McCain Won, Your Guy Lost – Now Do What’s Best for America
Elections have consequences, writes Jules Crittenden. Sitting out Election '08 because you don't like McCain could mean a defeat in Iraq and a nuclear-armed Iran in four years' time. Will that make you feel better?
You’ve had your tantrum. Now it’s time to be adult about it.
That is the heart, after all, of what being a conservative is about: recognizing reality and dealing with it.
Conservatives of many stripes have plenty of reasons to be unhappy with the ascendancy of John McCain. If abortion is your issue, if illegal border-crossing is your issue, if McCain-Feingold did it for you, or the accusations of torture in the midst of a difficult, dirty war. The list goes on. It may just be the long career of contrariness, punctuated by moments of anger.
Some conservatives are talking about sitting it out. The idea is that it is not such a bad thing to lose one. It might be better for the party. Give the other side enough rope, let the Republican Party regroup and find its feet and a few new candidates.
It’s loser talk — bitter loser talk — worthy of the Democratic leadership of Congress. You’ll recall they claimed a mandate they didn’t quite have, fought the same futile battle again and again, but failed to bring anything viable to the table. Rather than look ahead to the interests of the nation, they looked to their own narrow political interest, failed to satisfy that either, and stumbled and fell, earning the disgust even of the people who voted them in.
Now, in time of war, when there is a single issue that trumps all others, some conservatives are looking to duplicate that absurd and dangerous performance, to the detriment of the United States. In fact, they are opting to hand ultimate victory to those same Democrats.
It’s not like there isn’t another way.
John McCain can’t win on his own. He needs the social and economic conservatives. He needs to convince them while still winning over the moderate independents and Democrats. It isn’t an easy balancing act, but it is the reality America is faced with today.
That is an opening for conservative power brokers to influence the shape of this campaign and the administration that follows, to make sure their views are represented. It is an opening for them to demonstrate that they are relevant.
That argument is undercut by the claim that McCain can’t be trusted not to betray whatever interests he caters to in the campaign. And, depending on what kind of running mate, what kind of people he draws around him, that may or may not be true. That is a risk.
The security argument against John McCain is a limited one, more a matter of pique than anything else. He vocally opposed harsh interrogation techniques, which irked many on the right as a semantic bickering that undercut the president and fueled the opposition in time of war. It is otherwise largely irrelevant, however. The most objectionable interrogation methods are controversial among practitioners, and are not regularly practiced.
There’s the temperament claim. He gets angry sometimes. I’d suggest someone who experienced what he did and went on to become a highly respected United States senator, who has maintained himself through hard-fought campaigns, can be relied on to maintain presidential composure, even if he snaps at subordinates or his loyal opposition or other adversaries from time to time. The notion that he’ll be a wild finger on the button is absurd. I’d suggest he’s entitled to be a little cranky sometimes. He wouldn’t be the first president with a temper, and if Republicans cede the election, they may well have allowed a rage problem of a different stripe to occupy the Oval Office.
These debatable points are not the central issue of this election. Nor is it, as some have suggested, the economy.
What is undeniable is that the single greatest threat the United States faces is that in four years, Iraq is abandoned, chaos and genocide take hold there, and the great expenditure of precious American blood and treasure there is rendered a waste. In four years, Iran can have a nuclear weapon. Both of these events will have wide ramifications. The nations of the Middle East and Far East can see a United States weakened and unreliable, and they will look elsewhere and to other means to defend their interests. Meanwhile, Iran, China, North Korea, Sudan, the Taliban, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Myanmar regime, Putin — I’m sorry, it’s a long list; I might have missed some — can be relied on to take advantage of our absence from the field to advance their own positions.
Because America will be perceived again to be a nation without a spine, a nation that chooses to lose, a nation that will not fight for its ideals. Is it the sixth or seventh time in the last four decades? Vietnam. Iran. Lebanon. Somalia. Al-Qaeda and Saddam in the 1990s. Our enemies know that list very well. It is their mantra, the weakness they see in us that strengthens them and keeps them going.
This retreat will be bigger and more devastating than any of those, because this time, there will be no disputing that they are correct. When the American right as well as the American left has chosen surrender to global enemies rather than set aside its domestic political fights, then America has no right to claim superpower status, and the American dream is at an end. We will become, like Europe, a sump of ideals.
Whatever else John McCain may or may not be, there is no denying that when it comes to a vigorous, sensible prosecution of a war that is fundamental to the continued existence of western ideals, the single most important issue of our day, he is committed and he is the only candidate still standing who can be relied on. He may be a severely flawed champion, but right now, he’s the only one willing and able to fight that battle. America needs him.
That means conservatives of all stripes, who pride themselves on being rational adults who have set aside childish things, need to begin acting the part.
Jules Crittenden blogs at Forward Movement.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
80 Comments
1. Tony Ryan:More common sense from Jules.
Anyone remember Churchills economic policies in Britain from the 1940’s? No? Thats probably because something just a little bit more important globally was going on at the time and Churchill was the right man for the bigger job even if he was unpopular domestically.
The US needs to play some strong hands at the international poker table over the next few years and of all the candidates on offer surely McCain is your best player? If you don’t get your foreign policy right all the domestic stuff will be irrelevant.
If you run away from the Middle East your enemies wont perceive that America has a weak spine. It will know it has one.
Feb 9, 2008 - 2:18 am 2. Barbula:BS
Yet another establishment hack tries to insult and scare the honestly skeptical.
Vote for McCain if you want – I don’t owe him anything but contempt.
Feb 9, 2008 - 2:31 am 3. jbrookins:Aha as often as I agree with you I can’t on this one. The guilt trip doesn’t work. The “hey lets all just unite around the party” line is getting old when the party isn’t united around it’s base. I consider myself a moderate republican but I’m not voting for someone I don’t trust just to make McCain and the party look good.
I voted twice for Bush. He wasn’t the fiscal conservative I wanted and I disagreed with him on many things but I had some trust in him. He was exactly what I voted for and expected. McCain doesn’t elicit that feeling from me.
The country will survive. Hell we survived Bill didn’t we and the world loved us then. Not that it was a good thing.
I’m sitting in Iraq and I want victory but I just don’t believe what McCain says.
Feb 9, 2008 - 3:11 am 4. George Keselman:Jules Crittenden – please go to … France with your advice.
Feb 9, 2008 - 3:49 am 5. Terrye:No matter who you are: a socialist or a decent person – a good one must live by some principals. Did you know that?
I agree, these sore loser cry babies need to grow up and think of someone other than themselves.
They expect everyone to suck it up for their guy, but they are too special for that.
This is not about a guilt trip, this is about keeping faith. If you can’t do that, don’t judge the rest of us.
Needless to say these same people would spend the years of the Obama Clinton presidency they helped to create bitching, moaning and whining. Their best thing.
Feb 9, 2008 - 4:33 am 6. peaches1:Please do not spew this garbage about sitting out the election.
The conservatives did not expect to be railroaded out of their conservative candidates or votes.
We know this was a setup pure and simple; so why don’t you join us to see if we can get our candidates and votes back instead of morally telling us to keep doing the same thing?
Feb 9, 2008 - 4:36 am 7. Terrye:So, jbrookins, do you think you will get victory with Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama?
Do you think you can trust them? Do you think they are fiscally conservative?
I trust McCain a lot more than I do people who say they want victory, but don’t think it is any big deal if Barack Hussein Obama becomes president. That makes me wonder if McCain is the one with the credibility problem.
BTW, I have had relatives in Iraq, and I have not gotten the impression they will be sitting back and watching Hillary or Obama take over the White House.
Feb 9, 2008 - 4:51 am 8. RE:A St. Crispin’s Day rallying cry this is not.
The right thing for conservatives to do at this point is to turn their support to solid organizations (like the Heritage Foundation, Manhattan Institute, etc ) and start supporting conservative candidates at the congressional, state, and local levels. It’s becoming important to shore up the defenses against the coming assault on the First and Second Amendments, global warming motivated economic meddling, open borders, and creeping socialism. There’s a really ugly stretch of road up ahead of us.
Supporting a candidate like McCain merely slows the bleeding. When the choice is between bad and worse, there really is no option but to choose bad, hunker down, and pray a lot.
Feb 9, 2008 - 5:20 am 9. RE:Yes, Winning the war is important. But so are the borders. I’d maintain that our borders present a much greater existential than does Iraq. Iraq and Afghanistan are much more significant to the Europeans that hate us. (Gotta love that Atlantic Ocean!)
After a long flurry of gratuitous insults and smears towards people advocating enforcement of existing law, John McCain now says he’ll secure the borders – yet he has ex-Vicente Fox adviser and wide open borders advocate Juan Hernandez on board as an adviser.
So what is a good person to believe? Words? or Deeds?
Feb 9, 2008 - 5:44 am 10. Mark Stewart:What’s best for America is to destroy the socialist portion of the GOP.
I’m voting for Hillary in the general election.
If the GOP wants my vote, they must represent my issues, which are:
1. Adherence to the constitution
2. Fiscal restraint (which should really be an effect created by the first item)
There is no way I would vote for McCain. No way.
Feb 9, 2008 - 6:03 am 11. Drugstore Cowgirl:Excellent article but I have to say that even though I may be able to hold my nose and vote for McCain early and often–even very often–I doubt that he will win.
If you think Conservatives are hard on him wait until MSM and the Donks get out their long knives.
And Terrye, I’m sick to death of you 9/11 Democrats telling Conservatives, just as you always have, how to think and vote. You, Roger Simon, et al have no clue. You’re just like the Brits who got Winston Churchill to save their bacon and then kicked him to the curb as soon as the war was over and continued on their merry way to a Socialist State and what will very soon be an Islamic State since they have now lost all will to be English. Thanks for nothing.
Feb 9, 2008 - 6:05 am 12. ajacksonian:The one thing this analysis misses is the one point where HRC, Obama and McCain agree: closing Gitmo and putting terrorists into the civil courts system. That is a system of ‘adversarial justice’ of evidence presented to defense consul and of lawyers who are more than sympathetic to terrorists, like Lynne Stewart. One lawyer was able to allow the ‘Blind Sheikh’ to determine the power structure inside the Muslim Brotherhood but in exterior operations, like its Islamic Jihad unit, from a US jail. I have a problem with those picked up on the battlefield subject to the Laws of War being shifted into the civil arena.
In case it has missed the attention of a few folks, those fighting outside the Laws of War and Law of Nations are outside the protection of the civil law. We offer such crimes inside the civil law so that individuals who are captured via civil means, under civil review or who give themselves up have a chance to clear their names. You do not *get* that during wartime. One Repbulican President did promulgate military rules of war that adhered to these concepts and they were kept for over 30 years, and those acting in the manner of terrorists were directly addressed. He saw his Executive power coming from the Head of State and Commander of the Armies and the Navies as giving him authority to act for the Nation against those that place themselves outside of the structure of the law and treaties. That President was Abraham Lincoln and I find it difficult to believe that the nominee from his party will turn his back on his wisdom this election year. I have always viewed Lincoln as honestly understanding his powers and what that means as a responsibility by the Executive to protect the Nation when those caught waging Private War are run across in an active combat area. But then I view him as civilized in this realm, unlike the current crop of candidates.
So please do worry about how Iran and NoKo will see the US, but realize that all three want to put our ability to find such agents as are against the US in extreme danger, and that a short time after closing Gitmo begins the CIA, NSA, DIA and other INTEL agencies will start to find their networks of agents and resources disappear and we will be starting back at square one. If you vote for Sen. McCain or either of the others, address your responsibility in this and start to prepare the ‘damage control’ now, for these candidates will put this Nation at risk in their views and there is no *better* amongst them when ignoring the responsibilities of the President under the Law of Nations and Laws of War to protect this country. Because your vote for any of these is a vote for that and the responsibility in a representative democracy is upon those casting the votes. And to not cast one means that you have rejected your responsibility to the Nation, also.
Just like these Presidential candidates.
Feb 9, 2008 - 6:10 am 13. RE:Apologies, the above post should read:
“I’d maintain that our borders present a much greater existential threat than does Iraq.”
The keyword ‘threat’ is probably best included in that sentence. I hate it when that happens.
Feb 9, 2008 - 6:16 am 14. Curly Smith:ROTHLMAO! That was so funny!
The Republican Party, that despises me and everything I believe in, tells me that I have to support them in the upcoming election or the Democrats will win and the Republican Party, that despises me and everything that I believe in, will lose power. The rationale behind the wisdom of the Republican Party is “sure, we despise you and everything that you believe in; we kick you in the crotch at every opportunity… BUT the Democrats despise you more and will kick you harder! Vote your crotch, Vote GOP!”.
Sorry GOP, it’s time to end the abusive relationship. Maybe the GOP should try some leadership because the fear-mongering is getting rather stale.
Feb 9, 2008 - 6:17 am 15. W. Keller:Some thoughts on what a McCain Presidency means:
* Open borders: He will sign the Kennedy bill after “securing the boarder”. Yet, the Kennedy bill legalizes the 12-20 million in country and allows immediate family members to join them. This could easily result in 36-60 new citizens virtually over night. How do we support this?
* Once this green light is lit, do you really think they will post the 4th ID on the border to secure it? Our current influx of illegals will look like a trickle.
* Tax Cuts: They will get repealed in a heart beat. With a weak (cooperative) stick like McCain in the driver’s seat there will be no one to stand against the clamoring hordes hungry for your tax dollars. What will this do to business in innovation in the US – review the Carter years for your answer.
* McCain’s agreement with Kyoto and his buy-in to the whole man made global warming deal ( by the way – FREEZING MY ASS OFF IN IOWA ) – yet another nail in the coffin of American businesses.
* Judges: McCain cared so little for my constitutional rights that he formed his little gang of 14. The filibuster of Supreme Court Justices is unconstitutional – and it should have been settled before Bush left office because McCain and the Democrats certainly will do nothing but salt the court with socialists and believers in “The Living Constitution”.
* McCain/Finegold: Florida was a perfect example of why McCain fought so hard for that legislation. He released a pack of lies and inflammatory robo-calls against Romney. Since it was within 30 days of a Primary (or 60 days of a general election), no private group or citizen could buy air time to help Romney rebut these lies. McCain could simply lie over and over knowing full well no one could mount a rigorous response.
* The War: Tell me, do you really think McCain, regardless of his hawkish stance on Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and the Religion of Peace, do you really think he will have the horse power to rustle up funding for fighting these folks with a Democrat Congress? Once he is POTUS, he will no longer be their friend – he will be their enemy.
* His personality: He is, perhaps the most angry and vindictive member of the Senate today. While these traits may be fine for survival in Vietnam and for getting his way in the Senate, they do not lend themselves to leadership. IF, and this is a BIG IF, between now and November he sees fit to show some contrition for his stupid ideas on immigration, campaign finance, tax cuts, the gang of 14, he might find his footing with the conservatives. He won’t do that. Simply because he IS angry and vindictive. I believe the conservative base is going to punish him.
• With the election of McCain, I do not believe there would be a dimes worth of difference between him and Hillary. If Obama gets elected, he will be drug around by the nose by every special interest group and the likes of Kennedy. I agree, the results will be brutal. But please don’t think that McCain guarantees any level of good treatment for the military and death and destruction to our enemies, it doesn’t.
So please, stop telling me I need to hold my nose and pull the lever. The ideas of small government, lower taxes, protecting our laws and sovereignty, protecting the tenants of our Constitution, killing those enemies bent on our destruction, protecting my right to free speech, promoting the growth of business are the very foundation of our country. McCain will do nothing to protect them. His strength in the Senate has been his willingness to slide to the left. Now, since the foolishness of McCain/Finegold and winner take all rules, not to mention the overwhelming support of the MSM has enabled him to become the Republican candidate, I am supposed to abandon my principles?
As Ronald Reagan said: “I didn’t leave the Democrat party, they left me.” Senator McCain and the current crop of Republicans left me many years ago. 2006 should have been a wake up call to return to the fold. It wasn’t. I think the tipping point has been reached and the culling will begin this election with McCain and every other Senator opposed to the simple expectations of the conservative base. I will not vote for McCain. And neither will the majority of those who share my basic beliefs in the meaning of our founding fathers.
our
Feb 9, 2008 - 6:57 am 16. hoosiertoo:Given a choice between a Democratick and a Democratick – I choose neither. It’s either 3rd party or I sit it out this year. If you Repulicrats want my vote, run a small government fiscal conservative.
While we’re at it, the whole fascist “moral equivalent and/or actual war against everything” agitprop is tired. The only war I’m signing up for is war against the leviathan state and it’s enablers – moral equivalent and/or otherwise. Unsurprisingly, either side of the aisle is a target-rich environment.
I’ve been a registered independent for 30 years – and I’m likely to stay that way. A plague on both your houses.
Feb 9, 2008 - 7:10 am 17. dougf:You might as well argue with a brick wall as with a ‘real conservative’. As most of the postings above make completely clear.
The ONLY thing they have in common with reality is their support for the anti-terrorism effort, and clearly that means far less to them than their private hobby horses. Hobby horses which the vast majority of the population declines not only to ride but even to admire from the sidelines.
They think they are ascendant when in fact they are dying as a movement because they have no answers to the changing demands of the future. Just hatred and calumny for their many opponents. Between inviting Jules to move to France, believing somehow that McCain is a socialist(they don’t even know what that means except as some kind of curse word), and a flurry of vile personal attacks and paranoid fantasies, they are the next best thing to clueless that one can possibly locate on short notice.
I just wish they would get on with the dying off part. If voting for a Democrat would ensure their quicker demise it would almost be worth it. But it won’t. They just have to wither away at their own pace like all other obsolete political value systems.
It was said about the Holy Roman Empire that it was “neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire”. The same concept applies fully to the modern day ‘real conservatives’.
They think they are despised by everyone else. They didn’t use to be. But they are now doing a fine job of making paranoia into actual reality. By November they will have just about completed the job.
Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of people to be perfectly candid.
A blogger at NRO pretty much sums up the ‘real’ picture for those who can’t see very well on their own.
“Our main priority has been conserving the conservative movement. Our reward is a GOP front-runner whose main priority has been national security, and who has contempt for conservatives.
Maybe just maybe some of that contempt is deserved.”
No maybes about it. None at all.
Feb 9, 2008 - 7:11 am 18. A. N. Pierson:Wow. We are at war and some nitwit on here says it’s time to pick up our marbles and go rally around the Manhattan Institute? Neville Chamberlain was bad – these so-called conservatives are simply bananas.
Feb 9, 2008 - 7:23 am 19. Aloysiusmiller:Ann Coulter is right Hillary isn’t going to be the first woman president to loose a war. I don’t think Obama will be the first black president to loose a war either.
Better for conservatives to focus on other conservative politicians and making a Senate that can filibuster Supreme Court nominations, and a house that hold off new taxes and keep down earmark spending.
Wasting time and energy on Viagra Juan is a mistake. Vote for him if you like but don’t fight for him.
Feb 9, 2008 - 7:26 am 20. Mark Stewart:RE: Pierson
“So-called conservatives”?
I don’t agree with the Manhattan Institute, but I don’t agree with McCain, either.
AQ may destroy airliners and buildings. If they are lucky, they could even set off a nuke.
But that wouldn’t even begin to approach the damage being done to America by power-hungry, vote-buying career incumbents in the socialist wing of the GOP.
Tell your “we are at war” nonsense to someone else. I’m at war with socialism.
Feb 9, 2008 - 7:42 am 21. ted goldman:On election day many Reagan Democrats, as well as true conservatives, will be taking a “siesta.”
Tell McNasty that is Spanish for sitting on our butts.
If you think McCain is unstable now, as 1 of 100 Senators, just wait until you see this psycho in the White House.
Feb 9, 2008 - 7:54 am 22. hoosiertoo:Most of “these conservatives” aren’t so much. There isn’t much left of what we value to “conserve” anyway. Our country was mortally wounded with the ascendancy of the so-called progressives over 100 years ago and has been dying ever since.
Yes, I DO know what a socialist is. You neo-cons pretty much fill that bill.
Kick us to the curb if you want; heck, you already did that in 1964. I haven’t bought the BS since 1984 – the last time I held my nose and voted for a Republican for POTUS only to find that the rhetoric didn’t match the action.
The lesser of two evils is still evil; McCain is certainly the lesser. Good luck winning the election without us, not that it will matter whether Hillybama or McCain wins anyway.
Here’s hoping the Republican party crashes and burns.
Feb 9, 2008 - 8:07 am 23. RE:It’s clear that there are drama queens on both sides of this controversy.
The sad reality is that you and your children are at a far more immediate risk of becoming a drunken illegal alien driver statistic or illegal alien criminal statistic than falling to a jihadi in the next 24 hours.
It seems logical to defend against both. Too bad they don’t track the body count from illegals as well as the military tracks combat casualties.
Myopia is not your friend. Picking a favorite enemy does not make the other dangers go away. If there are two holes in your boat, they both have to be plugged. To this silly conservative, denying the other hole in the boat exists seems a bit inadequate.
Feb 9, 2008 - 8:10 am 24. W. Keller:Jules, one more response to some of your points:
“John McCain can’t win on his own. He needs the social and economic conservatives. He needs to convince them while still winning over the moderate independents and Democrats. It isn’t an easy balancing act, but it is the reality America is faced with today.
No, he doesn’t need to “convince” me, he needs to change. He needs to change his view that profitable companies that keep their profits, return them to investors and reinvest them in their growth is a GOOD thing. He needs to assure me he will block every effort by every department in the government to spend more money. He needs to assure me he will make it impossible for illegals to remain in this country (block their ability to send money home, remove educational benefits to their children, penalize companies who hire them, do not grant citizenship to their children, only provide medical treatment in life-threatening instances). It is NOT a “balancing act”, his current mind set damages our country and he needs to change.
“That is an opening for conservative power brokers to influence the shape of this campaign and the administration that follows, to make sure their views are represented. It is an opening for them to demonstrate that they are relevant.”
I never thought there was any doubt my ideas, and those of most conservatives, were “relevant”. Has the Republican Party really slid so far left?? I fear it has.
“That argument is undercut by the claim that McCain can’t be trusted not to betray whatever interests he caters to in the campaign. And, depending on what kind of running mate, what kind of people he draws around him, that may or may not be true. That is a risk.”
I am unwilling to accept the risk. He needs to have an honest change of heart. If he does not, he will not become President, period. Again I ask the Republican Party, how the hell could such a man, who represents so little of what we once were as a party, become our candidate?
“The security argument against John McCain is a limited one, more a matter of pique than anything else. He vocally opposed harsh interrogation techniques, which irked many on the right as a semantic bickering that undercut the president and fueled the opposition in time of war. It is otherwise largely irrelevant, however. The most objectionable interrogation methods are controversial among practitioners, and are not regularly practiced.”
I suspect the dirty little secret about his resistance to torture is that it works. Korea proved that and it created a new military code regarding capture and a serviceman’s response under torture. Everyone breaks – EVERYONE. That is neither good nor bad thing, it is just truth. While Senator McCain endured the most inhumane types of torture, that is not what we inflict on our high-value prisoners. To place our interrogators in McCain’s desired limbo is unfair to them and dangerous to our country and our security.
In my mind, Senator McCain will be unwilling to genuinely move back to the basics. He sees his future power base as living left-of-center, which, in fact, it does. He has no interest in me. He has no interest in changing what has worked for him for 25 years. Resistance, stubbornness, and unwillingness to move has been his trademark for his whole Senate career, he will not change his views in 8 months.
Feb 9, 2008 - 8:17 am 25. progressoverpeace:I am constantly amused by these “conservatives” who think that McCain is such a tough guy with respect to the war. McCain sat in the Senate through the time that the arab/persian/muslim enemies of progress grew and attacked. I do not remember McCain ever showing that he really understood this threat before 9/11.
I, myself, have been screaming about this problem for decades, only to watch people like McCain blithely ignore what was obvious to anyone with a brain.
Anybody who can take someone who’s sat in Congress during the 80’s and 90’s (who did nothing of any value to show that he truly understood what we were about to face) and to claim that that person would somehow be a good CiC for the war is a FOOL.
Other than that, McCain is getting all revved up to destroy the US from the inside with his absolute capitulation to the invading hordes, which he will try to shove down our throats the second he gets in.
I have no faith that McCain would make any sort of a good strategist for this war. He’s far too stupid to be trusted with such and has shown in the past that he cannot see what is really going on in the world.
You McCainiacs can scream and plead all you want. I would not vote for McCain for anything.
And, by the way, after the shamnesty debate, when many of us were saying that that would mark the death of the GOP, and it was clear from the reaction that such was a serious possibility if the party were pushed to that point of having to “accept” McCain and his ideas, it is clear that McCain would have dropped out of the primary if he had any care for anything but himself. The fact that he stayed in said all anyone needed to know about him. Now you guys are whining about something that anyone with an IQ over 70 could have predicted and anyone with an IQ north of 85 SHOULD have predicted.
But this junk about McCain being such a great war strategist is just totally off the wall.
Feb 9, 2008 - 8:21 am 26. capital L:Hillary or Obama in power means the left gets to appoint judges, fill the federal bureaucracy, and scheme away on the Great Society II. They won’t “lose” the war so much as “withdraw” (which will embolden our enemies nonetheless).
But I guess you “real conservatives” won’t mind, because you’ve really won the long term battle by putting the GOP in time-out– lifetime appointments, shortsighted foreign policy, and incredibly hard to undo government programs notwithstanding.
And the ultimate irony is that we, the hated realists, will still be here whenever you come back, because we care about the country more than the movement. But where will the country be?
Feb 9, 2008 - 8:24 am 27. Fred Beloit:This is the insulting and really stupid argument our establishment, “new media” advisers like you are giving us, Jules. Your piece is no different from this Comment by one of your readers: “Terrye :
I agree, these sore loser cry babies need to grow up and think of someone other than themselves.
They expect everyone to suck it up for their guy, but they are too special for that.
This is not about a guilt trip, this is about keeping faith. If you can’t do that, don’t judge the rest of us.
Needless to say these same people would spend the years of the Obama Clinton presidency they helped to create bitching, moaning and whining. Their best thing.”
Jules, get lost.
Feb 9, 2008 - 8:26 am 28. John:“Be an adult about it.” I’m not sure the majority of us are adults in this generation. In any event, should we vote for Hitler if that’s who the party “wonks” present for us? Not that McCain is that bad, but he’s not a Republican. For those of us who support the Constitution and what this country stands for – individual rights and freedom – we have no candidate. We can as easily (if we’re “adults”) vote for Clinton or Obama – after all, “your guy lost, get over it”. If the Republican Party is going to continue to put forth RINO’s for Congress and the Presidency, then for real Republicans to support those kind of candidates only perpetuates the political-hack cynicism that tells the “wonks” that the sheep will vote for whomever they put out there. As a result we get these blowing-in-the-wind RINO’s who don’t represent us any more than the Dems do. It’s not “adult” to just go along and get along and make the best of a bad situation by voting in an unprincipled manner. Our country is at war and bad times are coming because the majority of our citizens are not adults and don’t want to be. They’re going to have to find out the hard way that we can’t just ignore reality and vote our way to peace and prosperity. Many think that it doesn’t really matter how we vote – the country will survive and life will go on. That’s just shows an ignorance of history. Similar thinking almost lost us WWII, though if you don’t know much history, maybe you don’t realize that. But to vote for McCain and other RINOs just makes us accomplices in destroying what’s left of our country. Voting or not voting in this election helps the enemies our country – the honest Republican can only stand aside and not vote or he can revolt – but we don’t have the stomach for that and even if we did, an internal revolution would only make us even more ripe for the picking by our external enemies. Due to technology, we’re not likely to survive the next Pearl Harbor or to be able to retreat, regroup, and gear-up to fight our way out of it.
Feb 9, 2008 - 8:33 am 29. hoosiertoo:capital L – Idle over the cliff or go hell-bent for leather, over you’ll go.
Call me when you nominate someone who wants to put on the brakes and look for “reverse.”
Feb 9, 2008 - 8:47 am 30. hoosiertoo:Oh and by the way: McCain and the gang already filibustered the ball down that road of “putting the GOP in time-out– lifetime appointments,” although to be fair he had plenty of help with the “shortsighted foreign policy, and incredibly hard to undo government programs.”
The GOP doesn’t deserve my vote and won’t get it.
Feb 9, 2008 - 8:52 am 31. Dr. David C. Lachman:IF, as does Jules Crittenden, one believes that “there is a single issue that trumps all others”, it’s perfectly logical to support and vote for John McCain. This certainly in preference to Obama (who hasn’t a hint of a clue in respect to foreign policy) and somewhat less so in respect to Hillary (who seemingly has an element of realism in her shambles of a foreign policy).
BUT, if one believes that the unlimited immigration McCain favors will destroy our country, if one believes that the disdain McCain has for freedom of speech (McCain-Feingold) is a harbinger of similar further limitations, if one believes that McCain’s opposition to tax cuts is unimportant, if one believes that McCain’s support of the global warming hoax will spell economic disaster for our country, if one believes that McCain’s refusal to support the confirmation of constitutionalist judges is an indication of what he would pick by way of judges if he were president, etc. are actually important issues and deserve equal time with the war (which, by the way, someone who believes waterboarding should be banned and Gitmo closed is ill equipped to wage), then Jules Crittenden is saying is that those who disagree with him profoundly as to the state of the argument should simply bow to his superior wisdom and vote his conscience.
I, and many others, think it is he who does not understand the situation and consequently think his suggestions foolish. I am not going to vote for a man who strikes me as temperamentally unstable to be leader of the free world, especially not one whose positions on a goodly number of key issues are of the left. I will vote, but when it comes to the office of President of the United States, it will not be for John McCain (or, for that matter, for Hillary or Obama).
Feb 9, 2008 - 9:00 am 32. Josh:This article and these comments could be transposed on a number of other articles and comments about this subject. It’s redundant and boring already. It boils down to this. You have the right to vote but not the obligation. The Republicans and Democrats are polarized. The Democrats and Republicans are polarized against themselves. Vote, Don’t vote, Write in your vote, I don’t give a rip. Just please stop the redundancy. My attention span on this subject is gone. It’s McCain vs. Obama or Clinton. Like them or hate them. Whoop dee do. Everybody will do what they want to do in the end. Wasn’t there as song that said, “A man hears only what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”
Feb 9, 2008 - 9:51 am 33. Tom Holsinger:Mr. Crittenden,
You neglected to mention certain other aspects to Senator McCain’s character which are relevant to his fitness for the Presidency:
Vanity
Pride
Lack of Judgment
Impetuousness
He doesn’t make cool, calm, collected mistakes after considering all the evidence. He makes rash mistakes.
He has repeatedly made disastrous errors and persisted in those long after the magnitude of his error became evident.
I.e., he has a proven pattern of reinforcing failure due to inability to admit a mistake, and that arises because of his ego.
This will get A LOT of us killed should he become President.
Feb 9, 2008 - 10:01 am 34. David W. Lincoln:You would expect Jules Crittenden to back her husband, David Frum.
Well, I have memories of the 1992 election, and what did George H.W. Bush run on? Foreign affairs primarily.
It makes me wonder if the GOP nominates McCain to be President that they will be communicating to the public that we deserve to hold onto the White House and regain majority status in both the House and Senate. I think not, because McCain is more emblematic of what went wrong in Washington when stuff that was successful in the States was attempted to be transplanted inside the Beltway via the “Contract with America”.
Once again, an outsider has to be brought in to clean the mess, because the Washington-New York axis
of the GOP simply doesn’t get it. They spent too much time bunkered inside the Beltway.
Lest this be thought of as an endorsement of the Dems, even though they are venturing out – they
still have the blinders on so that the beltway gang has it all worked out, and those outside the Beltway have to listen.
Feb 9, 2008 - 10:34 am 35. progressoverpeace:To those who keep trumpeting McCain’s great potential as a wartime President, you need to look at how much he really understands. McCain supported Oslo, then stupidly supported the unilateral Gaza disengagement (perhaps one of the dumbest and most dangerous moves that any Western nation has made in this wider war) and still thinks that Israel needs to be pushed to a “peace process” that has never done anything but return instability for concessions. This is how he thinks this war should be prosecuted. Great. Decades of direct evidence still isn’t enough for him to understand the situation. I’m sure his strategies for the US will just as detrimental.
So just stop with the bleating about what a great war strategist he would be. It’s a joke.
Feb 9, 2008 - 10:49 am 36. Fred Beloit:A few dispassionate and modest considerations:
Feb 9, 2008 - 10:58 am 37. Observer:(1)The Convention is still a long way off. There is not yet anything resembling a platform.
(2) The actual campaign for the presidency is way off in the future. When it begins, we will learn more about McCain, his finances, his plans, his health. I will decide whether to vote for him when I know more about him from the way he conducts his campaign. Then and only then will I decide how to vote. You political party hacks need to grow up and see that this is the way adults fashion their voting plans.
(3) Your insults are counter productive to your achieving the results you desire. You need to stop acting like petulant children and realize this.
Tom Holsinger “he has a proven pattern of reinforcing failure due to inability to admit a mistake, and that arises because of his ego.”
Hmm…. I don’t know about you, but I just heard him admit a mistake regarding immigration about thirty times in the last two months. He says he was wrong and is now a strong adherent of the fence first.
Of course the MSM is reinforcing Mr. Holsinger’s meme. That’s what they do. They don’t want McCain elected. They want us out of Iraq, etc.
Feb 9, 2008 - 11:00 am 38. Tom Holsinger:Observer,
You are playing games. Look at the time frame. President Bush admitted his mistake with Harriet Myers in less than a month, AND withdrew her nomination.
Has Senator McCain said that, if elected President and Congress gives him his immigration bill to sign, that he’d veto it? No. He just won’t push it himself.
We’re at war. McCain has deadly serious character flaws for a President in wartime.
Feb 9, 2008 - 11:19 am 39. progressoverpeace:LOL. He still doesn’t understand that situation. Now he thinks that a border fence is the be-all and end-all of the flow of illegals into the US. He still wants to give amnesty to just about every illegal alien who can make his way to the US.
The fact is that a border fence is but one small part of the puzzle. We have tens of millions of foreigners coming through the US on tourist visas alone, every year, and it isn’t difficult for a few million of them to just decide to stay in the US once they get here. In fact, the potential flow of illegals from visa overstays far exceeds that of border infiltration. The key to the illegal alien problem will ALWAYS be interior enforcement, which McCain refused to do and still refuses to do.
But, since you think McCain is okay on this topic, could you answer a question for me – what would McCain do if, after building a border fence and giving amnesty to just about all of the illegals in the US, a couple of million illegals start flowing here through visa overstays, what would McCain do? Would he do what he says he can’t do now, since there are just too many of them?
McCain’s stance on illegals has changed little. The key is interior enforcement and McCain still REFUSES to consider it in a serious manner.
Feb 9, 2008 - 11:40 am 40. CavalierX:Gotta love how everyone demanding all Conservatives shut up, toe the party line and forget McCain’s past agenda have to characterise us as whining or crying. All the crying I hear is coming from the Republican party apparatchiks who are upset that I won’t blindly vote for whoever happens to have an R after his name. The day I put ANY political party’s winning an election ahead of principle — especially when that win would result in a betrayal of my principles — you can start shoveling the dirt over me. McCain would do as much damage to the country as Hillary, and would destroy the Republican party in the process. No way am I going to enable that with my vote.
Feb 9, 2008 - 12:00 pm 41. Dr. David C. Lachman:IF, as does Jules Crittenden, one believes that “there is a single issue that trumps all others”, it’s perfectly logical to support and vote for John McCain. This certainly in preference to Obama (who hasn’t a hint of a clue in respect to foreign policy) and somewhat less so in respect to Hillary (who seemingly has an element of realism in her shambles of a foreign policy).
BUT, if one believes that the unlimited immigration McCain favors will destroy our country, if one believes that the disdain McCain has for freedom of speech (McCain-Feingold) is a harbinger of similar further limitations, if one believes that McCain’s opposition to tax cuts is unimportant, if one believes that McCain’s support of the global warming hoax will spell economic disaster for our country, if one believes that McCain’s refusal to support the confirmation of constitutionalist judges is an indication of what he would pick by way of judges if he were president, etc. are actually important issues and deserve equal time with the war (which, by the way, someone who believes waterboarding should be banned and Gitmo closed is ill equipped to wage), then Jules Crittenden is saying is that those who disagree with him profoundly as to the state of the argument should simply bow to his superior wisdom and vote his conscience.
I, and many others, think it is he who does not understand the situation and consequently think his suggestions foolish. I am not going to vote for a man who strikes me as temperamentally unstable to be leader of the free world, especially not one whose positions on a goodly number of key issues are of the left. I will vote, but when it comes to the office of President of the United States, it will not be for John McCain (or, for that matter, for Hillary or Obama).
Feb 9, 2008 - 12:24 pm 42. Rubicon:In truth, no matter who wins, this nation faces dark days ahead. The Republican nominee to be may be a great fighter for the war on terror, but he also fails to see that war is being fought at home as well as abroad. Open borders here while we place troops on the Iraqi border to prevent infiltration, makes no sense at all. No fence drives me nuts. Just what legitimate business is going on between those “legal” gate crossing checkpoints? And “WHO” is profiting from that business?
Feb 9, 2008 - 12:24 pm 43. OmegaPaladin:The problem is, its not “JUST” one issue, its the issues as a whole & I fear McCain is not the guy to do that job. BUT, I also “KNOW” Hillary or Obama are not! He’ll get my vote, reluctantly.
I can’t believe what I’m reading. I guess victory for the US military is not as important as the GOP. Carter did not inevitably lead to Reagan, Reagan was his own force to be reckoned with. You can’t un-lose a war.
I suppose I’m a RINO for thinking this, but you seem to be for Victory In Name Only.
Feb 9, 2008 - 12:46 pm 44. NoMoreBlatherDotCom:McCain would damage the U.S. in ways few can imagine. See this for a preview.
Feb 9, 2008 - 12:54 pm 45. Ric James:“You’ve had your tantrum”? What is it with you “shut up and support the party” types? You admit cleanly that you need all of the GOP’s factions to assure a win in November and the very first words out of your mouths are to belittle the concerns of anyone not falling all over themselves to slap “McCain” stickers all over their cars. Temperment and security are the only arguments you’re hearing? You’re not listening very well. And if this is the best you can treat the people with valid concerns about a McCain presidency then you’re going to be doing your not listening with a lot fewer people in your corner.
Feb 9, 2008 - 1:43 pm 46. Terrye:How about supporting democracy if not your party? McCain won because he got the most votes. As if that mattered to the crazy wing of the party. Do you want to just ignore that?
In fact if Reagan were around today half these people would call him Ronaldo and try to impeach him because he failed to secure the border. The fanatics.
How anyone could actually use Reagan as an excuse to sit home and let Hillary Clinton or Obama win is beyond me. It is insane to yammer on about border security if you would actually let or help Obama win after has said he supports giving drivers licenses to illegals.
And besides, if all these socalled conservatives were so damned upset about that border why wait until now to make an issue of it? Why wasn’t it an issue during the Contract with America or the 2000 campaign or the 2004 campaign? It is more of an excuse than an issue.
Fine, sit home and play with yourselves, that will get you what you want. Just think if McCain manages to win without you, no one will care what you all ever say again. That is the problem with ultimatums.
Feb 9, 2008 - 2:00 pm 47. tanstaafl:I have no real dog in this race (whatever that means)
Such things as worrying over the waterboarding of KSM (the slayer of Daniel Pearl) because “America doesn’t torture” just seems plain stupid.
As does trying Gitmo detainees in civilian courts.
As does any elected employee not enforcing the immigration laws already on the nation’s books. Which would include, of course, the …Texas roots sympathetic to Hispanics friends with Vincente Fox… GWB.
John McCain has said (sniff) that illegal immigrants are children of God, too. True enough (sniff), but they’re children of God who are in this country illegally.
Being tortured excruciatingly yourself doesn’t allow you to go soft in the head when it comes to law enforcement.
And all three of these candidates for national office appealing on humanitarian grounds (Hillary: “no women are illegal”) whose chief job would be enforcing the nation’s laws as they stand (you don’t like ‘em, change ‘em) don’t seem to understand that much of the job isn’t a matter of opinion or a point of view.
Feb 9, 2008 - 2:03 pm 48. Terrye:And btw, I saw Ted Olson the other night talking about the Gang of 14. Remember Ted? There was a time when “real conservatives” just loved Ted. But he said not only that he supports McCain, he said the gang actually got more judges confirmed and avoided the possibility of Republicans not having the filibuster in the future..if and when they faced a Democrat in the White House and a strong Dem majority in the Congress.
But needless to say, now that McCain is ahead in the votes by real live people {I wonder how the establishment managed that?} I guess Olson is just another traitor. Like Thompson and Giulliani and Crist and Barbour and Coburn and all those other bad people who do not realize that he is in fact the {gasp!} anti Christ.
I would say that if the “real conservatives” have their way the days ofa Dem super majority may not be far off.
And speaking of temperment, McCain has taken a lot of abuse lately and he has done a far better job of keeping his cool than most of his critics who are sounding more paranoid and bizarre with every passing day.
Feb 9, 2008 - 2:13 pm 49. Terrye:tans:
The problems with immigration go back decades, ignoring them for decades and then blaming one President or one Congress for the situation is ridiculous and counter productive.
Personally I think that if you gave a lot of hardliners the choice between solving the problem or keeping the issue around to bitch about, they would pick the second choice.
One thing is for sure, there are just as many loons on the right as the left, extremes meet…put them together and all you have is one big nut burger.
Now, feel free to get back to paranoid ravings about Vincente Fox and Bush and the North American Union or whatever.
After all is illegal is illegal is illegal is illegal……….
Feb 9, 2008 - 3:26 pm 50. progressoverpeace:First of all, we are NOT talking about “immigration” and it would be nice if you folks could understand that. We are talking about illegals. They are not “immigrants”.
Secondly, what you said is just ridiculous. The numbers that have streamed into the US since Bush decided to make sure that the borders were left wide open (jail border guards who perform their duties) have been of a different order of magnitude. And this is all after 9/11. There was, and is, no excuse for this, whatsoever. It has been a total travesty.
To compare the problem since Bush came to be in charge of our border with any time in the past is laughable.
Feb 9, 2008 - 3:48 pm 51. Beth:“Barbula :
BS
Yet another establishment hack tries to insult and scare the honestly skeptical.”
I’m certainly not an “establishment hack,” you whiny crybaby. I’m a lifelong conservative, and don’t plan on changing that.
I’ll be damned if I, a conservative, am going to make Hillary Rodham Clinton or Obamessiah the Commander in Chief.
Some of you make me sick. SELFISH. It’s all about you, you, YOU. “Oh, but we don’t want to coooompromiiiise.” Well, suck it up, chumps. That’s how life works when you get past the age of three.
GROW UP.
Feb 9, 2008 - 3:50 pm 52. dougf:“One thing is for sure, there are just as many loons on the right as the left, extremes meet…put them together and all you have is one big nut burger.” —Terrye
Now Terrye, that’s not nice. However do you expect to convince others to do the ‘right’ thing when you insult them ?
Oh yeah. They say they won’t do the ‘right’ thing no matter how nicely you talk to them don’t they ? And then basically tell you to pound salt for having the temerity to remind them that they can’t always have everything they want.
So bring on PLAN “B”.
Huckabee should be the VP. That action kills a whole flock of birds with one stone.
A. It reaches out to the evangelical wing of the Party thus almost ensuring both victories and workers in LOTS of the States that need to be won in November. The potential problem of a republican split then becomes much less of a problem as it can be then be addressed on a purely electoral State by State basis
B. It gets a guy who is really very likable on the ticket. People vote for likable. It’s a fact. he would be a VERY effective and vibrant campaigner. That will mean something in 2008.
C. Huckabee is a populist as really is McCain. Allows the Party to run a center-right populist campaign. Populism will be a vote getter in an unsettled political climate. 2008 will be very unsettled.
D. Huckabee can easily be persuaded to support a low-tax, reduced spending regime in Washington. He would just want some redirected spending. He could easily support McCains stated policies and intentions.
E It shows the bitter-enders what could happen to them if they leave the Party to the ‘others’. ” Just think if McCain manages to win without you, no one will care what you all ever say again.” Choosing Huckabee is precisely the way to present a means of doing the winning part of your analysis. He brings a lot to the table and the people he really annoys are already really annoyed.
F. This ticket might well have some considerable cross-over appeal based upon the ‘populism’ aspect of the effort.
G. Even if the ticket fails, it won’t fail by much, and it can then point out to everyone who exactly caused the narrow loss. Thus beginning the needed process of reformulating a winning coaltion.
McCain / Huckabee — 2008.
Catch The Wave.
Feb 9, 2008 - 4:30 pm 53. Beth:progressoverpeace:
No freaking kidding. I know Terrye, and he was talking about illegal immigration too. It’s shorthand, and if you don’t know that, you need to step out of your echo chamber. You clowns till can’t make your arguments, so you have to go to parsing semantics? Hilarious.
Feb 9, 2008 - 4:31 pm 54. Ed Wallis:THANK YOU; Beth.
Whether you want to call is selfishness or hubris…
These bums are willing to sacrifice the safety of this country’s future for the sake of protecting what they see as their “principles.”
Let them think about how far those principles will take them(hypothetical examples, not fearmongering):
* after Iran develops nuclear weapons within the 2009-2012 timeframe,
* after yet more welfare dinosaur-sized programs (e.g. Hillarycare) get enacted…and don’t think it will be dismantled within 40-50 years (see The Great Society), if ever,
* after Democratic-selected Supreme Court justices again pack the Court.
If yer butt is fried by a bomb, your principles may surely make a pretty epitaph…in a weird way, a nihilistic permutation of Obamamania: No We Can’t!
I choose to fight the fight based on the reality we have before us, and respectfully ask others to consider doing likewise.
Feb 9, 2008 - 5:37 pm 55. Fatcat:What is all the fuss about!
If us conservatives could not even come close to fielding a conservative candidate this year and McCain is the one to get the node, then us conservatives are irrelevent … right?
So why all the name calling of us conservatives and finger wagging with threats of “you better vote for McCain or else!”.
We are (or were) a small piece of the republican party so McCain doesn’t neeeeeeed our votes.
So please, no more name calling. Let us conservatives “die off” slowly like DOUGF wants and ride our “Hobby Horses” into the sunset remembering the good old days when the Bill of Rights and limited government were not a hated idealogy by the majority of the country.
Feb 9, 2008 - 6:48 pm 56. tanstaafl:My only point was that any President (sitting or even potential) doesn’t get to pick and choose which part of the federal code he/she will enforce or which part will be ignored in the name of one’s home state, one’s voting bloc or one’s sympathetic paean to “hope” and change.
Pandering to the situation of “illegals”, wherever it comes from and whatever its motives, is a substantial chink in the armor of the rule of law.
I guess it all started when Bill Clinton, the sitting President, lied under oath.
Every law is now subject to whether or not “I” want to obey it.
Feb 9, 2008 - 7:21 pm 57. Conservative CBU:People that ask others to compromise their principles, often have none themselves.
Feb 9, 2008 - 8:59 pm 58. kent18:Dear Mr. Crittenden:
What is genuinely undeniable is that “the single greatest threat the United States faces is” the prospect of McCain — along with his hardy coterie of huffy, red-faced apologists — once more attempting to forcibly ram yet another 30,000,000+ illegal aliens down our collective throats. The geometrically progressive damage such a catastrophic effort would do to our nation in terms of increased costs for housing, health care, law enforcement and — yes; do, do attempt to grasp this one, essential point, please — the radical decrease in national security following inevitably as the logical end result of porous, virtually non-existant borders — is all but incalculable.
It’s always so terribly, terribly stirring, however, listening to a man thunder and bluster so (self-)righteously on behalf of his gardener, his pool boy and all the local roofers and drywall installers. Si, Se Puede!
Feb 9, 2008 - 9:40 pm 59. hoosiertoo:I suppose some may look upon my obsession with constitutional government and fiscal sanity as quixotic. Hell, Jules thinks I ought to hold my nose and support the Repugnican nominee.
Well, screw that.
I am, once again, either sitting this one out or going third party. Ron Paul will not run a third party candidacy; too bad – but it makes sense. It’s what he maintained from the start, and he is after all trying to keep his congressional seat as a Republican – I intend, and so should you, to send a contribution his way for that purpose. In the meantime, I will not cease to agitate for limited government and fiscal sanity.
Any other principled classical liberal (”true consrvative” to you Dem lites) who agrees should check out the Constitution Party. I’m not a member myself – yet – but they seem to have their hearts in the right place.
If you keep doing the same thing, you shouldn’t be surprised when you keep getting the same result. It’s become obvious that the GOP and the rank and file could care less about limiting government and fiscal sanity.
Feb 9, 2008 - 10:01 pm 60. progressoverpeace:That’s exactly my point. We are not talking about illegal aliens TOO. We are talking about illegal aliens ONLY. Immigrants are not part of this discussion. The fact that you think we are addressing the (legal) immigrants, in any way, is proof of exactly what I said. I could not have asked for a better response to illustrate my point. I am very much indebted to you, Beth.
Feb 9, 2008 - 10:17 pm 61. Roy Mustang:What principles, Conservative CBU? Your opposition to the Gang of 14? Guess what? Bush and Frist wanted the Gang of 14!
I think a lot of this McCain hatred is fueled by ignorance. That’s why you see the real conservative adults like Fred, Bolton, Coburn and Olson who actually know the situation support McCain.
Feb 9, 2008 - 10:18 pm 62. Beth:So why all the name calling of us conservatives and finger wagging with threats of “you better vote for McCain or else!
“Us conservatives?” Wait a second. I AM A CONSERVATIVE. I’m not some moderate “finger wagging” at you. I am furious with my fellow conservatives for being so short-sighted and SELF-SERVING.
Why all this sanctimonious BS and victim mentality from my fellow conservatives? Answer that, please. Tell me why you are more important than the future of America and countless lives. Nobody’s asking you to DIE for America, for God’s sake.
UGH. Doesn’t anyone (besides the men and women in uniform) believe in serving a cause greater than himself any more?
This is all so you can feel smug about how “pure” you are.
You think Ronald Reagan would have refused to vote for John McCain? Oh, but I guess Ann Coultard is “more conservative” than Reagan and cares more about conservatism than he did, right? WRONG. How many people do you think Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity have converted to conservatism? I’d guess they’ve driven away more than even Reagan brought in, and their shrillness IS NOT HELPING. Neither is yours.
You people are not only destroying the conservative movement, you may well destroy America. That same selfishness is what’s infected the Left, and now us?
Pfffft. And you wonder why “finger wagging” people call you immature.
Feb 9, 2008 - 10:49 pm 63. wGraves:I can think of three reasons to act like adults:
Clinton
Feb 9, 2008 - 11:20 pm 64. JM Hanes:Carter
Johnson
So, you’ve had your tantrum talk. I sure hope it makes you feel better, because condescending to conservatives is pure-T vinegar to flies. So is delivering lectures about the security interests now at stake to folks who could make that case seven different ways while sleep walking to the fridge.
I’ve been planning to suck it up for McCain since the day Romney withdraw, but I swear, the kind of dismissive language & pop psyche admonitions that proliferate in advice columns these days tempt me to change my mind. That qualifies as pique. My profound reservations about McCain do not.
If Jules Crittenden were reviewing this piece, he’d absolutely pounce on the irony of floating “Grow Up” as a mature political argument.
Feb 10, 2008 - 12:26 am 65. scott palter:Fall in line because the Democrat will be worse? True. Likely to always be true. However politics in a two party system rewards those who won’t fall in line and penalizes those who will. If someone can backstab you on your issues and you will vote for him anyway he and his party will always do so because it has no cost and there are always competing pressures. So the only way to show that there are costs to this is to vote the other way when backstabbed and be quite vocal about why you are doing so. Between W and McCain my back has enough knife wounds that I have reached my ‘bridge too far’. Reregistered as a Democrat. Voted for Clinton in the Iowa caucus. Will vote for her if she is nominated. If not I will find a suicide third party to make a protest vote. I remain a conservative and will still vote Republican down ballot. Indeed my Senator, while liberal on many issues, was reliable on Amnesty and has my vote accordingly. However until the Republican party offers more than fall in line my Republican Presidential ballot days are over. Actions have consequences.
Feb 10, 2008 - 1:41 am 66. RE:The Republican party once – not too many years ago – had storehouses overflowing with conservative goodwill. It may be helpful for the ‘establishment’ to sit down and think about why it is that conservatives have lost faith and trust.
And to the few zealots here that are taking the
— ‘Beatings will stop when morale improves’ —
approach to team building, you are your own worst enemies with your passionate effort to drive votes away from your singular passions.
You would be much better off explaining where conservative arguments are wrong or misguided — with a copy of the Constitution in hand to back up your argument.
Feb 10, 2008 - 3:32 am 67. Ed Wallis:“Between W and McCain my back has enough knife wounds that I have reached my ‘bridge too far’. Reregistered as a Democrat. Voted for Clinton in the Iowa caucus. Will vote for her if she is nominated. … I remain a conservative and will still vote Republican down ballot.
Sorry, Scott, that makes about much sense as the idiot Deocrats who said they were going to vote for Nixon in 1968, because it would bring on the revolution sooner. Kos and Pelosi thank you for changing parties.
Feb 10, 2008 - 4:32 am 68. AJ:I am as strong a Republican as anyone and McCain, aside from Paul the america-hater, is my last choice—but I will vote for him. Stupid stubborn conservatives are going to risk a Hillary/Obama Islam-appeasing presidency just to prove a point? That is scary.
And McCain is 100% pro life. Always has been. Has a 100 rating.
Feb 10, 2008 - 8:24 am 69. scott palter:I am sure Pelosi thanks me although I cannot think of why as I voted for the losing Republican in IA-1 in 06 and will do so again in 08. I understand your logic. I merely do not agree. I voted for W on that basis in 04, Mission Accomplished and all. I was then told by W, McCain, Graham, Chavez and other Bush supporters that I knew who he was when I voted for him and that by voting for the lesser evil I had given my support for Amnesty, Meirs, the ports deal and every other lame ass thing done the past few years. That failure to ‘fall in line’ made me a traitor, a red neck, a bigot, a racist, would make me personally responsible for the next 911 etc. Sorry, name calling doesn’t work on me. Tends to make me angry. If voting GOP makes me a serf I refuse. My people left the land of the czars sometime back. If the Republican Party wants my vote let them work for it. Let them not insult me when we have policy disgareements. I keep being told the base is too small and the Republicans must ‘reach out’ [which usually means doing Kennedy's work for him and then letting his staff put easter eggs in the guts of the bill]. I am a conservative. Home defense and defense of nationality come first. W and McCain both sold that out. They ignored two decades of history that said that unless enforcement comes first it will never come. The usual suspects will sue and the usual bureaucracies will drag their feet and twenty million more will arrive to wait for the next amnesty. I was told by Harold Hutchinson(http://calledasseen.blogspot.com/) in a different venue that the GOP didn’t need people such as myself or Michele Malkin [was honored to be put in the same grouping with such a fine thinker and writer]. That under Saint Rudy the new Republican Party could easily win without having to pander to our kind and could be an economically liberal socially moderate party. OK. Try the experiment. Try it without my vote. Try it without over a hundred people I know from the net who held their nose in 04 but won’t in 08. You don’t get votes by telling people to get over it and get in line. You get them by bringing them into your coalition. McCain is on recent record that he still supports his own Amnesty Bill. So if you want Amnesty vote McCain. If you are against Amnesty vote in a Democrat so every House Republican will be free to vote against Obama’s Amnesty Bill. So I remain a conservative buyt cease to be a national Republican. Free, free at last.
Scott
Feb 10, 2008 - 9:14 am 70. Michael Smith:Conservative hostility toward illegal immigrants is unjustified and misplaced.
Yes, there is a security concern with illegal immigrants — a concern that should be addressed. The function of government, according to our Declaration of Independence, is to ” secure the rights” to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, rights that all men, having been created equal, possess. Government, then, to do its job, must be able to exclude the entry of those who pose an identifiable, physical threat to those rights — such as individuals with a criminal record or individuals who are members of terrorist organizations or individuals from nations we are de facto at war with or individuals with communicable diseases, etc.
Government, then, may (and should) screen those entering the country to exclude the threats listed above. But this does not justify the imposition of a limit on the total number of immigrants that may enter in a given year. The nation, after all, is not the property of the government — and government has no right to act as if it owns the nation and can decide how many people should be allowed to enter.
Nor does government have the right to devote so few resources to immigrant screening that it takes years to get clearance to enter. We should devote sufficient resources that it only takes days to get a clearance — and a clearance, once granted, ought to be good for a number of years.
Now, the welfare state complicates the situation. But here, conservatives make a big mistake. They protest vehemently against immigrants getting welfare benefits, but in doing so they implicitly concede the premise that U.S. born individuals have a right to those benefits.
This is a concession that conservatives should never have made — and had they fought as hard against the creation and expansion of the welfare state as they have recently fought against amnesty, the welfare state would not be nearly the problem it is today, and there would be far less reason to worry about illegals coming here to take advantage of taxpayer funded welfare benefits.
The mere fact that one happens to have been born within the borders of the U.S. does not confer on that individual a right to the earnings or property of others born within those borders. There can be no such thing as a right to someone else’s money — no matter how “needy” one may be. There can be no such thing as a right that can be exercised by some, but is denied to others.
The logical and consistent position is to favor open immigration — with the government doing the screening discussed above — while opposing welfare benefits to ANYONE, native-born or immigrant. Our nation was founded on the idea that ALL men are created equal and possess the same, individual rights. ALL men, not just those who happen to have been lucky enough to be born in the U.S. And if ALL people posses the same rights, then NO one can claim any sort of special right to any portion of another person’s money or property. This is the position consistent with the original American ideals of equality of rights and a government whose function is limited to the protection of those rights — and this is the position conservatives should take if they wish to remain true to those ideals.
Feb 10, 2008 - 12:23 pm 71. progressoverpeace:Not a big believer in the concept of citizenship, are you Michael? I think China would be interested in sending a couple hundred million folks over here (they are not security risks, so you think we have no “right” to refuse them) to vote in a government that they prefer. And forget all that junk about “foreign influence” that concerned the Founders. To you, there is no such thing as a “foreigner”. All they have to do is say they are coming here and, voila, they’re Americans. Brilliant.
Thanks for confusing sovereignty with welfare. It was very inventive.
Feb 10, 2008 - 1:08 pm 72. Thomas G. Welsh:I won’t be sitting out in Nov. I fully intend to vote. I’m going to write-in Romney for President and vote for conservatives on the down ballot. I refuse to vote strictly out of party loyalty, or, out of fear.
Feb 10, 2008 - 7:41 pm 73. lee:There are plenty of people who fits the conservative image. I know for a fact that a number of Mexican Americans (especially Roman Catholics)are against abortion or gay marriage, even though they’re open to amnesty. A conservative could be sympathetic to gay rights or global warming issues (I personally think Al gore is nuts) while supporting the right to bear arms and small government. Surely some of the Bush supporters are atheists. Some people find the Democratic / socialist values too liberal to be associated with them but not hardcore right wing.
These conservaties have been (derisively?) labeled as “moderate conservatives”, and they make up Mccain’s base. Arnold Schwarznegger enjoyed similar support and he won 2 terms in the bluest state of them all.
After reading some of the statements made by ‘real conservatives’ here, I can now PROUDLY label myself as a “moderate conservative”. Sure, I (as a Christian who supports the Iraq war) have certain core values that I expect my candidate to uphold without compromise. We all do. But I also realize that I have to concede something. If a Republican wants to win, he must consider moving slightly to the center, hijack a few democratic agendas, and appeal to the middle ground. Arnold used this strategy to perfection and was reelected after his initiatives bombed hard.
I don’t agree with Mccain 100%. But I’d rather have a president who agrees with most (or at least SOME) of my values than a Dem president, who’s basically against everything I stand for. IF you don’t like some of his ideas, you voice your opposition later. His own party won’t support amnesty bills anyways.
I don’t look down at people who won’t vote for whatever reason, it’s their right. If you don’t care either way, and you’re convinced that neither GOP and DEM candidate deserve the support, why not just stay at home and enjoy your time with the family instead of driving to voting booths to vote for a president you don’t feel passionate about? But if you’re even remotely interested in a GOP victory (it’s the party I can most closely identify with, unitl something better comes up) a united front helps our cause. The democrats have two very charismatic candidates who create a stir everywhere they go. Obama is no John Kerry.
Feb 10, 2008 - 10:59 pm 74. GCA:I quit the Republican Party when I moved two years ago. I registered Republican in January so I could vote for Giuliani on February 5. I did not get the chance. I will reregister as “declines to state” again when I get around to it.
I am tired of whiny social conservatives. I have nothing in common with them. They have run the Republican Party for the last 8-10 years and clearly their lip service to fiscal conservatism was just that – lip service. The Republicans became more addicted to pork than the Democrats.
Maybe it’s time to dissolve this marriage of convenience. Anybody ready to start a party based on social libertarianisn, free markets, end to all government subsidies and a strong defense?
In the mean time, I am an adult and will vote for McCain. He has 2 things going for him: his history as a foe of big spending (1/2 of fiscal conservatism) and his understanding of defense issues. That’s better than the 0 things going for either Democratic candidate. I agree with those who say domestic policy will not matter if we have a foreign policy that fails to put American interests first. Bolton, Giuliani, Ted Olson, the list goes on – all now endorse McCain for essentially the same reason: he is our last best hope for a strong foreign policy.
Feb 10, 2008 - 11:09 pm 75. David W. Lincoln:Jules:
Why not check with your dad as to how the Reform Party was treated by the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. For the way you lectured those who have reservations – it is word for word the same treatment dished out by those who backed the Reform Party of Canada on the Canadian side of the Canada/US border.
It wasn’t the fault of small “c” Conservatives that their expectations were not met, because they saw how thoughtful policies work in each State capital, and frankly those inside the Beltway did a poor job of transplanting good ideas that was the “Contract with America”.
Mike Huckabee has a plan to get money into the United States, and it is called the fair tax. Lord knows it is needed, because of the sub-prime mortgage mess and other unsavoury matters which have affected the economy and Wall Street.
Plus, there is the matter of strangulation by red tape. At least Huckabee is addressing it.
For there are roughly 24 States left to hold a caucus or primary: where is the harm in reducing the number of states which would only have a rubber stamp effect on the final result?
Feb 11, 2008 - 5:17 pm 76. progressoverpeace:While I have other problems with Huckabee, I like the Fair Tax. The only problem is that it would need an accompanying Constitutional Amendment disallowing the income tax from coming back. Otherwise, we will end up with the Fair Tax, and then some time down the road, an income tax on top of it. It would probably start out the same way this income tax started out – as a voluntary tax!
But, if he could assure people that there would only be the Fair Tax, then I like it a lot.
Feb 11, 2008 - 8:58 pm 77. Michael:When do we stand on our principles? Are we to be expected to smile and swallow because some clown tells us that it’s time to be adults. McCain is no Conservative. You can rationalize this any way you want but the Republican Party has been taken over from within by Liberals. It’s time to stand up toss these pantywastes out into the street. I’m sick and tired of professional Republicans selling out my values and rolling over every time some Liberal points a finger at them. If Crittenden and his ilk want to settle for a Liberal mole that’s fine. Don’t expect Conservatives to roll over just because these useful idiots call us names and talk down to us. McCain? NEVER!
Feb 12, 2008 - 11:24 am 78. H. Short:“McCain Won, Your Guy Lost – Now Do What’s Best for America”
Someone wrote recently about the ‘McCain Derangement Syndrome’ and I absolutely agreed with the phrase, altho I disagree with the definition. The derangement lies with the elitist sub-cultural in this country who use their power and wealth to manipulate public opinion and the very course of the nation itself. The level of manipulation going on in this election is so overt and so blatant that those involved have completely lost control – which is a good thing.
Take yourself for instance. You come across as a combat vet who supports the basic principles that have made this country great; and then you use up what little influence you may have gained from this among those you label as conservatives, to attempt to stampede the conservative base into giving up all their principles of right and wrong.
Morally bankrupt lackeys have no idea what it is to hold principles above all else. This country survived Carter, it survived Clinton, it will probably survive Obama. Our country’s strength lies in the force of those principles we hold dear, which you tell us we must surrender; to cast them aside and sanction the candidacy of a traitor, a liar, a paid crook, a man who tears up and cries when he hugs one of his former captors who he claims buttstroked and bayoneted him… A man who turns purple with rage and strides out onto the Senate meeting floor to breate the families of POWs… A man who turns purple with rage and demands that the Secret Service arrest an honored Vietnam veteran for protesting the visit of a North Vietnamese government official…
So, yes, we all need to do ‘What’s Best for America’. We need to stand firm to those principles which have made her great, and say: ‘No John, Hell NO!!’
Feb 13, 2008 - 2:24 am 79. jerry olaughlin:Jules,
You act like McCain won fair and square. Please?!?! He only won because Democrats voted for him while he conspired with Huckabee to split the vote. Then Huckabee who saw the conservative disgust, betrayed him to see if he could run the table on the remaining states and take the nomination for himself. These guys are 2 peas in a pod. Niether can be trusted.
Hence, the problem with your argument is the pathetic daddy like and condescending attitude you and others make this argument with. You won’t be successful in rallying the conservative base this way. In any case, lets look at it from the other perspective. McCain and his pals in the establishment played the insider tricks, got McCain nominated with a paltry portion of the vote with the help of a lot of Democrats and independants and the only reason he is getting barely a majority now is because its already decided. Then you pontificate about the stupidity of our lack of coalescence around this hypocrite. Let me ask YOU the question you should have asked yourselves prior to foisting this open borders jerk on us using the Democrat voters. Maybe we’ll just sit it out this time. Will that make YOU feel better? After all, whats the difference if he sells us out like he has repeatedly already. The only difference is that the conservatives will be blamed for the damage that ensues if he is the one who does it. I may very well plug my nose and vote for this lesser of 2 evils but I don’t need your condescending, crap article to scold me about it. You and all the others can take your doomsday prediction and stick it. Its not going to move me. Unless McCain gives some solid assurances of protecting the conservatives from people just like him then HillBama is exactly what you’ll get. So stop telling US to get in line and start working on McCain because the only way that guy will get elected is to get in line with us!
Feb 13, 2008 - 9:53 am 80. Theresa:By the way, you guys once again miss the greatest issue. The single greatest issue is NOT Iraq. It is immigration, that is what is so infuriating about all of this, for what good is it to be strong on the war if you throw the front door open, let millions upon millions in and thus destroy us from within. Then the Iraq war will be a fringe issue at best compared to what we are dealing with down the road. In Europe they are already being blackmailed by the overwhelming influx of immigrants and we are on our way the same direction if we don’t do something about it. RINOs snuck thier guyin while we were sleeping. Now they better figure out a way for us to feel safe supporting thier guy and telling us we’re being stubborn won’t get you or them anywhere. The ball is in McCain’s court.
One things is for sure though. We had better figure out the process by which Democrats chose our nominee for us and CHANGE it.
John McCain cost tax payers billions because of his special interest relationships with the Savings and Loan industry in the 80’s.
Despite McCain’s rhetoric about Government reform, he along with the rest of Congress sat passively by while we were screwed by Enron, World Com…(accounting scandals of the 90’s)
McCain, along with the rest of the Congress, sat idly by through the National security debacle that facilitated 9/11, many of those security problems still exist, 7 years post 9/11.
McCain helped the Neo Con’s (the military industrial complex, we were warned about) pull off the biggest lie ever, the Iraq connection.
McCain did no due diligence on the “Comprehensive Immigration” bill that would have cost TRILLIONS and only reduce illegal immigration by 25%.
Not one politician, or Attorney general in the whole country considered over sight of the mortgage industry throughout the real estate bubble, leaving us wallowing in the sub-prime mortgage scandal.
Please stop me if you can list any of McCain’s accomplishments.
Integrity starts at home. If you care more about the party than the country, vote for McCain. Party politics has done, and continues to do a great deal of damage to our country. As a conservative, I resent being associated with Bush, McCain, the Iraq War, Homophobes or the Right Wing spin machine run by psychotic Neo Cons and cult-like free trade opportunists like those of; The Weekly Standard; the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), etc., etc.
Feb 13, 2008 - 8:03 pm