Posts
McCain has been dunderheaded, well-nigh suicidal, in his political instincts. If political malpractice were a crime, he and his senior advisers would be facing 20 years at Leavenworth, and whoever decided that we mustn't confront the Democrats on the subprime crisis would actually be facing the gallows.Despite that recognition, Ace entertains the fantasy that somehow a Republican victory is still possible. To abandon the fantasy, he says, would be "panic."
It's like 1996 all over again. There was never any possibility that a majority of Americans were going to vote for Bob Dole. He was simply a bad candidate. He lacked charisma and his record was not conservative. (Newt Gingrich famously called Dole "the tax collector for the welfare state.") Yet conservatives had got the idea into their head that Bill Clinton was so vastly unpopular, such a transparently evil man, that any Republican could beat him.
Alas, "any Republican" wasn't on the ballot. Bob Dole was. Even though he wasn't conservative, however, Dole's defeat seemed to affect many conservatives very personally. There was a crisis of confidence over the Republican Party's failure to defeat Clinton. It was from that crisis of confidence that the twin idiocies of "national greatness" and "compassionate conservatism" were born.
At some point, it seems to me, rank-and-file conservatives need to ask themselves what's gone wrong with the Republican Party as an institution -- the systemic, fundamental error -- that has led to the current sad state of affairs.
Why is it, for instance, that although a solid majority of American voters favor a crackdown on illegal immigration, both President Bush and Senator McCain enthusiastically pushed for amnesty in 2006 and 2007? Why is it that, when nearly every conservative voice was decrying the bailout as a wasteful boondoggle, the GOP presidential candidate leaped up to make himself the most outspoken advocate of the bailout? And how was it that John McCain even got the nomination anyway?
If conservatives don't ask these questions, who will? Ace calls it "panic" to admit that Maverick's already lost the election. But the important thing in that admission is that he lost it -- he, the candidate -- and by suggesting that "we" (conservatives) can somehow retrieve what the candidate himself has thrown away, Ace effectively transfers responsibility for the defeat from the candidate to ourselves.
Won't that make an excellent excuse!
Well, unless you cycnically believe that compassionate conservativism was the goal of the party [leadership] all along, Bob Dole being a part of it. We would either have gotten it through him or it would be used as an excuse to implement it. My belief is that the Republican Party has been high-jacked. There is NO conservative party anymore. Sadly, really, I have quite the process. The game is rigged, and it does not include goodness, rightness, the American way, the Constitution, Christianity, Capitalism, or any of the things I know must be a part of the process for the process to be legitimate.
ReplyDeleteI think I have decided to not even vote. I cannot legitimize a process that is an abomination to all of my senses, at it's best (McCain). Let them eat chad. Unfortunately, it may be, at this point, that the process might be irreversible. Well, without a revolt. Good luck with that. Pull em' away from the Big Mac and put them on the front lines? I don't think so.
By this point in the 1996 campaign I already knew Dole was going to lose. There were enough factors obviously at work that there was no way to conclude otherwise.
ReplyDeleteThat is simply not the case now. Elections aren't weather systems that simply happen the way they're going to happen regardless of what the forecasters say.
I think Ace is right about the panic, especially since, if you are mistaken (as I believe you are), your pessimism could become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
How did John McCain win the nomination? Despite the fairly large number of Republican candidates at the beginning of the primaries, there were really only four serious contenders: McCain, Guiliani, Romney, and Huckabee. McCain and Guiliani appealed to the approximately 40% of Republicans who call themselves "moderate", while Romney and Huckabee appealed to the roughly 60% that consider themselves "conservative". The difference was that the "moderates" quickly determined that Guiliani was a joke and focused their votes on McCain. Meanwhile, the "conservatives" split their vote trying to figure out which of their guys was the better Christian instead of which one would make the better President. By the time the "conservatives" finally figured out that Romney should be their man, the winner-take-all rules in the Republican primary system had more or less given McCain an insurmountable lead, prompting Romney to drop out as he knew he could not mathematically catch up. Huckabee was either too stubborn or too stupid to realize it was a lost cause and continued in the race, thus demonstrating Romney's decision was accurate.
ReplyDeleteWas this strategy on McCain's part? I doubt it. It was more likely sheer luck (or misfortune, depending on one's point of view).
In any event, we conservatives have been dealt this hand to play. I agree that the prospects for victory for McCain look bleak at present. But I refuse to give up or despair, because I love my country too much, and the ramifications of the opposite outcome are so tremendously, insanely unacceptable -- as unacceptable as standing on the coastline watching an invading military force approaching and not doing anything to stop them.
I am among those who once swore, both prophetically and profanely, that I would never vote for John McCain. But I have had a change of heart on that and for one and only one reason: the Supreme Court. It is quite likely that the next President will get to appoint two if not three new Justices, and the very thought of the type of "progressives" that Barack Obama would appoint (and that the Senate would swiftly confirm) chills me to the very center of the marrow of my bones. Just through that one activity Obama could cause incalculable damage to this country for decades to come, and that's without considering his social programs, tax increases, hideously wasteful and unnecessary global warming hogwash, etc., etc.
If you truly believe in the Libertarian agenda, then I commend you for voting your principles. I myself find the Libertarian agenda rather anarchistic. But if you are thinking about voting Libertarian (or any other third party) just becasue you don't like McCain or are just fed up with the Republicans in general, then in my opinion, based on the Supreme Court issue alone, you actually are just throwing your vote away and letting the Obamanistas come ashore and destroy all that we conservatives love about this country.
As bad as you try to make Ace sound, to me you sound worse. Get a grip and see the tree, fella.
ReplyDeleteThe reason that a pseudo conservative was nominated is because no true conservative was able to get GOP votes. If you don't like the choices, come up with a better choice.
My "choice" was Thompson (of those who said they were running) but he abdicated. So I got behind the nominee.
And don't give me that voting third party crap, because it is just that -- crap. Third parties were destined to lose this election and are destined to have ZERO voice in the foreseeable future. Voting third party is the same as not voting in the best case.
And don't give me that "I'm just a journalist" crap, because journalism has nothing to do with supporting or not supporting the GOP nominee. Either you are engaged in this election or you are not. You seem to have chosen to be disconnected. That is your choice -- own it. Your choice is to be irrelevant as a third party supporter.
This tripe you keep stirring about McCain having lost with Nov. 4 weeks away is tiresome. Don't you know another tune? Maybe you could dig up some Greg Gutfeld or some bare breasted celebs to boost hits...