at_all

Feb 19, 2008 - 10:14 am Larry Rasczak:

Jimmy is absolutely right.
The only “principle” at play here is a racism and nativisim, which as been played upon by cynical second rate talk show hosts, and third rate Congressmen from Colorado in order to generate attention and donations they would not otherwise recieve. This is nothing but a re-run of the ironicly named “Know Nothing” Party of the 1840s, that hated the Irish Catholic immigrants of the time.

This is a massive noisemaking effort on the part of dedicated white racists. They have found that being against “illegal” aliens is an acceptable cover under which they can express a racisim that would otherwise be socially and politically unacceptable. If the “illegals” were white, spoke english, and weren’t Catholic, you would not be seeing this. Sadly the GOP in D.C. fell for the racist noise-machine; and incorrectly believing that the noise machine represented “the base” , defeated comprehensive immigration reform…thus alienating about two generations of hispanic voters.

The real strength of the “T.C.”s can be seen in the power (and lack thereof) of the Trancedo Campaign. Trancedo was their hero, their leader, their point man, and he dropped out before New Hampshire. That should tell you something.

The “T.C.”s can do screaming and carping and whining and protesting. They are great at blogging and calling in to talk shows, and Sturm und Drang and “end of the world” drama. What they have spectacularly failed to do is generate any votes. As we say in Texas they are “All hat and no cattle.”

Neither has this group shown any knowledge of history…it is not a matter of “the Southwestern U.S. turning into Mexico”. As recently as the 1840s it WAS Mexico, and there are people there named Chavez and Armijio and Savedra who’s families were clearing the land, fighting Indians, rasing cattle, constructing churches, and building cities long before the John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were even born. Los Angeles, San Francisco, Albuquerque, San Antonio, San Diego, El Paso, St Augustine, these cities were not founded by wandering tribes of lost Bostonians.

Of even greater interest is how the self appointed TC’s are willing to accuse Lt. Col North and Lieutenant Commander McCain of not being sufficently patriotic, while idolizing Congressman Trancedo; a man who dodged the Vietnam Draft on the grounds he was psychologically unfit for service. I suspect, but can not prove, that this lack of any real service is very common amongst the ranks of the self-appointed “T.C”’s.

Jimmy is right, to the extent that this is a real group of “conservatives” I think the party should consider itself enriched by their absence. Let them leave, in their dozens.

Feb 19, 2008 - 10:16 am Larry Rasczak:

“The fact of the matter is that this nativist position “true conservatives” embrace is a loser politically.

Sorry mishu, saying it doesn’t make it true”

Curly, if what you say is true, and Mushu is wrong… then why isn’t Tom Trancedo the Republican Nominee? Why didn’t Trancedo garner support from 78% of Republicans, 63% of Democrats, and 66% of those not affiliated with either major political party the way your numbers say he should have? Why is he out of the race and not racking up unprecedented majorities in the primaries?

The poster boy for the anti-Immigration movement went before the voters, never got out of the single digits in polling, and then cut and run before the first vote was even cast. If his signature issue really had such overwhelming support, why would that happen? Why were the streets of New Hampsire and the cities of Iowa not filled with huge crowds waving Trancedo signs? Where was the massive popular support your numbers imply?
Where were the legions, nay veritable armies of supporters that your numbers imply exist out there? Where where the tens of millions of dollars of donations one would expect when one has 72% of voters thinking that your signature isssue is “very important”? Where oh where is the “Trancedo-mania”?

I’ll take this years primary election results as a better indicator of what the public thinks than last years polling numbers.

Feb 19, 2008 - 10:34 am mishu:

Curly, what you are quoting there from Rasmussen is completely different from Pierre’s position. He wants a wholesale blockade of Mexican immigrants. Why? Because Mexico is poorly run. Isn’t that the basic motivation of immigrating? Just about everyone in the U.S. came here or descended from people from countries whose governments were run poorly. If they weren’t run poorly, there’d be no motivation to come here.

Feb 19, 2008 - 10:54 am Pierre Legrand:

Curly, what you are quoting there from Rasmussen is completely different from Pierre’s position. He wants a wholesale blockade of Mexican immigrants. Why?

Not sure but maybe its because we have already taken in nearly 20 million illegals by some counts, 12 million by the official count. The official count is laughable. Since when do illegals participate in census counts? Maybe that is enough for 20 years? Considering that we limit legal immigration, from societies that have a tradition of democracy, to much less than that figure.

Where were the legions, nay veritable armies of supporters that your numbers imply exist out there? Where where the tens of millions of dollars of donations one would expect when one has 72% of voters thinking that your signature isssue is “very important”? Where oh where is the “Trancedo-mania”?

Ask Elliot Spitzer how popular his license for illegals turned out to be. Ask Hillary why she retreated so fast from her position supporting Elliot. Ask McCain why he had an epifphany about securing the border first.

No one wins any office on ONE issue, and then if the media does not like that one issue you disappear.

Not one single candidate for office is advocating opening the borders. Why not? Not one single candidate for office is advocating amnesty for all the illegals, why not? No one is saying hey lets admit Mexico into the Union. Why not? According to you amnesty folks those are winning issues. Lets hear some candidates get behind those sorts of insane policies.

Instead we see Hillary herself backing away from legalizing all the illegals, backing away from issuing licenses, why if those are such winning issues.

We see Mr. Open Borders himself John McCain backing away and saying that he will “secure the damn borders”…what you think his polling doesn’t tell him what the reality is?

As recently as the 1840s it WAS Mexico, and there are people there named Chavez and Armijio and Savedra who’s families were clearing the land, fighting Indians, rasing cattle, constructing churches, and building cities long before the John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were even born. Los Angeles, San Francisco, Albuquerque, San Antonio, San Diego, El Paso, St Augustine, these cities were not founded by wandering tribes of lost Bostonians.

That is the position of Mecha…good to know whose company you keep.

Feb 19, 2008 - 11:36 am Pierre Legrand:

Ad hominem attacks have no place in debates. Try to stay focused on the issues. I realize your position is hard to defend without name calling but may I suggest you change your position instead of debasing yourself. Just a long way of saying that I don’t appreciate being called a White Supremest.

Though I do believe that the culture of the United States is superior to most any other. Cultural supremest I accept.

Feb 19, 2008 - 11:45 am Larry Rasczak:

“That is the position of Mecha…good to know whose company you keep.”

Sorry Pierre, that’s simply a historical FACT. Go look it up. You could try a Google Search on “Mexican War” or “Spanish Colonial Frontier” or “St.Augustine Florida”. (While you are there, look up “straw man” as well.) Facts are stubborn things. Try to stay focused on the FACTS. I realize they make your position harder to defend, and that you are too emotionally wedded to your position to change it, but they do tend to carry weight with people who look at things rationally.

I’m dealing in facts here, not speculating about what candidates polling data may or may not be hypothetically telling them. The only poll that counts happens at the ballot box, and the anti-immigrant forces have consistently lost there, and rather spectaculary.

I say again, “Where is the Trancedomania?” If the people who delight in hating “Juan McCain” have so much support, why did he get the nomination?

Another place anti-immigrant forces have consistently lost is the State of California. Thanks to Prop 187, and the backlash it caused, California has moved from being politically competitive to rock solid Democrat, and it is likely to stay that way for two generations.

In 1994 California’s Hispanic voters; voters who are generally pro-life, culturally conservative, and highly entrepreneurial, were slapped in the face by the Republican Party. They were told that they were dirty, unwanted, and worse, they were told they were not “real Americans” and all but ordered out of the country, despite the FACT that Hispanics founded California. (Los Angeles was founded in the year 1781 by Spanish governor Felipe de Neve as El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles de Porciúncula. No Pierre he wasn’t a Bostonian.) When the smoke cleared there were no Republicans holding statewide elected office in California. None, Zero. The California GOP has regrouped and after a lot of work there are now, 14 years later, a grant total of THREE Republicans in statewide elected office in the State that once had Ronald Reagan as Govenor. Those three Republicans are Gov. Schwarzenegger, Insurance Comissioner Steve Poizner (the McCain Campaign California Co-Chair incidentally) and Bruce McPherson, who Gov.Schwarzenegger appointed Secretary of State.

I fail to see how emulating the tactics that lead to the self-destruction of the California Republican Party would be good for the national GOP, or good for the country.

Feb 19, 2008 - 1:04 pm Curly Smith:

I’ll take this years primary election results as a better indicator of what the public thinks than last years polling numbers.

While you’re doing that Larry, would you be so kind as to highlight all of the candidates’ positions on illegal immigration? I’m sure you’ll find they’re running away from the issue, just like they ran away from it in the Senate when the public found out what they were up to. Pierre mentions Spitzer’s debacle in New York… did all 3 conservatives rise up to protest? Or, was the outrage wide and broad? Where’s Dan Rather’s “Courage” when you need it.

I do find it interesting that McCain’s supporters always come around to calling the “loud talkers” a bunch of racists. It’s like they don’t have any other argument…

Feb 19, 2008 - 1:19 pm Pierre Legrand:

Sorry Pierre, that’s simply a historical FACT. Go look it up. You could try a Google Search on “Mexican War” or “Spanish Colonial Frontier” or “St.Augustine Florida”.

Oh my gosh a history lesson! Facts is facts but what you do with those facts is what matters and what you are doing with them is the problem.

Stating that the Southwest was part of Mexico is pointless unless you are justifying the reconquista that is Mecha’s position. Mexico lost that war. That part of the country no longer belongs to Mexico and the borders are not open. The Southwest belongs to the US and no I don’t want to open it up to a bunch of folks who think the government owes them a life.

Hey if you are willing to end the welfare state I will be willing to open the border. Till then those folks are partying on my dime.

Feb 19, 2008 - 1:27 pm hoosiertoo:

I don’t care about immigrants. My Grandfather was an immigrant, as was my wife’s.

I do care about illegal and undocumented aliens, and I don’t care where they come from or what color they are. I don’t support amnesty for them. That’s about as uncategorical as I can make it.

Call me a racist or a nativist if you want; it doesn’t make it so. True charity would dictate that we insist the Mexican and other Central American governments do something about the sorry states of affairs in their own countries and desist from depending on the US to do what they should be doing for their own citizens.

Feb 19, 2008 - 1:44 pm Terrye:

I absolutely agree with your post Anchoress, but I have to add that John Bolton has disgraced himself and endorsed the unsuitable Mclame, hence the true conservatives will have to start saying nasty things about him too.

As for their party, I think it will be about as successful as Buchanan’s has been. In 2000 he got about 1% of the vote.

Personally, I am tired of being lectured by these self righteous sanctimonious cry babies who seem to think the rest of us are supposed to say how high when they say jump. Maybe some of these pissy radio people and their fan clubs should stop and ask themselves why they are losing rather than just getting mad at the people who win.

Feb 19, 2008 - 1:53 pm Terrye:

I am so fed up with this bizarre obsession with Mexicans. As if the Senate Bill was treason and all Americans were against it and it is reason enough to hate Bush and McCain and off we to the races with the ranting and the raving etc.

After decades of completely ignoring the whole thing. I think it is a scam, a fraud, a handy issue designed to get people riled up for the third party. Because if the issue was really that big a deal to that many people, why didn’t they do anything about it before 2006?

Obama supports drivers licenses for illegals. Hey, but why not let him win? Enough said.

As for the dead Senate bill… most Americans want to see a secure border, but they also do not support mass deportation and about 70% are ok with some normalization for some of the people here now.

Now all the hardliners who hate the Anchoress for being honest about how she feels can explain to me why it is they have not won any elections with this issue. In fact since the true blue conservatives have decided to beat this poor dead horse over and over and over again, they have lost election after election.

Maybe winning elections is beneath their dignity. After all, people who do not agree with them do not have principles or dignity..but as someone who has seen family members go off to Iraq and fight I can not tell you how disgusted I am with the hypocrites who call themselves true conservatives. It is as if they have forgotten the rest of us. We don’t matter and neither do the thousands of young men and women sent to Iraq. To hell with them they say, we will just let Hillary or Obama win.

If these people do that, I hope they do start their own party, because I don’t really want to be in the same party they are in anymore.

Feb 19, 2008 - 2:14 pm RE:

I just hope that our next wave of moderate ‘leaders’ pick the right kind of light bulbs and cars that we are allowed to use. And hopefuly they won’t turn too much of our food into ethanol. Food is getting kinda pricey.

Or maybe it would be better if these politicians just abstained altogether from extra-Constitutional activity - no matter how expert they may fancy themselves.

Feb 19, 2008 - 2:17 pm Larry Rasczak:

Pierre I was born and raised in Albuquerque, and stating that the Southwest was part of Mexico is not pointless. It is a historical, and demographic, fact that there are millions of Hispanic Americans who’s ancestors were here long before Kit Carson, General Taylor, and President Polk brought the Southwest into the Union. These people own land, houses, businesses, serve in the military, go to school, church, college, and they simply do not fit your inaccurate, bigoted, and yes, racisit stereotype.

Yes Hispanics (unlike Congressman Trancedo) do serve in the U.S. Military. I was born in Battan Memorial Hospital in Albuquerque. That is “Battan” as in Battan Death March. Here’s another history lesson for you, a lot of the 11,796 Americans who were in the Battan Death March were from the 200th Coast Artillery, New Mexico National Guard, and no they wern’t all white.

Hispanics also vote, what with them being citizens because they were born here and all…and they tend to be pro-life, culturally conservative and entrepenurial; in short natural Republicans. However they are also deeply offended by the politics you and Curly preach. (See my prior reference to the self-immolation of the California Republican Party above.)

I find it hard to see how you can consider someone who’s family has lived in California, or Texas, or New Mexico since before the Jacobite Rebellion, someone who has served in the United States Military, someone who owns his own business and who’s uncle died at Battan, to be less of an American, or of “wanting to party on your dime” simply because he has brown skin and knows the difference between an enchelada, a burrito, and a tamale. I know these people. I grew up with these people. I went to school, church, college, and quite a few bars with these people. Your statments are innacurate, bigoted, and frankly racist.

I also find it ridiculious to think that someone who risks their life on long and difficult journey through a hostile desert filled with coyotes (both two legged and four legged) snakes, and other dangers, simply for the hope of being able to find a job bussing tables, cleaning restrooms, or plucking chickens at minimum wage to be lazy and just out to party on your dime and milk the welfare state simply laughable. It too is innacurate, bigoted, and racist.

And I use those words not as an ad hominim attack, but as a simple statement of fact.

Racist is defined as “a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others” and as “hatred or intolerance of another race or other races”. I have seen (and heard…till I gave up on Talk Radio in disgust) plenty of both of those from the “anti-illegal immigration folks” over the past year.

When I say you and Curly have racist positions I am not trying to be offensive, frankly I don’t care enough about you to want to offend you. Neither do I lack for other arguments, as you can see. When I say your positions are racist, I am merely being accurate. Dealing in Facts.

On the other hand you and your fellow “loud talkers”, who run around saying dramatic things like “Juan McLame” “Juan McAmnesty”, “this is the death of America and rise of the North American Union” and “Mecha is coming! the Reconquista is coming!” while calling Senator (Lt.Cdr.) McCain, Lt.Col. North, and others are not conservatives are NOT being accurate.

Facts are stubborn things. The need to be dealt with. People who take governement and politics beyond the level of “long time listener, first time caller” know that.

Feb 19, 2008 - 2:21 pm Jerry Olaughlin:

blah, blah, blah

You just don’t get it. This is exactly what we are talking about. You are clearly a Liberal regardless of label, since you are labeling us as racists simply because we want the law enforced.

While you seem to relish in the demise of our party; don’t bet on it. You play on emotions of hard working people trudging through heat and danger to get here for a better life but refuse to see the reality staring us in the face. It is not a coincidence that states red AND blue are passing laws on the state level since the Feds (Feds with your philosophy) refuse to. They are doing so because thier massive populations of illegals which we are now responsible for are breaking state budgets.

We are not racists but you Liberals are demogages. I have just as much respect for the Hispanic culture and great work ethic but that does not mean that we should stupidly throw open our borders. No country does that including Mexico. Boy I’d love to meet you on a poker table. Why should we stupidly and blindly follow YOUR idiotic suggestion to do so.

You are an idot pure & simple. So here’s what you should do to prove your illegal immigrant sympathy since you follow the same logic as a global warming grifter. You recruit 15 of these poor unfortunate illegals and invite them into your home permanently. You pay for thier medical, dental, housing, education,and monthly expenses and throw in some spending money. You can’t afford that you say??? You need to feed your own family first you say??? I’m going bankrupt you say??? Tough!!! Do it anyway and then you can come back to us with your synical platitudes but until then and for the good of the country…Shut up, your going to hurt yourself with all that obtuse enlightenment.

Feb 19, 2008 - 3:25 pm Pierre Legrand:

Pierre I was born and raised in Albuquerque, and stating that the Southwest was part of Mexico is not pointless. It is a historical, and demographic, fact that there are millions of Hispanic Americans who’s ancestors were here long before Kit Carson, General Taylor, and President Polk brought the Southwest into the Union.

So according to you the fact that it WAS Mexico means that our borders should be open? So we didn’t win the war? All of that land is still Mexico?

These people own land, houses, businesses, serve in the military, go to school, church, college, and they simply do not fit your inaccurate, bigoted, and yes, racisit stereotype.

Which people? The people that have been there since we won the war? Are they Americans or not your choice? Is the fact that they have Spanish heritage mean they think that the Southwest is not part of the United States?

Why is it that your side of the debate can never argue points without throwing around insults?

Neither do I lack for other arguments, as you can see. When I say your positions are racist, I am merely being accurate. Dealing in Facts.

What is frightening is you actually believe you are dealing with facts. Which facts are those? That the hispanic population of the Southwest believes that they are not part of the United States? Are you sure of that position? Is that why they died on the Baataan death march? Btw careful about talking about that little walk…I have friends that were there.

What I see is that you have a serious problem distinquishing reality from your hallucinations.

If the Hispanic population really does believe that the Southwest belongs to Mexico that is more a confirmation of the worst actual racists taunts then an argument against them. I know better since I lived there for long enough to know that the natives are as patriotic as me.

Finally if all lands around the globe are to be turned over to the original owners we are going to have some seriously large issues. Is that what you want?

Do you want open borders? If not why not? If so then how will we support that belief since it is a fact of life that most of the folks coming across the border are coming here for the welfare state that we have become. Furthermore do you support slavery? If not then why do you support the same position of Tyson Foods, Mohawk Textiles and every single large farm using illegals. Do you think they are using them because they pay them the same as US workers?

Feb 19, 2008 - 3:52 pm Curly Smith:

Oh my, now I’m confused. Facts are facts and parts of the southwestern US used to belong to Mexico. But, Mexico used to belong to France, and before that, Spain. So do Spain and France have preferential rights to immigrate? Or, am I supposed to freeze history at some convenient point? Does that freeze come before or after we booted the British? Does Russia now have claims on Alaska? I’d point out that the parts of the southwestern US that used to belong to Mexico were ceded to the US at the close of the Mexican-American War but that’s probably not “convenient” history.

Feb 19, 2008 - 3:55 pm Disgruntled American:

“RE :

I just hope that our next wave of moderate ‘leaders’ pick the right kind of light bulbs and cars that we are allowed to use. And hopefuly they won’t turn too much of our food into ethanol. Food is getting kinda pricey.

Or maybe it would be better if these politicians just abstained altogether from extra-Constitutional activity - no matter how expert they may fancy themselves.”

AMEN!!!!!! What is so difficult to understand about Americans being angry that the American government no longer functions within the parameters set forth by the U.S. Constitution??? OR that it even pretends any intent to do so??

Feb 19, 2008 - 5:30 pm Dan:

I too love the smell of irony in my politics.

Your attempt to conceal hysterics behind contempt is priceless.

Feb 19, 2008 - 5:31 pm jummy:

Larry Rasczak

Feb 19, 2008 02:21 PM

Geez Larry, well said.

I don’t know what to add to that.

I suppose that Hugh Hewitt was the biggest disappointment of them all. Over the span of a week he went from mocking them to placating them to being their moderate face.

You give the closely analogous example of the California GOP. I had the miserable experience of watching the Illinois GOP, in a feat of “true conservatism” over decency and reason, fuck everything up in such a way that I’m embarrassed of it still. That was when, in 2004, the “true conservatives” asked Jack Ryan, a young, dynamic Republican Senate candidate who was popular and promising and who could have easily defeated Barak Obama, to step down over probably the only sex “scandal” in history to involve not having kinky sex with one’s own wife.

That was stupid, but they decided it wasn’t enough to be stupid. They had to show that they were racist too. And so they shipped in a shrill, incompetent and risible fool solely on the basis of his black skin. It was disgusting.

Republicans can never have it so good that they can’t find a way to utterly tear it down. In 2004 we had about 40% of the latino vote. By 2006, we had 16%.

Even if discussing the racist nature of their passions were “avoiding” the issue rather than naming it, we’d still be better off if all we did was mock, deride and alienate them from our party, because if the catastrophes they’re visiting on the party were merely the result of dumb misapprehension of what sorts of themes they’re playing with, we’d still be f***ed by having them around.

Feb 19, 2008 - 5:38 pm NOcomme1:

It seems to me the problem here is history: the Republican party has a history of ok-we’re-comfortable-here-in-the-minority Republicanism. Thanks Gerry Ford/Bob Michel. We got spoiled by Reagan who showed us that not only could a conservative run and win but those policies we’re making such a stink about actually work!

McCain looks to many of us to be a man travelling back down the road, in the wrong direction. Conservatives aren’t all up in arms out of petulance, but out of a fear that disaster is waiting.

Also, one of McCain’s main problems as a candidate and the reason so many people feel like telling him to screw is because that is exactly what he’s been telling us to for years. He gives us the finger, then says “line up at the voting booth and pull the lever for me.” So we’ve got a man who looks like he’s smelling something noxious whenever he’s around us and who is also is going to tear us apart to boot. Who in their right mind wouldn’t squeal over this particular situation?

Feb 19, 2008 - 6:36 pm Larry Rasczak:

Goodness, I haven’t seen this many straw men since we took down the scarecrows from Halloween!

Ya’ll seem to be frothing at the mouth, but I’ll do one last responce just for the sake of argument.

You ask what Facts I’m talking about. Look at the Facts regarding the self-immolation of the California Republican Party. Prop 187 was their nuclear self-destruct system. Replicating that on a national level makes about as much sense as backing up the TITANIC to ram the iceberg a second time, “just to show that piece of ice who’s in charge here”, but that is exactly what Trancedo and his ilk are demanding that the GOP do.

Telling Hispanic voters, many of whom have much deeper family roots in this country than you or I, many of whom have bled and fought and suffered for this country, at Battan and other places, that they should “go home” to Mexico, that they are not “real Americans”, and accusing them of being everything from criminals, (FBI’s Most Wanted Murderers, Surprise Many Come from…ding ding Mexico!) to freeloaders, ( I don’t want to open it up to a bunch of folks who think the government owes them a life) is not a politically winning stragegy.

Neither is it one that most people agree with. “Juan McAmnesty” as the “T.C.”s call Senator McCain is the nominee, and Trancedo and his supporter (apparently singular) have gone back to Colorado.

Neither are T.C. views reflective of reality. Life is hardly as dramatic as the radio makes it seem. Despite what the folks on the Radio say, there are choices between “open borders”, tearing down the fences and putting up an “Al Queda WELCOME” sign on one hand, and rounding up everyone who who can make a Tamale and shipping them off to camps in Nebraska where “Work will make them free.”

Oh sure on Talk Radio it may be all Gotterdamerung all the time, but out here in the real world, (where “false dilemma” is considered a logical fallacy) most people do not see a threat in letting poor people come here from other countries to clean our offices, buss our tables, wash our bathrooms, and (horrors) use our public facilities.(!!)

I may be an unelightend Liberal grifter stooge, but I fail to see the horrible national security consequences of these people getting a lock on the entry level jobs in house keeping, landscaping, and food service industires. (Perhaps that nice lady that cleans my office every night is actually a deep cover agent for the DGI?)

Neither do I see how this makes me a supporter of slavery. If illegal aliens are being underpaid and abused (and they are) then the LOGICAL solution is NOT to ship them “back home” in a deportation operation that would make Hans Frank and Jurgen Stroop proud. Rather it would be to let them become legal, so they can demand from Tyson Foods and Mohawk Textiles the same wages and protections other workers get. Frankly I don’t have a problem with that. If someone wants to come here, work hard, pay taxes, live in peace and just be left alone, I don’t see how that constitutes a threat to national security or the national economy.

I do see how it is awfuly hard for someone who’s family has been here since Diego de Vargas took back Santa Fe from the Indians in 1692 to “go back home”. I can see how telling someone who’s family has been in Los Angeles since 1781 that they “just want(ed) to come here for the welfare state we have become” would be seen as both inaccurate and insulting. I see how implying that Hispanics are less than loyal Americans, that they “believe that they are not part of the United States”, that they want to form “an Americanadamex nation” makes for dramitic radio; but I also see how it is not just silly but also horribly insulting to a huge portion of our population, especially in the light of the heroic sacrifices Hispanic members of our armed forces have made, and continue to make today.

I fail to see how insulting America’s fastest growing and (I think) largest demographic group is a winning political strategy for the GOP. That was tried in California, and it didn’t seem to work out very well.

I do not think I am either an idiot or having hallucinations, though sometimes I wish I was. Perhaps I am not drinking enough.

A Wall Street Journal op-ed says, “What’s needed is immigration

reform that reflects the demands of our labor markets, not more

attempts to punish companies for practicing capitalism.” (For the

full editorial, see here.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120312184061172981.html) Apparently this now makes the WALL STREET JOURNAL a RINO rag, and this attempt to support capitalisim and free markets shows that they are REALLY “Liberals” who support a “welfare state”, “slavery” and the ever present threat of the dreaded “corpratist” “North American Union”.(Apparently the only candidate the “True Conservatives” can rally around is General Jack D. Ripper.)

I am told by Mr. Olaughlin (who really should google that old song “No Irish Need Apply”) that he respects the Hispanic culture and work ethic; but he then implies that these same people (who’s “work ethic” he “admires”) apparently somehow all expect me to pay for their “medical, dental, housing, education,and monthly expenses and throw in some spending money”, and at a ratio of 15:1! That’s not behavior that would be in keeping with the work ethic Mr. Olaughlin claims to admire. (Apparently they didn’t teach Aristotle’s ideas about “non-contradiction” where Mr. Olaughlin went to school.) Frankly I have no desire to ever meet him, either at a poker table or anywhere else… though I would tell him that he is right about one thing, I am a cynic (Antisthenes said a lot of good things) though not a synic, or a Liberal or a global warming grifter… when oil hit $100.01 today I made money.

Pierre asks me “Which people? The people that have been there since we won the war?” To which I say YES! Exactly right! These people, or more properly their decendants, DO own land, houses, businesses, serve in the military, and go to school, church, college. They work hard, are patriotic, (you say so yourself) and do not expect me, Mr. “No Irish Need Apply” or anyone else to pay all their bills. Untill the “True Conservatives” decided they should all be shipped off in box cars they (or at least the ones I know) tended to vote Republican, simply because of the Pro-Life issue.

The stereotype that the “T.C.” have have about Hispanics in America is inaccurate, bigoted, and yes, racisit.

Oh there I go! My side can never have a debate without insulting the poor, put upon “True Conservatives”, who; being the polite and logical folks they are, never, ever, ever insult anybody… much less highly decorated American War Hero’s who have lead men in combat, suffered and sacrificed for their country, and risen to not only the leadership in the United States Senate, but recieved the nomination of the Republican Party, or a truly spiritual and thinking person like The Anchoress.

Feb 19, 2008 - 6:45 pm Pierre Legrand:

Pierre asks me “Which people? The people that have been there since we won the war?” To which I say YES! Exactly right! These people, or more properly their decendants, DO own land, houses, businesses, serve in the military, and go to school, church, college. They work hard, are patriotic, (you say so yourself) and do not expect me, Mr. “No Irish Need Apply” or anyone else to pay all their bills. Untill the “True Conservatives” decided they should all be shipped off in box cars they (or at least the ones I know) tended to vote Republican, simply because of the Pro-Life issue.

hehe…Sir at this point you are either a liar, idiot or both…your choice. Not one person has EVER suggested that we ship home all of the legal residents of the Southwest. You claim that you have never seen so many straw men…then you go on to construct even more. You must be a troll.

Feb 19, 2008 - 7:37 pm Beth:

Larry Rasczak, AMEN.

Pierre, just because you disagree with him, it doesn’t mean he’s a troll. Maybe you’re projecting just a bit.

Also, Anchoress? THANK YOU.

Anyone who thinks Oliver North and Cal Thomas (Cal Thomas!) are “RINOs” is just flat-out stupid. I mean, REALLY stupid.

Personally, I don’t give a rat’s behind how the True Conservatives™ want to characterize me or any other principled conservative. Ever notice how it’s always the unhinged (and wildly uninformed*) conservatives who call themselves “true conservatives?” (See also: Ron Paul fanatics.) It’s like they’re not quite sure of themselves, so they have to scream the loudest. Methinks they protest too much.

* Yes, I did mean that, and yes, you True Conservatives™ have pretty much convinced me for good how ignorant you are.
I’m a lifelong conservative, but you are not my kind. I am bitterly resentful and angry about how you True Conservatives™ have shat all over the name of conservatism, making the entire right look like a bunch of angry, hateful, clannish, paranoid idiots. You’re afraid of “RINOs” killing conservatism? HA! You’re doing it all by yourselves! If you had any brains, you’d be kissing McCain’s butt right now because ONLY he can grow the right and make conservatism appealing to undecideds at this point in time. The likes of Ann Coulter sure aren’t doing it.

Go ahead, stay home. You’ll be able to BOAST about your ideological purity! Nevermind the five years in Iraq or almost seven in Afghanistan; those people don’t deserve to have the best Commander in Chief or be given top-notch leadership. Screw ‘em, they’re probably not True Conservatives™, after all. Right? But YOU, you can be ideologically pure! Yay for you! And the RINOs will learn a lesson! And we can all hope (in vain) that The Perfect Conservative™ will descend from the heavens in four years and sweep the next election, too! That’ll DEFINITELY happen, won’t it?

Oh wait, I forgot…True Conservatives™ don’t want to hear about Iraq because it’s not important. I forgot how many times I’ve been told NOT to use that argument. Oops!
(Truth hurts, doesn’t it?)

Feb 19, 2008 - 9:24 pm Razi:

The long term danger to the American right absoloutely justifies voting for a Democrat over McCain. Not only is McCain more liberal than Hillary (though not more than Obama) and more interested in keeping his status with the mainstream media than he is in keeping America safe, a McCain presidency will inevitebly result in the rapid erosion of whatever is left of the Republican party. It is much better to have a fierce, clearly right wing opposition to a Democrat president for four to eight years than to blindly follow whoever the party nominates, whether they are conservative or socialist. In the long run, supporting McCain damages America more than any single Democrat can damage it in four years as president, even Hillary or Obama.

Feb 20, 2008 - 3:51 am syn:

Good Lord! God have mercy on our souls for the slave traders in the midst of America!

That said; as a Conservative I am beginning to relate to what Geert Wilders is enduring only he is in Denmark and I am in America.

Beth

I am willing to give up all my principles in order to defend and protect our fine miltitary and their mission,the troops mean so much to me that I am willing to be politically blackmailed into voting for McCain

Other than incessant whining about people not giving up all their principles to support McCain, exactly what are you, Terrye or Anchoress willing to give up?

My guess is nothing but incessant whining.

Feb 20, 2008 - 4:06 am Yvonne Sargent:

I found this an incredibly offensive column. Once again the folks being talked about are the elite and the priveleged. I’m a grandmother and have watched this nation skidding toward socialism and the good compassionate conservative Republican, George Bush, just kept spending and growing.
I do understand the problem with not voting for McCain and the judges that may be appointed by Hillary or Obama. Yet I’m very unsure if I can vote for him with the more I find out about him. His connections with Soros and also with the Reform Institute. The list of donors on the Reform Institute’s Web site are radical, leftwing foundations, including the Tides Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Proteus Fund and George Soros’ Open Society Institute - very alarming!

Dr. Juan Hernandez as his Director of Hispanic Outreach who believes “We are betting that the Mexican American population in the United States…will think Mexico first”. He headed up a Mexican bureaucracy called the “Presidential Office for Mexicans Abroad” under Mexican President Fox. I don’t believe for a minute he will build the fence nor enforce our laws. Lastly I have seen his position some years ago during the hearings on the POW/MIA issue and know he did much to stop the further investigation of the return of our soldiers from Vietnam.
I so hope someone else comes along -

Yvonne

Feb 20, 2008 - 4:36 am RE:

It boils down to understanding and Respect for the US Constitution and Bill of rights. Too few people have read these centrally important documents, let alone the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist papers, to understand the role of government . This ignorance leads them to accept government officials increasingly operating outside their Constitutional authority while blatantly ignoring their Constitutional obligations.

I commend Conservatives for their fight to keep current debate within the Constitutional framework. I expect we will lose the fight as we see more and more people choose goodies over Constitutional fidelity and self-discipline. The Founding Fathers predicted it.

We’re following Europe into the abyss. They are quite a bit ahead of us. But it’s the same path. John McCain will walk us down it. Hillary would have us jog. And Obama would have us sprint. The ‘Moderates’ who meet the leftists half way are indeed cause for alarm. Four years of bi-partisanship’ and you’re left with 1/16th of what you started with. John McCain merely represents a slower net loss, but a net loss just the same.

Admirers of the Founding Fathers are absolutely correct to be dismayed and alarmed by the encroaching nanny-state, continued erosion of individual liberties, and leadership that is more passionate about taxpayer funded sports stadiums, bike paths, and well manicured lawns than the proliferation of gangs like MS-13 or Chinese espionage, or public education’s attempts to marginalize the parent and turn out underachievers.

We do have a few good politicians that we need to support. Sessions, Kyl, Pence, Cline, Bachman, Cornyn, and DeMint are a few names we need to start piling sandbags around and defending. They are the few remaining voices of common sense in an increasingly dysfunctional government - and an increasingly dysfunctional society.

Feb 20, 2008 - 5:36 am Ted G.:

Many liberal Republicans will take a “siesta” on election day too!

McAmnesty John does not deserve our vote.

Feb 20, 2008 - 7:27 am Rob:

As far as I’m concerned (and I’ve already said this in public, so feel free to come flame me, too, if you want), anyone who really thinks that turning Iraq, the broader war on terror, and the appointment of probably two SCOTUS justices and scores of lower-court slots to one of the Senate’s biggest flaming liberals–and either one of its most cynical power seekers or perhaps its most naive member–would be better than a McCain presidency, however imperfect that would be in most ways, is living in a fantasy world. Don’t you realize that we’re still paying for four years of Carter, never mind eight years of Clinton, in the international situation? You really want to do that again?

Feb 20, 2008 - 7:34 am scott palter:

Always knew I was a RINO. GOP is a vehicle for me not true love. True love is for the flag or for a girl when one is 16 or so. However for me the issue is not deviationism, it is attitude. I have a vote. I have a small checkbook but do send money to candidates and causes I like. I expect to be disagreed with in a civil manner, not called a traitor-racist-bigot-redneck. GOP made its choices. Iowa has third parties I can cast protest votes on. Best of luck winning without those such as myself.

Feb 20, 2008 - 7:55 am Mark:

Time for me to get flamed, I suppose. I will vote for McCain for one reason and one reason only:

50% of the Hillary/Obama agenda is better than 100%.

That’s it…no other grand pronouncement on the ‘08 election. Although, Anchoress, I too love irony and expect a viable 3rd party to emerge for 2012. Depends upon how the nation fares during the next POTUS as to exactly how viable though.

Feb 20, 2008 - 10:33 am William Graves:

I live in California. Out of twelve officials elected statewide, two are declared Republicans: our Governor Mr. Schwartzenegger, and our Insurance Commisioner Steve Poizner. The Governor is pro choice, and interestingly didn’t stand for a primary, since he was initially elected in a recall. The self-styled ‘Conservatives’ who control the state’s nomination process have a defacto litmus test which reliably rejects all moderates. This has been a reliable and demonstrated mechanism for losing all statewide elections.

McCain was nominated by Republican moderates. This is because he is the best candidate in their judgement. If you think he’s too liberal, please refer to the senatorial voting record of his Democrat opponents. If you think that electing him will be the same as electing his probable opponeent, then you are wrong. You don’t have to vote for our candidate, but you will suffer with the rest of us if you do not.

Feb 20, 2008 - 10:45 am jummy:

What actually lies behind the unhinged psychosis of “True Conservatives” has more to do with RFID chips, Masonic iconography on the money and 12 foot tall reptilian humanoids than W. F. Buckley, Ronald Reagan or Aristotle.

These people should just be treated as you would any nut talking about “9-11 Truth” or similar.

Feb 20, 2008 - 11:23 am WAR 4 100 YEARS:

There is not a dimes worth of difference in the two parties. McCain will not get my vote, niether will billary or oSama. Oliver North is a drug dealer. He should have been courtmarshalled. We dont want your stinking WAR no more. The real terrorists are the Bushes,CFR, Trilateral, Rockefeller, and the psyco war mongers. Queen Elizabeth is NOt the Queen Of America. YOU CREATED THESE GHOSTS!
There was never any threat to us, except the Criminal Bushes and their cronies. VOTE FRAUD!!!
Burn Reichstag Burn! Lies, Damned Lie’s!

Feb 20, 2008 - 12:32 pm Fat Jolly Penguin:

Bet my head hurts worse than yours. It’s my first election, and here I am stuck with a choice of a flaming socialist or a quasi-conservative who will simply carry on President Bush’s nightmarish domestic policies. If all we had to worry about was the war I’d be behind John McCain 100%, and probably would have been from the beginning; however, if the country is destroyed from within, there won’t be anything left worth fighting for, will there? That’s the core of our argument, Anchoress: we dislike John McCain because his domestic policies will either put us on a track to internal collapse or just outright do it (ex. amnesty for illegal aliens). I didn’t think I’d run into a situation in my lifetime where I’d have a choice between a creepy person and one who’s only slightly less so, but here I am at my first election scratching my head and wondering when everything went down the toilet.

Feb 20, 2008 - 12:33 pm Mark Ducharme:

A few points about this article and what it misses.

1) The tone reminds me of Charles Barkelys’ hate filled tirade against conservatives, or, “phony Christians” as he calls them. The writer has a problem with people who have a problem with RINO’s (excuse the irony). Gee, it’s February, can’t you allow for a little steam blowing? I myself couldn’t see me, myself, filling in the oval next to McCains’ name a few weeks ago, but now I realize that we must vote for him AND every conservative down ticket so as to have someone around to hold his feet to the fire. Stop whining,others will come around just like us smart people.(If you’re so worried the “TCs” will scare away the moderates, who alone can save the GOP, shouldn’t you hold your tongue for fear of alienating those very same selfrighteous “TCs” ? Ironic, isn’t it?)

2) Was your “random look around conservative political forums” done mostly at gopusa.com ? Because I saw most of those exact quotes there.

3) Misrepresenting Rush (”Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the Talk Radio True Conservatives, who have basically yakked themselves into a corner with their demonization of Senator McCain as a “liberal, no different from Hillary!”") illustrates your contempt for the anti-countryclub set.

4) Suggesting the man who said (I heard this from his own mouth on Hugh Hewitt) John Kerrys’ lies,during the 2004 campaign, were small and incidental, while Ws’ lies were more severe and required much more scrutiny, is a victim of any kind of “purge” is absurd.(That was Helprin by the by.)

4.5) Lumping Ollie in with these others is insulting and reeks of a brand of categorizing you “J’accuse” your target of.

5) ME!?! A “RINO”!?! Wash your mouth with soap boy!(uh, girl?)

6) What does this article miss? Well, it didn’t hit anything accept for the fact that its sloppiness must owe to the authors apparent rush to make an early tee time.

Really now, sir or ma’am, if unity is what you seek, why pee such an insulting line in the winter snow when it just forces me to pinch my nose that much tighter? Let me relax now so I don’t have finger cramps come November.

Feb 20, 2008 - 12:37 pm Anchoress:

You know, I’ve read all of these responses and I can’t help notice how many people are making my point for me…starting with the person telling me I am - somehow - immoral.
I also can’t help noticing how many are so quick to be offended that they don’t seem to have even followed the gist of the piece. It wasn’t about whether or not you should vote for John McCain…it was about the extreme intemperance of the far-right, who - in separating themselves as “true conservatives - have revealed themselves to be the true “RINOS” who need to create a party that will serve them, if they are ever to be happy - or to prepare candidates of their won that they will actually vote for.

It seems really strange to me that here I am a pro-troop, pro-second amendment, pro-God fiscal conservative and I and many like me are excoriated as not “true” conservatives, and we’re morally abhorrent, besides.

It seems even more strange to me that the passionate folks posting here are both doing the “kicking to the curb” of the rest of us, but still - somehow - claiming to be victims.

There are a lot of comments here, a lot of hyperventilation. But who is it you guys want to vote for, really? You can’t say “Reagan” or “Thompson” - one’s dead and the other isn’t interested. You can’t say “Romney” because you only loved him when you got scared of McCain.

After all the bellyaching and carrying on, the question remains: Who do you want to vote for? Identify the American you want in the Oval Office (and who will agree to run for it)? If you’re so serious - go draft him or her.

If you’re not serious enough to do that, then why not take a breath and stop tossing aside the only people currently willing to represent you, even imperfectly?

Feb 20, 2008 - 12:53 pm sean:

Anchoress,

Here you have it, laid out plain before your very eyes: the confused and inconsistant backwoods-hunker-down clowns that are so principled as to alienate the less pure amongst them, and quite possibly lose the most important conflict of our time in doing so. Read through these comments and behold the collapse of the “Conservative” movement, whatever the hell that was. Chin up, I thought your article was excellent, provocative and to the point. I’m personally ready for the whole thing to explode. It’ll open the door for what are known as “New Ideas”.

Feb 20, 2008 - 1:58 pm Michael Hiteshew:

That was brilliant writing. Sadly, I agree with everything you said.

Feb 20, 2008 - 3:31 pm Tolbert:

Anchoress,

How about this -

Have John McCain answer questions about Juan Hernandez and Jerry Perenchio without dissembling.

Have John McCain respond to issues regarding the Merida Initative without dissembling.

Have John McCain respond on how he proposes to keep the domestic economy from falling into “stag-flation”

Then we can talk

Feb 20, 2008 - 5:01 pm Curly Smith:

Frankly Anchoress, I’m surprised as well. I’ve always found arrogance, condescension and insults to be very effective in winning people to my point of view. Your message must not be getting through, maybe you should yell louder and hurl some more insults. Oh wait, you just did.

Feb 20, 2008 - 5:38 pm alle:

Tolbert: once again, the piece wasn’t about defending John McCain. It was asking why you didn’t come up with a candidate you could vote for, and I further asked who you want to vote for. That’s okay, I’ll wait for the answers, too!
Curly: is that what I was doing? Yelling and hurling insults? Really? Can you tell me where the yelling and insulting parts where? I didn’t write them in, but if you received my writing that way, I’d like to understand what you saw!

Feb 20, 2008 - 6:35 pm Jacqui H:

Anchoress, I have a great deal of respect for your writing and thoughtfulness, even when I disagree. I’m sorry to say here that I disagree with your characterization of the ACP as the Right’s fringe.

I’ve been following it since the beginning and just started participating. I searched the site for these comments you quoted, and couldn’t find anything like them. There are, from your post, obviously other sites that feel like that.

The general consensus seems to be that McCain is better than the alternatives, so they’ll vote for him. I will too, unless something extraordinary happens in the meantime. Like any group of individuals though, others aren’t voting for him, and others are undecided. Of those that are not or undecided, they have good reasons for their decision. And other people are trying to talk them into changing their minds, but always politely and logically.

The main goal is not to pick the ‘perfect’ candidate for this election. It is just to start awareness and see where it goes. Various people have been contacting potential candidates, creating objectives, writing principals, among other activities. And of course, we’re trying to get a hold of where to go with this.

As for the idea of a third party, I think there is a serious need for it at this moment. Both parties are more like coalitions of special interests crammed together to gain and hold power than like groups of people with similar principles. Any chance of serious reforms are currently slim; critical issues just won’t be allowed to be debated, let alone voted on. Earmarks, gerrymandering, term limits, encouraging private sector individuals to get involved in politics - these are all issues that I believe a third party can bring to the forefront.

Interestingly enough, both parties seem to be showing cracks in their coalitions, so creating an effective third party now may not necessarily mean that victory is ensured for Dems in the future. It may be that the ACP doesn’t run candidates for awhile in the national elections, just in locals, until there is enough interest. Or maybe this will simply cause the reform issues to be discussed in mainstream circles. Or, perhaps, it will just create a renewed, sincere interest in polictics. In any case, I believe it’s worth a shot.

Incidentally, you’ve been upheld there as a great example of what classy blog posts should be like. On members’ blogs and on the site, you’ve also been called influential, persuasive, thoughtful, polite, engaged, in perspective, and great at ‘a**whuppin’ of the Left’.

Many, if not most, people there can also identify themselves as ‘pro-troop, pro-second amendment, pro-God fiscal conservative[s]’.

I invite you to come take another look and run some searches. No, not everyone there is perfect of course, and not everybody agrees on everything, but I believe we are still a good group.

Thanks for the consideration!

Feb 20, 2008 - 7:21 pm Dumaurier-Smith:

Anchoress,
With all due respect, it seems to me you are the one missing the point. Yes, those of us without a candidate are intemperate in our condemnations, but you, apparently still happily ensconced in a party, shouldn’t take it personally. It’s not about you. It’s about our frustrations with politics generally, and, more specifically, the Republican party that has historically advertised itself as the home of conservative principles.

To cite one well-known conservative, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. … Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” Why should one not be intemperate about what they see as the abandonment of the principles of liberty? Why is temperance regarding the well-being of the nation such a great virtue? Shall we make nice for the sake of the Republican party at the cost of the country? Oh, I know. Politics is the art of compromise. It can also be seen as the Death of a Thousand Cuts.

How can you reduce it be a question of who we want to vote for when our entire frustration is that there is no one we feel we can in conscience vote for? Easy enough for you to say, “Stop complaining!” when you’ve made your deal with the Devil. In the interest of self-esteem, I can understand how you might feel that way. After all, you’re not Patrick Henry’s child, are you. Why should any of us claim to be?

Fine, you’ve made your compromise. But why attack us because we’ve not? For every election from now ’til doomsday you can say, “go along to get along,” or “make the best of a bad situation.” And when the bad situation you made the best of becomes the worst situation, how do you retrieve it then–if you can? Bloody, deadly, desperate revolution? Or just make the best of slavery.

Feb 20, 2008 - 7:48 pm Curly Smith:

alle, since you asked, just a few excerpts:

Having failed to meet the exacting standards of the “true conservatives” within the GOP…

So, anybody who doesn’t like McCain, and won’t vote for McCain is now a “true conservative”, a term that you created and use as an invective. And use. And use. And use. And use.

Having failed to meet the exacting standards of the “true conservatives” within the GOP, these two are the latest heretics and infidels to be identified as “Republican In Name Only.”

If I hold to my principles then I’m derided as a “true conservative”. Presumably, you have some religious convictions, what with The Anchoress and all. Do you have any principles that are irresolute? Oh, yeah, you can hold to yours, that’s ok because I’d never call you a “true Catholic”. I’d never put “scare quotes” around your belief system. It would never occur to me that your beliefs are simply a matter of convenience.

For them there is only one answer, one way to separate the RINOs from the CINOs, the corrupt “establishment” from the incorruptible TCs, and to allow the Talk Radio True Conservatives to save face: secession.

Now we’re getting to it. It’s all about the Talk Radio. Got a problem with the Talk Radio hosts and the people who listen to Talk Radio do you?

See if you can ID the arrogance, condescension and derision:

Yes, it is entirely possible that the purist TCs, forming their True Conservative Party with their impeccably conservative candidate, will someday be courting the CINOs and other filthy moderates for their votes, and relying on the very open-mindedness, pragmatism, and flexibility they currently abhor, to bring about the Great Conservative Nirvana that they seek.

That’s right, you’re a saint. The very model of “open-minded” and “flexible”, at least with everybody who agrees with you. Maybe it’s a good thing to not have a solid belief system. What say we scrap the “Pro-Life” portion of the platform? C’mon! We’re all pragmatists here! What’s 20 or 30 million more dead babies? Think of the moderates that would fill the tent! Yeah, I thought not. Your definition of compromise is me capitulating to your point of view.

It wasn’t about whether or not you should vote for John McCain…it was about the extreme intemperance of the far-right

So, anybody who disagrees with you is “intemperate”? And not just intemperate but extremely intemperate?

Feb 20, 2008 - 9:02 pm Pierre Legrand:

Anchoress stealing AJ’s shtick is not cool…I just realized that you are using his very line, “Goldilocks conservatives” without attribution? Not that he wouldn’t be ok with it since he has been railing against conservatives long before the election.

Why the anger? Are you trying to convince or just fanning the flames?

I also can’t help noticing how many are so quick to be offended that they don’t seem to have even followed the gist of the piece. It wasn’t about whether or not you should vote for John McCain…it was about the extreme intemperance of the far-right, who - in separating themselves as “true conservatives - have revealed themselves to be the true “RINOS” who need to create a party that will serve them, if they are ever to be happy - or to prepare candidates of their won that they will actually vote for.

You know what else in that long article you didn’t cite one example…why not? You must have hundreds of examples to back up the drivel you are selling. Ask AJ to help.

Yes yes we know Bush is great, McCain will be just as great.

Extremism in the pursuit of justice is no vice and moderation in the pursuit of freedom is no virtue.

You know when I quoted that line to you it was apparent that you had no idea what I was talking about. You even had the audacity to suggest that extremism in any case is a bad thing. And we are supposed to take this sort of thinking seriously?

There is nothing wrong with being extreme in the pursuit of justice and there is absolutely no virtue in pursuing freedom moderately. When you understand that you will understand conservatives.

I know that you have stated repeatedly that you came to the Republicans from the Democrats. So having you explain how conservatives should act is laughable. We kick, fight, scream, argue, debate, refuse to talk to each other but in the end our ideas blossom and we are the party with new ideas because we are always debating them and it takes a leader to unite us. That is what Reagan brilliant, he knew how to appeal to us all. Btw Bush did a lot to stifle new ideas by raising up the big government fools inside of government.

Btw that quote is from Barry Goldwater and it is the distilled essence of conservatism.

Feb 20, 2008 - 10:12 pm anchoress:

Curly: you wrote: So, anybody who doesn’t like McCain, and won’t vote for McCain is now a “true conservative”, a term that you created and use as an invective. And use. And use. And use. And use.

Hmmm…did you see the comments from the conservative forums I quoted? Did you see the person who refered to herself as TRUE conservative over Cal Thomas? I don’t “deride” anyone as a “true conservative.” I call them what they seem to want to be called.

I’ll point out that you implied that my response was “yelling and hurling insults” and I asked you to cite examples from there, not from my original post which I have neither the time nor the inclination to argue line-by-line with you…or did I misunderstand when you wrote: Your message must not be getting through, maybe you should yell louder and hurl some more insults. Oh wait, you just did.

You were meaning my response, then, were you not? That’s what I thought. I know what I said. So do you.

Dumaurier-Smith: I’m very sorry if you take the piece as an “attack.” This is remarkable to me. All I did was show you comments I saw from people on forums, and relate that I - thinking myself a conservative - am constantly derided as a RINO or worse, and I’m suggesting that all that anger and frustration be used constructively, and it’s “insulting” to the very people who have been shoving my head in the metaphorical toilet for months! I’m not a “happy Republican” btw…I’m an Independent. Back where I started after the Dems chased me away for not allowing me the right to disagree with them! Hmmm…that seems to happen a lot, lately!

Pierre, if AJ used Goldilocks Conservatives before I didn’t know about it. See my piece here from January. If AJ said it first, great; I thought I did. Please point out where in the article I said that either Bush or McCain is great?

And since I used to be a Dem I’m not allowed to comment on the behavior of the GOP? Please. I’ve contributed my fair share, and if I recognize behavior I’ve seen before, why not point it out?

I’ll end my part in the discussion here. I KNOW your energy and appetite for continuing, mi amigo, but YOU know my stamina and interest both wane!

Feb 20, 2008 - 10:32 pm Miguel Mares y de Ida:

I have politically detested John McCain from his earliest days in the US Senate when he was Fifth of Five for Keating, the convicted financial impresario from Phoenix. When August of 2007 was dark for McCain’s campaign, I felt the future was that much brighter because I might be spared the sight of McCain on the ballot in 2008. In no way do I want to vote for McCain.

Still, after Mitt Romney’s speech that concluded with his withdrawl from the race for the GOP nomination for president, a speech in which Gov. Romney urged his fellow Republicans to unite around front-runner McCain, I decided to give McCain another look.

Frankly, the Anchoress and her like are doing a bang-up job of persuading me that McCain is hopeless.

Larry Rasczak’s remarks are only adding to my distaste for McCain and his apologists. Says Larry, “I do see how it is awfuly hard for someone who’s family has been here since Diego de Vargas took back Santa Fe from the Indians in 1692 to ‘go back home’.”
Gee, if someone’s parents have been in what is now New Mexico for that long, they’re not illegal immigrants. (Duh.) Same goes for Larry’s fretting about “someone who’s family has been in Los Angeles since 1781.” There wasn’t a welfare state in 1781. Larry, to use your own words, you’re “both inaccurate and insulting.”

As for California’s Proposition 187, a majority of us Mexican-Americans who were born here in California voted for it, much to the chagrin of Democrat race-baiters and RINOs like McCain.

If McCain can’t find Americans to pick his lettuce for $50 an hour, he’s not looking hard enough. My US born parents were farm workers, my Dad was a migrant worker, and as I child I worked in the fields as a picker too. Even today, most field laborers harvesting crops on US farms today are US citizens who were born in the USA. Why does Larry Rasczak confuse us with illegals? I suggest Larry contemplate why the State of New Mexico’s automobile license plates are the only ones in America that are marked “USA” after the state’s name. Or have to be.

McCain, go home. And back to your first wife, too.

Feb 20, 2008 - 11:41 pm Anchoress:

Jacqui, I responded to you, but it somehow didn’t get thru. Thanks for the kind words re my site. If you check the article again I think you’ll see that I support the formation of the CPA - boy I wish my previous response hadn’t gone missing, it was a much better one, but I’m awfully tired now.

I think the CPA is probably necessary at this point, and it will be very interesting to watch the formation of a new party. I think it’s important to broaden some identifiers and distinguish between those who share common values but who disagree on how those values may be expressed through policy. Then, perhaps the “true conservatives” (once again I wish I knew the least insulting way to identify…) could move beyond asserting their identity and the Moderates (Rino’s, CINO’s or whatever) could as well, and then maybe all the yammering can give way to real co-operation in identifying and promoting national candidates.

I think the formation of the CPA can only be a good thing; it will force focus and real exchanges of ideas among people with shared values…who let’s face it, are not playing very nice right now!

Feb 21, 2008 - 12:18 am Pierre Legrand:

Then, perhaps the “true conservatives” (once again I wish I knew the least insulting way to identify…) could move beyond asserting their identity and the Moderates (Rino’s, CINO’s or whatever) could as well, and then maybe all the yammering can give way to real co-operation in identifying and promoting national candidates.

Well maybe you could start by giving us links to examples of conservatives saying that Bolton, North and others are not conservative enough? Try not to link to forums Anchoress. Also you are not allowed to link to any site that has less than 2,000 visits a day. I set the bar low cause I want to see just how audacious you will be about dragging any Tom Dick or Harry you can find. It is hard to imagine how your article got by without such links.

You make much about calling the right wing this or that cute little name but you never deal with issues and the principles that drive those issues. Your side instigated this tempest in a teapot and your side has not yet dealt with the issues. Your side of the aisle doesn’t seem to believe that anything should get in the way of winning. Pragmatism does not guide the right wing. Winning isn’t everything.

Finally because you came over from the Democrats you don’t understand us. So commenting on our behavior at this early stage of your Republicanism is useless except to be divisive. I notice that AJ’s intent is fairly similar, divide instead of uniting. Though he has a much nastier way about him. Democrats as a rule don’t seem to have these big debates about principles. To them winning IS everything. It is not to us. You need to adjust.

Anchoress perhaps you might in the future be more honest about your intent? Instead of writing inflammatory articles throwing bombs declaring that you are wistful for a united Republican party why not be straight forward. Why not in the future say, I came over from the Democratic party and I don’t like a certain wing of the party so I am going to attack them.

Feb 21, 2008 - 5:29 am scott palter:

Third parties in the US are protest vehicles. Let us look at Nader in 2000. The Nader campaign was essentially a faction of the left [both inside the Dem party and camped beyond its fringes in the allied activist movements]responding to Clinton’s triangulation politics by saying they would rather see Bush win then be told to vote the lesser evil while sitting meekly and quitely in the back of the bus. They pulled Gore [who figured to be an easy winner - peace/prosperity without the Clintonista soap opera and scandals] to the left and still took enough protest votes to throw the election. However they have not been marginalized since. The Dem party of 2008 is well to the left of that of 1998 in large measure because they proved that the Democrats did not have the activist votes by divine right but rather had to work for them. So I simply will not vote for a man who personalizes every policy dispute and demonizes those who disagree with him. I don’t expect to win them all. I do expect that any party that wants to get my vote doesn’t call me racist scum simply because I disagree with a dim whitted, poorly thought out Amnesty Plan. Better 8 years of Hillary followed by 8 years of Chelsea. Let the moderates who keep saying we are an anchor that keeps them from winning try to win without us.

Feb 21, 2008 - 6:46 am Curly Smith:

Speaking of third parties…

Recall the 1992 Election wherein the Fiscal Conservatives said “Read Our Ballots, No New Term” to George H. W. “Voodoo