Redstate

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Dang it.

you forgot to add that Barry Goldwater Jr. Endorsed Ron Paul
I didn't forget to BLAM though. -- NS

And just to remind the few who don't note it yet, what Barry Goldwater's son thinks about politics should carry about as much weight as what Ronald Reagan's leftist kook son thinks about politics.

Incidentally, the daughter of Barry Goldwater's 1964 running mate is an Air America talk show host.

and Ron Reagan Jr. is no doubt supporitng a Socialist. big deal, Reagan Jr. and Goldwater Jr. may reflect poorly on the parenting they received but their choices are a moot point.

Apparently.

i'm still waiting for the good sense of the coolidge generation to return...

Ron Reagan Jr. = Fredo Corleone.

idiot son of the Godfather

However, I think the idea is that helping McCain is a prerequisite to taking the party back.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

until both our thoughts and our deeds truly merit such trust. What evidence does the so-called moderate wing of the GOP have right now that the far right offers anything other than Jesse-Jacksonian grievance mongering?

"If this ain't a mess, it'll do until one shows up." -Sheriff Bell, No Country For Old Men

And who is that "far right"? You seem to be saying that the "far right" is the faction that has caused the breach of trust you talk about. And I must have missed that "grievance mongering" you are talking about. Please elaborate.

So, was the "far right" responsible for....
-- the out-of-control spending
-- corruption (you know, those "far right" guys like Webb, Larry Craig, Duke Cunningham, Ted Stevens....)
-- expanding government intrusion into normal Americans' lives
-- cowtowing to the AGW hoax?
-- open borders, amnesty proposals
-- agreeing with the Democrats that we can't listen in on terrorist communications, or aggressively interrogate prisoners

Or.......was the "far right" in fact responsible for...
-- aggressively engaging the war on militant Islamic terrorists
-- getting Alito onto the Supreme Court
-- trying to shut down earmark expansion
-- securing the borders

So, was it the CONSERVATIVES that cost us control in 2006, or was it in fact what you call "so-called moderates" = which I call "moderates"?

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

I see what you are saying - but would a McCain victory help further the interests of conservatism, or a McCain loss?

And I will get back with you later, work beckons...

A loss lets the left ratchet us further left. Think New Deal, or Great Society. We're due for another one. Overdue, even.

I truly think that four years of McCain will give us the breathing space we need to work on getting the conservative bench ready to run for offices, as well as taking a good, long look at the House.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Here's John Edwards addressing the alarming outbreak of property rights that seems to be all Bush's fault.

"President Bush honors and respects only wealth." What? When did that happen? Bush has never turned his eyes or his concerns away from what Mr. Edwards would call ordinary Americans. "He wants to be certain that those who have it keep it." But shouldn't economic security be the goal of all Americans? Edwards says this kind of thing in tones that suggest that if you favor security for the rich you are undermining the prospects of the poor. He is 100 percent wrong. - William F. Buckley (26 Jan 2008)

"If this ain't a mess, it'll do until one shows up." -Sheriff Bell, No Country For Old Men

McCain will not be a staunch conservative--where exactly he'll yield to the liberal Congress isn't clear, but yield he will.

Since McCain wants to increase the military and the Dems want more social programs (National Health Insurance and more NCLB funding, paticularly), tax cuts are off the table. McCain, the Deficit Hawk, may be willing to allow tax cuts to expire without a fight and try to blame the Congress.

Only a serious pull back of resources from Iraq (not McCain's plan) would lead to spending cuts by the Dems. So, we can probably expect spending to grow at double GDP and taxes to increase in a couple years. And the mess that results will be blamed on President McCain's "arch-conservative, Reaganesque" policies.

I know the Dems will screw it up so badly, so quickly, that by 2012, Americans will be begging for real conservative solutions. Most Democrat ideas are bad for business, bad for security, and bad for families--and whenever the Dems have had a President to go with their Congress, the American people have recognized that dismal truth immediately.

The long-term survival of electable conservatives depends on reliable standard-bearers. In 4 years, I don't see more Americans saying, "We need a more conservative government" as a result of a McCain presidency. He will push the debate leftward, and conservatives will take the fall for lousy Democrat programs.

I'd sooner throw my vote to a Harry Browne-type as I did in 2000, when I did not think Governor Bush would solidify and grow the conservative base. Give the Dems enough rope...

The damage to conservatism of a McCain win will be irreversible.

We can't just keep importing poor, ignorant people from the third world and expecting them to vote anything but Democrats and socialism. Poor ignoarnat people ALWAYS vote for socialism.

Prior to the Reagan Amnesty California had voted Republican in 9 out of the 10 prior elections. The Reagan Amensty turned California irreversibly blue and the McCain Amnesty will be 6 to 10 times larger. We can't lose anymore Red States and expect conservatism to ever win again.

A win by John McCain would be a tactical victory and a strategic loss that would doom conservatism. I'd rather have a tactical loss and have conservatism survice to fight another day.

I do not accept the "fact" that hispanic and other immigrants will never vote Republican. We just need to do a better job of reaching out and selling our message. In the long term, I am a firm believer that people will embrace individual liberty and small unobtrusive government.

Your other comment about the poor and ignorant is, in and of itself, ignorant. While llegal and legal immigrants may be poor and undereducated, their children and grandchildren are not. The road for the offspring of these immigrants is the same as it was for previous waves of immigrants. Second and third generation Americans can't even speak their parent's and grandparent's native tongue. They adopt American values and are better educated and more affluent. If you don't want their votes, fine. However, I'm not going to let your misguided views prevent me from selling the Conservative message the these AMERICANS.

"If this ain't a mess, it'll do until one shows up." -Sheriff Bell, No Country For Old Men

I can understand the appeal of this incorrect line of thought. It allows conservative proponents of unending mass immigration to shift the blame for the GOP's movement towards demographic oblivion. It allows them to indulge in this fantasy that immigrant communities would be all set and eager to vote Republican if not for racist, xenophobic, non-white hating bigots like Buchanan and Tancredo. It allows them to avoid facing up to the truth, which is that decades of mass immigration was always going to favor the Democrats.

Yes, there are areas and specific issues on which Hispanics (and I guess Asians too) are conservative. But they are clearly outweighed by other factors that leads them to vote Democratic. And one thing you should ask yourself is this; if Hispanics are such 'natural Republicans' and so fundamentally conservative, then why haven't they injected some of this conservatism into the Democratic party? Why is it that in California (where latino political clout is among the strongest in the nation), the left's agenda on both social and economic issues continues forward w/ little restraint?

It is amazing that there are conservatives who think that Hispanics (and now Asians too, as we've been losing them for over a decade now) can be won over while high levels of immigration persist. Mass immigration strengthens and reinforces virtually every factor and dynamic that leads immigrant communities to vote Democratic in the first place. And these factors and dynamics are much more varied and go much deeper than the lame and bogus idea that its meanies like Tancredo and Buchanan pushing away people who would otherwise rush to vote for the GOP.

And you really should check out the troubling data about the level of social pathologies in native-born latino groups. The high-school drop out rate, the teen pregnancy rate, and the out-of-wedlock birth rate are all troubling, and not at all indicative of a group likely to be worn over by Republicans. Instead, they are tailor made for a pandering party that won't hesitate to use racial/ethnic demagoguery. That party is the Democratic party. Its not a knock against Hispanics to point all of this out, but rather it's a simple acknowledgement of human nature. You think appeals based on low marginal tax rates can compete with a demaogue telling latinos that such talk is code for wanting to deprive them and their children of education and healthcare?

Any Republican who doesn't support ending extended-family chain migration is basically on board with the demographic destruction of the party and the conservative movement.

After all, they along with Southern Europeans, can never truly become Americans. They are Roman Catholics who are prone to laziness and Anarchy! - Paraphrase many turn of the century attitudes towards new immigrants.

that all might have had a very different outcome. The tens of thousands of Irish and German volunteers, draftees, and bountymen that fought for the Union Army and became active in the GAR and other groups used that service and those relationships to establish a civic legitimacy that they might not otherwise have attained in the late 19th Century.

Likewise, the massive military and labor mobilizations for WWI and II made it necessary to "assimilate" anyone who could shoulder a rifle or work an assembly line. Look at the propaganda movies of the WWII Era and see how hard they worked at showing ethnic and regional diversity and overcoming that diversity for the common good. Even a recent movie, Memphis Belle, from the WWII Era opens with a fictionalized introduction to the crew that is all about their ethnic, regional, economic, and religious diversity and is at pains to show how they worked with and through it.

In Vino Veritas

If you really think that this wave of mass immigration is identical to the last one, then we just aren't going to be able to communicate with each other. The differences between now and then are legion, and most of these differences -- such as the existence of a large and entrenched welfare state, and of elite-approved professional ethnic grievance groups - seem designed to benefit the Democrats.

Perhaps the biggest difference is one that those on your side almost never see fit to deal with, and that is the fact that the last wave came to an end! You can disregard those early 19th centuray critics of mass immigration all you want (though I would think you could do so with something better than the crude 'No Irish..' nonsense), but what you fail to realize is that they won! They got what they wanted. They got an end to mass immigration through a combination of restrictive 1920s legislation and then the Great Depression. What followed was over 40 years of low-moderate levels of immigration (only undone by the fraudulent and dishonest 1965 reform bill), and it was during this time that all of the wonderful things you allude to happened. Things only worked out with the assimilation of the last wave after the wave was cut off. Of course you are free to argue that the cut-off had nothing to do with it, but the cut-off is a fact of history, and it seems to be common sense that a large immigrant communities will be better absorbed and assimilated into the core if their numbers are not constantly growing through new arrivals. It is common to see your attitude towards early 20th century critics of mass immigration among proponents of today's mass immigration, but again, what you fail to see is that they were not proven wrong by history. History moved in their direction...and then things turned out all right.

Otherwise let me ask you this; do you really support the nearly-unending nature of extended-family chain migration, and do you really think that it is not fundamentally pro-Democrat? Do you support Ted Kennedy's Diversity Visa Program? Is there any area where you'd be okay with a cut in immigration?

Trust us on that.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Cute, but how about answering some questions;

1. Do you deny that there are vast differences between this wave and the last one, if not in the immigrants themselves then at least in the nation that received and now receives them? Do you deny that the differences are so great that they render the whole 'we've been here before argument' to be almost absurd? I believe this to be the case because we have not in fact been here before.

2. Do you support extended family chain migration? Do you deny that since we are dealing with an immigrant population that is already pro-Democrat, then such a policy is bound to result in even more net Democrats?

3. Do you support Ted Kennedy's Diversity Visa Program?

4. Are there any areas in which you'd favor a reduction in immigration? If not, then what about if such reductions allowed for increases in other areas?

5. Do you really think that even if the party purged all traces of Tancredoism, that it would be able to break-even, or consistently come close to breaking even with immigrant communities while immigration levels remain high?

Alas, you didn't quite make me forget that what's really at issue here is that you guys really don't have the slightest idea how to talk to the percentage of the population that, ah, doesn't have illegal immigration as their first, second, and third highest priorities.

But you may now safely assume that I am a dirty Mexican-loving amnesty supporter who wants to turn the USA into a bilingual NAU where you'll have to press 2 for English. Anything to get you people to stop yammering at us while we try to actually win a Presidential election.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

sorry, couldn't resist ;-)

========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?

Did I just hear Fozzie's wocka wocka wocka?

absentee

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Can't we talk about immigration and try to win the Presidency? They are not mutually exclusive, and indeed if handled well, the former could help the latter.

What you say makes no sense. This is a blog, with a self-selected audience of people who will naturally gravitate towards issues that most interest them. For myself I can say that illegal immigration isn't first, second, or third on my list. Immigration overall (legal + illegal) certainly would rank up there, but it still wouldn't be one, two, and three. But in terms of issues, it is, along with the Judiciary, the most interesting to me. If it's not for you, then why take part?

The second paragraph is just total nonsense...although, how do you know that we won't become a bilingual NAU at some point? But anyway, I don't like McCain on this issue, and I don't trust him at all. I also don't trust him on judges and tax-cuts, but I will still support him over any of the Democrats should he go on to win the nomination. Should he win, I would not expect him to be a good President, but I know Hillary or Obama would be a horrible President. Therefore, I'll go with McCain without much hesitation.

And again, do you support all of the various components of our largely accidental and mostly unwanted policy of unending mass immigration, or would you support cutting back on it in any way?

I support strict enforcement of our borders and of legal immigration. If we think we need to slow down the rate of legal immigration, then we should do so. I don't think that's necessary since our macro economy is doing just fine with 12mm illegal immigrants, we would do fine replacing them with 8-12mm legal ones.

I don't think Mexicans or Central Americans are inherently inferior to any other previous wave of immigrants. This may be news to you, but Mexicans have been coming here legally since the 19th century. Some of their progeny are even Repbulicans If you want to end the welfare state, then I am enthusiastically on your side. If you just want to keep brown people out, then I will be your opponent.

What sort of numbers do you have in mind? We admit a million or more legal immigrants per year already; is that not enough?

When you speak of replacing 12 million illegal workers with 12 million legal ones, don't you really mean making the 12 million illegals legal?

Who is to say if we need to slow down the rate of legal immigration? Polls often show that either a majority or plurality of Americans want to do just that. Our elites will never come to the same conclusion. Economists will disagree. So who is to decide?

I'm glad you don't think Mexican or Central Americans are inherently inferior to previous immigrant groups. I'm not sure why you feel to need to say such a thing since I didn't say otherwise. Do you think arguing a restrictionist cause makes one automatically suspect? Do you think one must establish their non-racist bonafides before saying something critical of immigration policy?

This may be news to you, but Mexico has not been the dominant source of immigrants until this wave.

Talk about ending the welfare state while we allow in millions who will be more likely to use it is just fantasy. It's the same as those who say we should end racial preferences...while we invite in millions who will be eligible for them, thus strengthening the forces that support them! It just doesn't make sense. And that is not to say that immigrants come here for the welfare, public services, and ethnic preferences, but who is going to look a gift horse in the mouth? And while they may not come for such things, their regard for such things will increase after some demagogue (who looks and sounds like the immigrants) tells them that Republican/conservative attempts to get rid of such policies is nothing but thinly-veiled racism.

You close with another attempt to show how non-racist you are, and how racist I might be, with the line about keeping out brown people. First of all, I certainly don't deny that the non-white, or 'brown' as you put it, nature of most immigrants today present different problems because of the existence of such things as racial preferences, multiculturalism, and professional ethnic grievance groups whose purpose seems to be limited to riling up racial tensions and silencing dissent from pc orthodoxy. The whole "Irish weren't considered white' doesn't apply here because they were in fact white, and because their descendants are not going to benefit from any sort of preference system. Because of mass immigration, we now have an ever-growing percentage of the population that is technically eligible for such preferences, and again, it is not realistic to expect such groups to just voluntarily give up such preferences while their political power grows stronger and stronger. If you don't think this is a recipe for disaster, then I don't know what else to say.

But to the bigger question of whether or not I want to keep out brown people; let me answer by saying that I oppose perpetually high levels of immigration (even if it's all legal), no matter the race or color of the immigrants. I can honestly say that I would oppose perpetually high levels of white immigration, but that is simply not likely to be even a possibility anytime soon. High levels of immigration today will be mostly non-white, and therefore any opposition to mass immigration today will bring about reflexive, absurd, and demagogic charges of racism from the Left (i.e. Democrats, Hollywood, mainstream media, professional ethnic grievance groups, etc) as they say (or imply) that opposing mass immigration is the same as hating brown people. That is to be expected from the Left, as poisoning debate is the only option they have since they are doomed to lose any rational discourse and exchange of ideas. I hope that you don't come at it from that point of view, and in the absence of any evidence showing racism, that you don't assume the worst in fellow conservatives.

While illegal and legal immigrants may be poor and undereducated, their children and grandchildren are not. The road for the offspring of these immigrants is the same as it was for previous waves of immigrants. Second and third generation Americans can't even speak their parent's and grandparent's native tongue. They adopt American values and are better educated and more affluent.

This is all hypothetical nonsense.

Early indicators, while still scant and varied, suggest that the offspring of third-world immigrants of any sort do not appreciably improve their lot in life above what their parents experienced after migrating. And whatever improvement currently may be shown is certainly not enough to nudge them toward attachment to traditional, conservative or republican principles - at least within the span of the first several generations. To expect Republicans to even benefit a little, much less gain majority status at the polls from their likely minor level of agreement with us is laughable.

The most unknown and scariest truth is that we absolutely do not know what 20 million amnestied and perhaps 60 million more family-reunified might do both politically and culturally once they're here.

You're hedging a bet on something that if it turns out to not to meet the absolute best hopes for it will prove both irreversible and disastrous for our children and children's children. You're taking it on faith that there won't be built a new schism that cleaves us permanently and renders us nothing but squabblers pluribus with no inclinations toward unum.

You'll need a lot more than hypotheticals and hope to convince a lot of us that we should risk sharing the franchise with a distinct cohort bearing the gift of political traditions more attuned to expecting government to be corrupt and ineffective but liberal with programs and hand-outs.

Risk is a nice board game that should not be played in the real world with our children's futures as pawns.

Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke

Blog: TMYN

Hispanic Assimilation

All I need to know about the authors:

Jack Citrin is Professor of Political Science at University of California, Berkeley. Amy Lerman is a doctoral candidate in Political Science at University of California, Berkeley. Michael Murakami is a doctoral candidate in Political Science atUniversity of California, Berkeley and Kathryn Pearson is Assistant Professor Political Science at University of Minnesota .

Citrin in particular has spent his career undermining conservative thoughts about continuity of American culture, heritage and character.

I suppose there might not have been preconceived conclusions before this gaggle of lefty San Franciscans started writing, but it ain't likely.

I gave it a quick scan. I don't need to read it. I know what it says. It's another lame attempt at refuting Huntington's work. While I appreciate Huntington's effort, I wish he had not propagated the fallacy that America is based on and originates from mere creed. It gives too much fodder to those who want to act as if those who ordained and established this nation for themselves and their posterity were only kidding about posterity being a reference to an actual people.

Further, no study can assuage legitimate concerns among conservatives who see far too much risk in the unknowns that must accompany increasing immigrant numbers here, especially to the extent that adding 60 to 80 million more from a single source culture would bring.

The right now truth, the at this moment fact is that there are more foreign born in the United States today than were here in all previous generations combined. Actually, there may be more Mexicans here than today than if you added up all past immigrants from all generations.

Lame attempts at comparing this current state with past experience, especially those emanating from Berkeley, should do nothing but raise the level of concern in the hearts and minds of any American who cares about his children's future.

Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke

Blog: TMYN

Thanks for the implication that I'm a racist. I am half Cuban and my mother is all Cuban. I have nothing against Hispanics. My mother who is all Cuban was a delegate to both the 1964 Republican convention for Goldwater (which keeps this post somewhat on topic for this blog) and the 1996 Republican Convention for Buchanon. Apparently even Hispanics can be against the mass importation of the poor and the ignorant. Imagine that! It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with preserving America as we know it. The mass importation of people who are going to vote for the other party is suicidal. And don't think that Teddy Kennedy doesn't understand that.

I have no problem with Republican outreach to Hispanics as long as that outreach is consistent with our principles and values. Those efforts will to some small extent be successful and win over people like my mother. And if we keep doing it for about 100 years we might even reach parity as they assimilate. But as soon as that outreach becomes pandering such as rewarding people for breaking our laws with citizenship then it is a lost cause because nobody can outpander a Democrat and all we do is transform ourselves into that which we oppose.

My point stands and is supported by the empiracle example of California. Every state with the single exception of Texas which is a gateway for mass immigration votes Democrat. As the immigration spills into non-tradional states they are going to vote that way too. Get back to me the next time Republicans carry California and we can have this discussion again. I don't expect to see it the remaining 40 years (hopefully) of my lifetime unless Republican evolves into something which no longer means conservative which might happen as the Party seems to be headed down that path.

If John McCain gets his way and if the current wave of immigration continues and plays out anything like the past massive waves, then conservatives can expect about 60 or 100 years in the political wilderness. Mass immigration has always been bad for conservatism and good for socialism. Think FDR and the New Deal and remember that before FDR we had Harding, Coolidge and Hoover who were Republicans in the days when Republicans were the LIBERAL Party which people with our conservative beliefs would have opposed. We had an almost uniterrupted string of liberal Presidents from 1921 to 1968. Eisenhower was a moderate and if you consider that neither Nixon or Ford were anything close to conservative you could say that the draught lasted until 1980.

It is interesting to note the comments below for example about the Irish. It took almost 100 years before those Irish Catholics started voting conservative in any significant numbers and even with their conservative social values, they are still only barely half in our camp. If you don't mind being out of power for 60 years than I will grant you that in the very very very long term your position will prove to be correct.

should there be a McCain Presidency. They cannot change the way they are, and they will oppose a Republican simply because he is a Republican no matter if they even like him or his program. McCain's "comity" won't last long after he feels the first shiv between his ribs, and there WILL be one. That's where his temper and fundamental character will kick in - I fondly hope and fervently pray.

In Vino Veritas

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

But he'll also hold a grudge the conservatives. It's not the votes of conservatives that are propelling him to victory. Add them to the enemies list. I don't see any reason to expect he won't go into full on stick-it-to-conservatives mode if he wins the nomination. Our nominees usually move to the left in the general... and McCain is starting out pretty far to the left already.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Unless the Democrats undergo some sort of personality transplant, they won't let him "reach accross the aisle," and will screw him royally if he's foolish enough to try.

In Vino Veritas

Frankly, if you have to ask that question, you really haven't studied politics enough. Not only in this particular situation, but in history.

I disagree with him on CFR, Global Warming, and I wish he would have supported the Bush tax cuts the first time (he's pledged to work to extend them now, and he keeps his promises). But he's so far above any Democrat it's not even funny. Frankly, if people can't see this, they need to get over themselves and realize this is the real world, not fantasy land where elections don't have consequences if your ideal guy doesn't win.

The ONLY situation in history people ever point to that a political movement "won by losing" that makes any sense at all is when Reagan last to Ford in 1976, and then to Carter.

The problem with this, is that yes, Reagan won 4 years later. In the meantime, Carter managed to almost lose the cold war, create several new federal beuracrasies, lose both Iran and Afghanistan, (gee, do you think this might turn out to be a proble later?), and got Zionism classified as racism in the U.N. when he could have stopped it by saying so.

So if you actually think that loss was "good", you're out of your gord. It had a happy side effect, but we are STILL feeling the negative effects of it to this day.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

It took 30 years to get Afghanistan to a point of even being winable, and we're still paying for Carter's sins with Iran.

Maybe folks are right that a Hillary presidency would propel another Reagan-like conservative to the White House. The problem is that we wouldn't be working from our present position. We'd spend perhaps the whole first term of said future president just trying to (unsuccessfully) reverse the damage done by the Democrats. In some cases it will not be possible to undo it - think of the new liberals that would be on SCOTUS who would likely outlast even Hillary's successor - think of the vast increase in government interference and regulation of the health care industry or the drug and oil companies. Some of those things, like the Great Society programs of the 60s will never be eliminated - we'll be stuck hoping to tighten the rules and limit their reach ala welfare reform.

We didn't "win by losing" in 1976. We lost by losing. One could probably argue that even with a Ford victory over Carter in 1976, Reagan would have been a leading candidate in 1980 - he had nearly unseated a sitting President in a primary. Carter didn't propel Reagan to the nomination - even the Rockefellerites hated Carter. Carter was a boon in the general, but the primaries were won because conservatives wanted it, and were able to sell it to voters.

We can do it again, we will do it again. We call ourselves patriots but are willing to subject the country to 4 years of hell because we think that our limited political self-interest is better served by letting the country go to ruin than to support our chosen Party even when it is not perfect. That's not patriotism and it is hard to logically distinguish it from the kind of tactics liberals will use to advance their own interests.

Amen. I wish more yahoos were as informed and thoughtful as you. You're 100% right.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

I am growing tired of your insults.

That wasn't directed at you. It was directed at others I talk to from time to time.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

And I understand how McCain supporters feel as passionately about this as McCain opponents.

We are all interested in furthering the cause, and reasonable people are disagreeing about exactly how to do that.

I have to disagree. Your comment about "4 years of hell for limited political self-interest" is grating on me.

It's not that I think the Republican Party needs to get back to basics. We all know that. My viewpoint is that, if we are going to fix the problems in this country, we need a truly conservative solution, and we need a viable vehicle to do it. I think John McCain as the driver of that vehicle would be extraordinarily disasterous.

Look at it from this perspective. For the past 8 years, McCain has basically flipped off the conservatives as he pursues his own agenda. Good on him for being independent, but how does being more hostile to your own party than the Dems help assure people that you'll work to restore the Republican brand?

How does having a candidate who said he'd think about Kerry's making him VP in 2004, rather than publicly telling Kerry the same thing he told John Cornyn during the immigration debate, help us build that movement?

How does having a candidate whose three signature pieces of legislation are all anethema to conservatism help to build that movement?

I know the country would go to hell under Hillary. Trust me-I'm very aware of that. This is probably one of the toughest decisions I've had to make in politics, and is the only saving grace that I might still yet vote for McCain.

But I find it quite sad that I've been driven to that point-a point where I find the man to be quite noxious, and one whose candidacy and possibly presidency might set the conservative movement back further.

We already lost tremendous ground because we had Bush in office, and didn't stand up until it was too late. Conservatives now have to show that we are once again the party of ideas, and the party of adults, in order to win over a somewhat ignorant (probably more inattentive) electorate who has been told by Bush, the Dems, and the MSM that Bush=conservatism. I don't see how that happens with McCain.

Vote for the ulti-Mitt conservative. Romney '08!

DISCLAIMER: I am loosly affiliated as a volunteer for the Mitt Romney campaign. All viewpoints expressed are my own, not the campaign's.

if we are going to fix the problems in this country, we need a truly conservative solution, and we need a viable vehicle to do it.

You're searching for utopia. It doesn't exist this side of heaven. We will never reach some magic land where we end up putting some abstract notion of "conservatism" into practice.

You are moving in one direction or another, choosing between imperfect solutions. That's the real world for you.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

"I know the country would go to hell under Hillary. Trust me-I'm very aware of that. This is probably one of the toughest decisions I've had to make in politics, and is the only saving grace that I might still yet vote for McCain."

Things could get so bad, so quick, in so many different ways, that we might not be capable of competing against Hillary because by 2012 people like Mitt Romney or other self-financed candidates might not even have the resources to put into a media campaign against Hillary, and if the rest of us might not be able to put in enough cash to help the other candidates then you can forget about this great comeback out of disgust over her.

If the economy really tanked under Hillary -- I'm talking more than the tax cuts expiring, more than banks writing off hundreds of billions in bad CDO's and SIV's, worse than the credit derivative markets blowing up, worse than high unemployment, bankruptcies, foreclosures, stock market tanking -- worse than that even.

Worse than that would be al-Qaeda-style random suicide bombing terror attacks on a monthly basis ala Israel in the 1990's until Hillary agrees publicly to pull all U.S. forces out of all Gulf nations. The gas lines of the Carter Era would look like a walk in the park compared to the results of that. Forget about the red-orange-yellow-green terror warning alerts, just consider it to be on bright RED after Hillary takes the oath of office.

How about full-on executive orders declaring a federal state of emergency? How about random "bank holidays" as a result?

How about "nationalizing" the oil industry under the guise of national security? Putin and Chavez have done it, why wouldn't Hillary? Truman tried it with the steel industry until the Supreme Court stopped him. You don't think Bill and Hillary would challenge something that far? This is the same man/wife who went to the SCOTUS claiming the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act as a grounds to dismiss a sexual harrassment lawsuit brought under the very statute Clinton himself signed into law only 5 years before. They're lawyers, they'll fight anything they are challenged on as far as they can go.

Do you remember what it took to beat back HillaryCare in 1994? The amount of money it took for the various parts of the healthcare industry to win an expensive P.R. campaign against the Clintons was unreal. It came pretty darn close to passing even at that.

How about a nuclear armed Iran issuing an ultimatum to Israel?

Look, I'm sure there were a LOT of Republicans who sat out the election of 1932 in protest also. Look at what America got as a result.

Look at all the Cuban and Iranian immigrants we have in this country. Wealthy, smart, and successful people with good families. They came from once prosperous and great nations. At one time Cuba had more Cadillacs per capita than anywhere in America. Then, suddenly, within a very short period of time they were packing up everything they could, taking all their assets and their family members and running for their lives to escape tyranny, political repression, and retribution in the form of seizing all their property.

Rebuild the GOP to find some Conservative Dream Candidate? A lot of Republicans will be looking for somewhere to stash their assets offshore instead, or perhaps even a safer place to take their families if Hillary lets national security become a secondary issue to building her "village to raise a child" (ie - Shared Responsiblity/Great Society/New Deal/5-Year Crop Plan).

Some things are irreversible. We'd have a lot more leverage over McCain than a Hillary Regime that would be hellbent on putting all of us (and anyone else who challenges her) out of business for good.

I think that the loss in 1992 was another instance where a political movement benefitted from a loss. It set the stage for the Republican takeover of Congress for the remainder of the 90's and have of this decade.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Yes. And it got us Bryer and Ginsburg. It got us what the meaning of "is" is. It got us a few votes away from Hillarycare. It got us a massive tax increase.

Losing is for losers. Period. People that don't recognize this are doomed to do more damage to their own causes then the people they oppose.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

1993 WTC Bombing (and no response)

Bin Laden creating al-Qaeda in 1995 and left unscathed for 6 years.

Janet Reno

Bill and Hillary

we're likely going to be facing Hillary this year precisely because we lost in 1992.

Newt's gone. Armey's gone. Most of the Class of 94 is long gone. Clinton gets to run around claiming that he was the one who balanced the budget in the 90's (despite vetoing many of them because of too many "cuts" in spending).

Who really won in 1992 again?

It definitely wasn't America or the GOP that did.

Google it. It's a very famous speech that he gave at the 1960 Convention when they nominated Nixon against JFK.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

The context was - this was his comment when he withdrew his name from nomination at the 1960 Convention.

It is on the record in many places that Goldwater was a vigorous campaigner for Nixon in 1960, and that he put in yeoman's effort to get Nixon into the White House.

So, whatever the context of the speech, I don't see how you can question Goldwater's support of Nixon that year.

Exactly.

And that's exactly why people should work hard for the nominee no matter if he's "our guy" or not.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

I've been thinking that Palin from Alaska would be nice. It'd be a nod to the small-gov crowd and would take a lot of steam out of a Hillary ticket.

woland

I think Palin is just too new. I wouldn't count her out entirely, but she's only been in office a year.

It worked for Agnew, but it's awfully risky. I might try it if Obama is the nominee, that way, she can help pull in swing women who feel cheated that the first serious female candidate got railroaded might come to our side. But otherwise, I'd rather save her for later on. She's only 43 or something, she'll have another chance.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

Alaska is lots of things, but "small government" ain't one of them! Palin, like most other Rs here, mouths a few obligatory lines about "restraint" and "slow the growth" of government, but the government IS the Alaska economy and State spending drives everything except perhaps the tourism industry here.

I'm with the poster below; let's see how she looks, politically of course, in '12 after she's done something other than be mayor of Wasilla, AK for a while.

In Vino Veritas

and you are correct: McCain is not a conservative. He will do nothing but redefine what a conservative truly is, and is already doing so.

I am now leaning towards Clinton who I think is smarter than she let's on and knows the political history of why we are where we are at. She know's she can't "cut and run" on terrorism, she has a daughter she knows she would have to look out for.

I think our hope lies in getting back the senate or House in the interim between the next presidential election which I think is highly possible considering the lack of confidence we see in the polls. Doing so allows us to keep her in check. As Barry says, "if we get to work now...."

"Two legs bad, four legs good."

When you think of the answer, please also apply how our situation in 2008 differs from the situation of African-Americans and the Democratic party.

-TS

"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt

It's simple: I know that theory of incentives for votes. I believed in it for 10 years. But you know what? It's never achieved a blipping thing. Ever.

On the other hand, we see this model espoused by Goldwater and Reagan, and we have concrete proof that it did work. Not only did we get eight years of reagan, but he shifted the party and the country to the right with him.

So given the choice between a proven historical model we can look back on, and a failed strategy of the last decade, I think there's only one choice for conservatives:

Vote the nominees, and then get to work.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

I know you did not say that, but that seems to be the presumption of this whole diary. And while there is another viable candidate running, whose views, skills, and temperament I find a whole lot more to my liking, I will continue to give McCain the same finger he keeps giving me.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Is it only votes that constitutes "getting to work"?

I'm thinking what you're suggesting means something beyond simply pulling the lever for the (R) candidate.

WRT Reagan... Don't we have to take into account the fact that he defeated one of the worst presidents in the history of the country? And that Ronald Reagan was a special politician with a real gift?

Could we have had Reagan if Ford had beaten Carter?

And there is another historical model: the experience of black voters in the Democratic party.

How do you square the two?

-TS

"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt

Getting to work in Goldwater's case meant tireless efforts to try to get Nixon elected, and then trying to get a conservative (namely himself) nominated next time.

I say let's do the same.

And yes, we could have had Reagan had Ford beaten Carter. It just may have been in 1984. It'd still have been Reagan's turn.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

A previous poster on this thread put it far better then I could have, so I'll just copy/paste his post:

It took 30 years to get Afghanistan to a point of even being winable, and we're still paying for Carter's sins with Iran.

We can do it again, we will do it again. We call ourselves patriots but are willing to subject the country to 4 years of hell because we think that our limited political self-interest is better served by letting the country go to ruin than to support our chosen Party even when it is not perfect. That's not patriotism and it is hard to logically distinguish it from the kind of tactics liberals will use to advance their own interests.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

We will never be able to coalesce again until the Dems make a complete and utter mess of things, say like, Jimmy Carter.

"Two legs bad, four legs good."

It's up to YOU and I and all the other conservatives who don't like John McCain to take the roles of Goldwater and Reagan and Buckley and all those guys who turned conservatism from a fringe element in the 50s, to the most popular faction in the party in the 80s.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

The analogy puts John McCain in Nixon's shoes, or perhaps in Ford's shoes. Certainly not Reagan's.

The question for us is, who is our Barry Goldwater? who is our Reagan? I'm not seeing one, yet. But I'll be damned if I'm going to let this country go to pot in the hands of the left until we find him.

Well, think of the context of the quote. Goldwater worked hard for Nixon, and was the nominee 4 years later.

Nixon then worked hard for Goldwater in 1964, and was able to be the nominee again 4 years later.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

I agree that if McCain wins, many R candidates will see that as the future of the R party and emphasize their moderate side not their conservative side.

One more point: I think the electorate gets tired of one party in the White House. Reagan x2 followed by moderate Bush Sr ... then a loss. Bush x2 followed by moderate McCain (if he can beat the Dem, which is an open question) ... then a loss. I'd rather have Mr. McCain-Feingold + Kennedy + Lieberman (global warming) do the losing and have a better candidate set up for a potential win in 4 years.