|
|
January 22, 2008Attn GOP: Meet the WoodshedIf my email is any indication, too many “faithful GOP voters” are having a hell of a time dealing with the fact that the party has not manufactured a candidate pure enough, perfect enough and “Reaganish” enough to suit them, so they may just sit out what will arguably be the most important election of this era. As I promised many moons ago, after I vote in the primary election I will be leaving the GOP - which I joined in support of George W. Bush - and re-categorizing myself as an unaffiliated voter. But while I’m still a “registered Republican” (and a RINO to you purists who are so eager to punt me and any like me to the door) allow me to speak my piece to a party running itself unto madness in seeking that unattainable illusion: the perfect candidate. It seems the standard GOP voter - and apparently Rush Limbaugh - wants to disinter Ronald Reagan from his noble tomb and hoist him onto the campaign trail because he is their saint and savior, and if they can’t vote for someone exactly like him “Ronaldus Magnus” well, they’re going to sit out this all-important election. Excuse me, but Ronald Reagan would have had no patience for the likes of you. Unless I am mistaken - and forgive me if I am, but I was a headline-believing Democrat when Reagan was in office, so I cannot quote the Book of Reagan as completely as some - did not Reagan advise an 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not criticize other Republicans? I don’t know if I completely agree with that commandment, by the way, but he’s your idol, not mine. I can tell you that I do agree with another of Reagan’s dicta: that we ought not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. If Ronald Reagan were alive right now, watching the GOP split into these tantrum-throwing factions (whereby “perfection” is duly defined as “pro-life, pro-gun, pro-free-market, pro-worship, pro-Bush-doctrine, pro-tax-cut, pro-ship-back-all-illegals” and then, as each less-than-perfect candidate’s failure on one or more issues is noted, each are thus deemed unworthy of the support of the pristine and uncompromising “base”) I think he’d be disgusted with the lot of you. Ronald Reagan above all he was a pragmatist and a realist. He understood something that some voters seem to have forgotten:
If I am reading my mail right - and I believe I am - every candidate running for president on the GOP side is - gasp! - flawed in some way. This guy’s too religious, this guy’s a flip-flopper, this guy’s too John McCain, this guy is a tantalizing “almost perfect” flirt who doesn’t want to put out, this guy is too soft on illegals, this guy is too hard on assault rifles, this guy is great on security but he wears a dress! Oh, boo-hoo, people. Get a grip. The truth is the GOP had produced several reasonable candidates for the presidential nomination. None are “perfect,” but neither are you. A vote for any of them will require from you an end to the thrust-lip tantrum. You’re going to have to wipe your little eyes, haul up your drawers and - egad - do what Reagan would have done; he would have looked for the candidate who he felt was - taken all-in-all - best for the whole nation, not just for some little one-issue subgroup; he would not simply vote for his comfort zone. In unserious times, and vacations from history, it is possible to hold oneself aloof from a process and declare, “fiddle-dee-dee, I’ll think about voting next election!” It cannot be said enough: we are in serious times. In this election you do not have the luxury of complacently waiting for the next bus because you don’t like any of these drivers. In this election, you either get on board and take the damn uncomfortable, bumpy ride with the rest of us, or you marginalize yourself into irrelevancy on your little bench. If you are a voter who is sitting there waiting for your perfect “pro-life” candidate, think about this while you sit: Reagan and Dubya were inarguably the most pro-life presidents of the era, and neither of them could move your agenda, because the president cannot do so; all he can do is appoint judges to the Supreme Court who might do your bidding. There are 3-4 judges in that court right now who are all but sipping formaldehyde at every meal trying to hold on until a Democrat president can replace them. Instead of heaving your bosom for the “pro-life” candidate, maybe you should sigh a little for a “pro-law” and “pro-constitution” and “pro-judge” candidate who can actually appoint constitution-loving jurists. Guess what? You sit on that bench through the election and you’re going to see 3-4 judges appointed who will give you nightmares for the next 30 years as they re-interpret the “living, breathing document” that is our Constitution into recognizability. Enjoy your rest. If you are seated and waiting for the perfect “illegal immigration” candidate, one who will “build a wall, arrest everyone, enforce the laws and ship ‘em all back,” well, you may as well face the fact that you’re not going to get all of that. If you are lucky you will get enforcement and a wall. If you are very lucky, you will get enforcement, a wall and a structured means to grandfather in those workers who have lived here peaceably and productively, and who can finally start paying into the society they desperately wish to join. If that is unpalatable to you, well…keep sitting. While you’re sitting there, learn Spanish, because you’ll be joined on that bench by many who wish they could use the vote you’re keeping all to yourself. You can tell them how your ancestors came here “legally” - back when the nation had an excellent system for admitting them easily and humanely - and you can leave out the part where, had that system not been in place, they would have come anyway - illegally - because their lives had no hope, save the promise of America and freedom. Then you can tell them why an “Ellis Island West” is less interesting to you than a pipe-dream of a policy whereby everyone goes back to Mexico (or Ireland) and starts over. Because “do-overs” are the province of the mature and hardy, right? The next president of the United States is going to have the privilege of appointing at least 3 SCOTUS justices, who will each be there for perhaps three decades. He or she is going to preside over an economy that lately gets a case of the vapors with every rumor and weather report. The next president will finally have to deal squarely with our over-dependence upon foreign oil - an issue to which every president since Carter has paid lip-service; they’ve done nothing while our own resources have been put out of our own reach. This president will have to - finally - do something about the social security system that will be enormously strained by retiring baby-boomers bent on collecting everything they’ve got coming to them. President Bush couldn’t do anything about it - even with a GOP congress - but that hand will be forced soon. A lot of hands are going to be forced, soon. If you think the global terrorist movement is not going to want to test the mettle of the next president, think again. They’ve seen “weak horses” before, and they’d love to see another. You get the government you ask for. Not voting at all may be a request for a different sort of candidate, but it is impractical and self-destructive. If 2006 did not teach that to you, then God help us all while you learn it from 2008 to 2012. The next president of the United States is already running. You may not “love” him or her. You don’t have to. All you have to do is ponder: which one of these people (because it is going to be one of them, or Mike Bloomberg) will be the best servant of America - not of you, baby - but of all America? In Rumer Godden’s remarkable book In This House of Brede, the community of nuns must elect a new Abbess after the passing of a much-beloved and wise Abbess of nearly four-decades standing, and as they are observing each likely leader, they are discontented and concerned:
Fill in “Lady Abbess” with Ronald Reagan (if you like) and “Becoming Abbess” with “becoming president” and there you have it. It will resolve itself, and the candidate you are so unsure of will certainly find himself or herself evolving and growing as the office demands. God is not done with any of them, any more than He is done shaping you. Just as the great Abbey of Brede was larger than any one Abbess, America is larger than any one president. One of these candidates, bearing both virtues and blemish, must do. I cannot see that all of them are so pock-marked that their outstanding strengths must be rendered moot. This election will, indeed, resolve itself. You can either be part of that process, helping the matter resolve in America’s best interests, or you can be the displeased, bench-sitting inveterate, clinging to a ticket to “Perfection-land” while bus after bus passes you by. America is not going to wait for you; while you dither and sniffle, she is moving forward. If you want any say at all as to where she goes, you cannot remain seated on your bench. Related:Fred Thompson Drops Out Wuzzadem gets me chuckling Neoneocon writes about the dangerous attraction to “inspiration” and links to some good pieces. Amused Cynic has more primary thoughts. Beth seems to enjoy the woodshed analogy a little too much. If she comes out with a whip, everyone duck! Gateway Pundit has linked to this, and so has Betsy Newmark. Thank you, guys! http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/01/22/attn-gop-meet-the-woodshed/trackback/ 58 Responses to “Attn GOP: Meet the Woodshed” |
Site SyndicationAdvertise on this blog   
      
 BlogrollMeta Data
|
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:26 pm
I think that most of this angst will pass as we Reagan Republicans come to terms with our disappointment with the current crop of candidates. Indeed, I have found myself over the last few days going between being upset that the one candidate I’d actually feel good voting for isn’t going to get the nomination and trying to figure out who to get behind now. The lesser of 2 liberals isn’t where I had hoped we’d be this time.
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Anchoress,
You are right, there is no “perfect” candidate on either side. I’ve settled on Mitt as the best of compromises.
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Thanks so much for writing this piece Anchoress.
Those who would agree with your thinking and follow this path are already being drowned out by the purists in the party.
There will never be another Ronald Reagan and I for one have grown tired of the consistent references to his terms in office.
None on either side of the aisle has done much to garner my absolute support, but I know when the time comes I will vote against those who would turn this country toward socialism.
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Great post Anchoress. Even though I hope you do not leave the GOP. Being a Republican is great one you turn off Talk Radio and take the echo chambers of the blog with a huge grain of salt. In fact this election shows that a ton of people from Iowa, to Nevada, to SOuth Carolina, to New Hampshire are doing just that.
That being said I saw this quote over at Cruncy Con in the comment section of a similar post:
“Oh well. This so reminds me of the Reign of Terror phase of the French Revolution with the talk show hosts playing the role of Robespierre. Purity, purity! We demand purity! Lesson it didn’t end up well for those that sought purity.”
How true. Anyway the die has been Cast. Huckabee or Rudy might pull out a suprise but it shall be Romney or McCain I think. I suspect like a lot of my Huckabee folks we shall go McCain and the Thompson folks are likely to go Romeny if exit polls are to be trusted.
I think it will end soon. I also think that despite the rantings of people on blogs and talk radio that 95 percent of the people that have voted or will vote will be just fine with the outcome whatever that should be
They seem to have ignored our rantings that the Republic will fall is person X is the Republican nominee so why they should differ and break from that sensible course.
Anyway, I stand by what I said months ago. The GOP had a very diverse group of fine men that ran. My hat is off too all of them and I think we are stronger for it
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Well done Anchoress…if I was the kind of person to use this phrase, “you go girl”, I would…oops, I just did!
As long as we are on this flawed Earth, we will be choosing NOT between black and white, but rather shades of grey…very few things are either “one” or the “other” which is our lot…choose from choices that aren’t all good or all bad…so give it up to the One who is the nearest of the near and the dearest of the dear…
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:36 pm
If I could use 72 point type, I’d write:
AMEN, ANCHORESS!!!!
I am so totally and unarguably sick of people arguing over who’s the purest, best, most conservative.
WE NEED A MAN WHO WILL STICK BY HIS PRINCIPLES NO MATTER WHAT. For me, that is Giuliani, but I will vote for whoever the candidate is because to vote for a democrat president is to definitely pull the handle on the toilet.
I am posting this on a conservative message board (with credit of course) because I’m sick and tired to death of the stupidity exhibited by “pure” conservatives.
Thank you for making the case brilliantly.
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Well stated Anchoress…
Couldn’t agree more.
I see a great deal of placation of vocal listeners to various audiences who see image instead of substance, basis, reason.
The lack of objectivity grew after 2004, mostly fostered by some very extreme forces, who were jaded, opposed, bitter to the GOP to begin with.
Many lost sight of the GWOT, and perhaps much of the negative cynicism was a product of fears over Iraq.
In troubling times, many throughout history embrace the easy, like the misguided fantasy of ‘isolationism’.
I think it is something to be understood, as the impact of 9-11, and the challenges of the GWOT, can be too daunting for many.
The new Conservative Punditry, (mostly in the bloggosphere) who grew to great popularity after 9-11 embraced the fashion of cynicism after 2004.
Many lost sight of the big picture, and undermined their own interests, when they knew they were in the midst of a Global War against Radical Muslim Jihadists.
The self destructive mindset began to crave the ‘ideal’ romanticized candidate, dreaming of the past LEGEND of Ronald Reagan.
Ironically, GW Bush was trying to reform Social Security, with sound private sector measures, when the GIPPER never tried.
But the Conservative Fashion wasn’t interested, focusing on being negative, and obsessing about smaller fish to fry, like Pork Spending.
Perhaps after 2004, coupled with fears for the mission in Iraq, many foolishly assumed the Nation was dominated by their interests, and they grew spoiled.
Many focused their desire on the ‘ideal’, building incredible amounts of hype about a former Lobbyist - Senator - Actor named Fred Thompson.
Image and identity have played a huge role in the fashion.
But as I rant, I don’t believe in the negative, being an optimist and a believer in this fine Nation.
Competition is truly healthy, sometimes the chaos is truly healthy, and there are some fine serious Candidates in the GOP race.
Nothing wrong with Conservatives trying to encourage their choices to embrace their agenda. As long as they don’t tear down their own interests at the same time.
It will work out in some manner.
I like the CEO experience of Mr. Romney and Rudy.
Both are impressive, and we shall see…
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Too bad you can’t hear me applauding, Anchoress.
I’m (nearly) as right-wing politically as one could be, but I have vowed to vote for — and work for — whoever is the Republican candidate in this race. Even if it’s Huckabee, whom I find both frightening and absurd. Even if it’s McCain, who led one of the most egregious attacks on the First Amendment in history. Even if it’s Giuliani, who I consider, on nearly every issue, a Democrat in a Republican suit.
Handing an election to the Democrats to “teach the party a lesson” is always stupid, but in calmer times, maybe it’s a luxury we can afford. But four years before we get another shot. And then we’d be facing an incumbent, and whatever exotic new election laws the Dems will have come up with by then to keep themselves in power.
Four years — at least — of appeasing the jihadis and sucking up to the global warmists. Four years of disastrous judicial appointments. Four years of undermining our military and what’s left of our border security. Four years to decide how to best regulate “hate speech” at the federal level.
I wish the hard-liners and RINO-haters would quit fantasizing and think about what’s really at stake right now, today. We don’t have time to banish the heretics and wait for a new savior. There’s just no time.
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:50 pm
I am a non-Republican conservative libertarian. While I am too young to be a Reagan Republican, I have grown attracted to Reagan’s philosophy that the government doesn’t hold the solutions to our problem, the government IS our problem.
I have a simple (open) request: tell me how your Republican of choice believes in smaller government.
Mitt Romney wants to spend Federal dollars to revitalize Michigan’s economy. McCain wrote the biggest and most useless infringement on free speech since the Alien and Sedition Acts. Huckabee has a spending list longer than his arm, and wants to dip the government’s hand even deeper into health care. Even if you can get past the fact that Guiliani is a serial adulterer, he is in no way a “conservative” (the Federal government has little business in the health care industry or school choice).
The comptroller of the US currently estimates that, if the goverment worked under business accounting rules, the federal deficit wouldn’t be $9 trillion (the official number), but $58 trillion. By failing to put back cash to pay for Social Security and Medicare’s expected outflow, by 2040 the current government will be bankrupt. My children will have to spend the entire Gross National Product of the US paying for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicade.
I want a Supreme Court that includes strict constructionists. I am strictly anti-abortion. However, a strict constructionist SCOTUS doesn’t help if we’re broke. At most, we have the next 10-15 years to fix the problems, yet none of this crew has any desire to think that there is a problem. We are past the “cutting 50 million in taxes” stage. Our government is functionally bankrupt, and we need REAL fixes, not “portable health care” or small tax cuts that won’t be backed by spending cuts.
This crew of Republicans differs from the Democrats at most by degrees. Where is the real difference?
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Anchoress, I agree by and large with your plea for a “realist” approach to the upcoming nomination and subsequent election. We on the Right often criticize leftists for playing identity politics- and are talking no small pleasure in watching Clinton and Obama go after each other on who’s blackest or most female. Reminds one of the old SNL skit “?Quien es Mas Macho?” And yet that is in many ways exactly what we are doing now with respect to the potential nominees.
I think that abortion is an abomination, but realize that it will always exist in one form or another. I think our job is to ensure that ludicrous laws like Roe v. Wade are not passed by activist jurists. That means putting into the President’s office a person who will appoint judges who respect the Constitution.
There will be nothing to argue over if our major cities are engulfed in mushroom clouds from nukes fired by or sponsored by lunatic middle east regimes. This means seating someone in the White House who takes this threat seriously. None of Democrats with their “why can’t we all just get along?” nonsense comes close to meeting this charge.
But likewise there will be no nation, i.e. no United States of America left to argue over if we do not aggressively stop illegal immigration. I would take issue with your overly generous contention that many of these are here desperately trying to join the polity. If that’s the case then why is Spanish becoming a necessary language in so many parts of our country? Why do race pimps like La Raza exist and why are they given the time of day by our politicians? Why are such huge numbers of these “workers” on the dole? (Incidentally, how exactly do you envision hordes of Europeans coming here illegally around the turn of the 20th century?)
Unlike abortion where the cynic’s view is: “Fine, let the Left abort itself into a minority position”, we can’t afford to be that flippant about illegals. They will, and have in many places become the dominant element. And they are not interested in becoming Americans- only sucking off our teat to drive their own agenda.
Unlike abortion, these people are breaking the law (no matter how much anyone rants about Roe v Wade, it IS the law at the moment), and they are aided and abetted by Americans who have decided that they too are above the law. This alone is why Huckabee is grossly unqualified to lead the nation (set aside his ludicrous proposal to aligning the Constitution with God’s will). Ditto McCain.
So it’s not a matter of “purity.” It’s a matter of prioritization, and on that basis Rudy is the man for those who are worried about the physical threat to the nation from Islamic terrorism, Fred Thompson for those who want a clearly articulated solution to the illegal problem, and Mitt Romney for those who are most worried about Morality. None are perfect, but none will sell us up the river on any of these counts. The Democrats will most certainly.
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Packrat - you mistake me if you think I am a “Romney” supporter or a “Rudy” one - I still haven’t made up my mind who I am voting for. But I can answer the “smaller government” question as pertains to Giuliani because I lived in NY when he worked to make the city government of NY smaller - no mean feat in that most liberal of places.
I do not care about “serial adulterers” and I think flinging such words about makes us sound a little unfocused. Thomas Jefferson was a “serial adulterer” too. So, someone’s been married a couple of times - so what? I’m not looking for a pastor, I’m looking for a president. I am not convinced that a man’s sex life has much to do with what he can accomplish legislatively.
You have many concerns, old friend, and they’re all legitimate. But the fact remains that the only people who you may choose from are those who are running, and to say “I won’t vote” is - in a manner of speaking - a way of saying to God, “I don’t trust you enough to keep working on any of these, or to grace them with what is needed.”
Everything is in flux, nothing is static - things are constantly changing. Do you really think that the “reality” of today will not prove to be an illusion tomorrow? What just happened with Fred Thompson?
God moves in mysterious ways, and he often chooses the most surprising people to do his bidding. Moses, remember, was a murderer. David was an adulterer.
Our job is to pay attention and not stamp our feet too much.
Take a breath. The whole GOP needs to take a freaking breath!
January 22nd, 2008 at 3:01 pm
It’s a good thing for our Anchoress all those screechy conservatives adamantly support the right to spank. Let’s see how they like the receiving end of this long overdue, much needed trip to the woodshed. Who’s your Mommy, brats!
And thank you for accurately preserving and defending the real Ronald Reagan, bless his ever loving soul. The revisionism has gotten so deep lately, Reagan’s expropriators have come close to ruining the original article. I’m NOT gonna let that happen.
This is a piece for the ages, and it needs to be hauled out and recirculated about every 90 days.
Way to go, sister! Unaffilated or Democrat or Republican, you are welcome in my tent any time.
January 22nd, 2008 at 3:15 pm
I can only speak for myself, but I think the exaltation of Reagan and Republican dissatisfaction are connected by the desire for a candidate who will return to the principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and strong defense.
It seems that at least on the size and scope of government, most Republicans are no different from Democrats. Bush has been a terrible disappointment here. I don’t want a Republican who promises a government program to address my concerns; my concern is ever-expanding government programs.
Great post, Anchoress. I’m sure I will vote for the GOP candidate in November. I just wish we were going to have a real Republican on the ticket.
January 22nd, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Jeff - you might be surprised, as I was, to see who Dennis Prager is calling the real republican.
January 22nd, 2008 at 3:21 pm
I would like to see the currently serving GOP congresspersons “grow a pair” and I too would like to see the whiners just shut the heck up. With the Democratic candidates engaging in some serious bloodletting (thus breaking a cardinal primary campaign rule which roughly translates to: “He may be an s.o.b. but he’s OUR s.o.b. so don’t do lasting harm!”), it becomes more and more likely that we could have another Republican in the White House. Unless of course the spoiled brats who couldn’t HOLD their majority sit on their hands - in which case, our geese are well and truly cooked!
Thank you for making your points so clearly and in a fashion impossible to misunderstand. You ARE a treasure!
January 22nd, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Why should I vote Republican?…
A comment from The Anchoress’s post about Republicans:
I am a non-Republican conservative libertarian. While I am too young to be a Reagan Republican, I have grown attracted to Reagan’s philosophy that the government doesn’t hold the solutions …
January 22nd, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Anchoress — Thanks for the link. I’m frankly not surprised, and would mostly agree with Prager’s analysis and conclusions. I’ve been thinking along the same lines myself lately.
Since there clearly has been no front-runner, we’ll see what happens in Florida.
January 22nd, 2008 at 3:46 pm
One other thought before I go do my Duty in part one of the Louisiana elections tonight.
No matter who the Republican is we need to support them full out. There is so much more at stake than the White House
THe GOP has a huge number of Republicans retiring from the House. THe senate already looks bad. A low turnout is a disaster there. SOmething that we could not recover from for many years.
On top of that is something worse. That is the cenus. In many states people will be running for Governor. If there is no turnout then it is likely that GOvernors will be largely Democrat. That means when we start to do State legislative districts and then COngressional Districts through the various states we could be in big trouble
I guess even if you are not a Republican you should perhaps fear such a unhealthy disparity that might result.
That is why I can’t understand why Rush and others are so limited in their thinking. This goes far beyond the White House and even if we lose we can mitigate the damage.
January 22nd, 2008 at 3:52 pm
I apologize if I had a firm tone there. It has grown very frustrating to me. (It doesn’t help that “real life” events are not going well in my family.)
Remember, I’m not in the GOP, I am allowed to be tense.
I also apologize if you think my description of Guilani is offensive or wrong. On this I’m afraid we’re going to have to disagree. I happen to believe that multiple violations of one’s marriage vows disqualify one from positions of trust, whether one is Jefferson or not (Jefferson made a better political philosopher than President IMHO).
GJMiller tagged this by accident: “Unless of course the spoiled brats who couldn’t HOLD their majority sit on their hands”. The Republicans ran as the fiscal conservatives, and then spent money like drunken sailors. They ran as social conservatives, and made no effort to “pay off the base” in areas like vouchers or school choice.
“Vote for me: I’m only 90% as bad as my opponent” doesn’t inspire confidence.
I won’t waste my vote. I will vote for Ron Paul in the primaries because he is the closest candidate to my political views (yes, I know about all of his flaws and kookiness, he’s still the only Republican I can come close to supporting). Then I will look at ALL of the party’s candidates, and vote for the one closest to my views. I can just say now that none of the Republicans are different enough from any of the Democrats for me to see any true difference between them.
January 22nd, 2008 at 3:57 pm
As always, Anchoress, brilliant. There is no such thing as perfect! I hate it when either party gets dogmatic on what they will or will not accept. Cutting off your nose does nothing but screw up your face!
January 22nd, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Packrat, you can’t overlook adultery… but you CAN overlook Ron Paul’s anti-Semitism and open ties to completely vicious hate groups? Not to mention Dr. Paul’s promised full-gallop surrender plan and subsequent isolation from the world.
Sometimes, maybe it is best for a person to stay home on election day.
January 22nd, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Reagan’s 11th commandment was for use during the general election, NOT the primary. Otherwise I wouldn’t be able to point out that Giuliani is pro-abortion so, as a Catholic, I cannot vote for him. Romney, my former governor, gave MA same-sex marriage and is also pro-abortion (he says he’s not but most politicians in MA flip-flop).
I’m proud of Rush. I won’t be voting in the general election either.
January 22nd, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Lynne, as I say, God is not done working on Rudy yet…or on Rush!
If Rush is truly advocating people staying home on election day - in this incredibly important election - then that’s pretty hard to respect. I can’t help wondering if he isn’t on a bit of an ego trip, trying to demonstrate how much sway he holds over the populace, for whatever reason.
I am a Catholic and I can vote for Giuliani, because I saw how little influence Bush or Reagan had over that issue except as they were able to appoint judges.
Sit out the election, and see what judges you’ll have for the next 30 years. Perhaps we’ll all have to answer for our votes, or our non-votes.
That’s the interesting thing about sin, in general, isn’t it? You have no idea how much your sin, whether “small and private” or “loud and public” affects others - our sins tend to ripple out, like the effect of a pebble thrown into a pond. You don’t know how much effect a sin of omission has, on other people in other places, either. “Don’t” do something, and that has an effect, too.
That’s why I try not to harp too much on anyone else’s sinfulness. My own cause me enough trouble - I don’t need to mind someone else’s.
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:26 pm
I tell you something: if I wanted “pure”, I’d vote for an hermit monk. Or a bar of Ivory soap, for that matter.
But I don’t want “pure”. I want someone who can tell those Islamofascists to take their philosophy and practice and… you know, shove ‘em… That’s why I was attracted to Fred Thompson’s candidacy: because he wasn’t afraid of it.
Not that I don’t care about the other candidates, now that he’s gone. I still like Rudy. And I don’t mind McCain, or Romney. I think either of the three can do just fine. Just don’t give me the “purity” argument. (And don’t give me Ron Paul!)
(BTW, something tells me that the nominee will be Romney, whether many Evangelical Christians like myself may like it or not. Again, not that I mind Romney.)
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Anchoress-
I agree with you 99.9%… it would be 100% if we were talking about the full election rather than the primaries. IMO, it’s precisly durring the primaries when the party faithful SHOULD moan, complain and yes even b*^#h about the failings of the candidates. Otherwise, how would anyone in the party ever know that they’re not presenting someone that we truly WANT. And I’m SICK of people saying that they wouldn’t vote for a particular candidate during a primary because they’re ‘unelectable’.. how else is anyone supposed to know that they’re the one you’d prefer to have in the slot if you don’t vote for them! /rant
Anyway… Don’t let the complaints get to you right now because this is the TIME for complaints. Once one of this crop is finally picked for the ticket, and everyone realizes that he, even with all his flaws, is SO much better than the alternative, I suspect the whining will subside. Like you said, we’ve got 3 SCJs riding on this… there’s no way people would be stupid enough to sit on the sideline and allow a Dem to win, just because the Repub isn’t ‘ideal’.
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Unless you are secretly charging back to the left, adopting but keeping in the closet pro-choice, pro-tax, anti-military, government-entitlement views, you are not a RINO.
For the most part, I quit calling myself a Republican sometime around 1996, when Senator McCain, er, Dole was the nominee, but I don’t think anyone would consider this particular conservative to be a RINO.
January 22nd, 2008 at 7:32 pm
KYPackrat wrote: “Mitt Romney wants to spend Federal dollars to revitalize Michigan’s economy.”
Being a Michigander and listening to a number Romney’s speeches here, Mitt was not talking about spending money on MI, but giving the US automakers a fair playing field to compete with imports. Maybe it was my perception, but the whole thrust of Mitt’s message in MI was to create an economic environment for the US that would make it rational for companies to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US, not flood one state with $$$. Granholm and the MI legislature would find some way to make the money disappear with no improvement in the state.
January 22nd, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Conservatives listen up…
I know that there are some passionate people for all of the Republican candidates for the nomination for President. But please remember that the Republican PArty is a big tent party and we are a party of ideas and not…
January 22nd, 2008 at 7:45 pm
I agree with you %100. I may not like the remaining candidates, except I do like Rudy better than the rest, after the circus is over we are going to have a nominee. And we should get behind him and not let the Democrats appoint judges and affect the country for years to come. It is always good to come here and get some semblance of sanity at tmies. the I am Purer that you stuff gets on my nerves also.
Thanks for the great post.
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Great post, A!
Reagan was my governor as well as my President. He was not perfect. He was also divorced, and I remember a time when the President couldn’t NEVER be a divorced man! Ronald also had the politician’s gift of forgetting what he said previously when it was convenient (the “When you’ve seen one redwood tree, you’ve seen them all” flap) as well as tailoring his message to his audience.
I don’t think George W. Bush expected to be a Wartime President. None of us can foresee what the next big issue will be, although we can make some pretty good guesses. But we might be wrong.
I think a lot of folks need to grow up and be “practical.”
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:19 pm
March Hare - I am beginning to think, from some of my emails, that what people need to do is turn off their radios and think for themselves.
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:20 pm
I think you are as much in a dream world as are those who want the perfect candidate. Every election in some ones eyes is the most critical in history.
Every world crisis is Armageddon.
We are expected by those who have done the most damage to the conservative cause to join arms once the RINO is nominated and march forward as one united body.
I have been around too long and seen conservatives work harder with more dedicated vigor, while the Rinos take the leadership roles and perpetuate their positions, to feel any obligation to a Party that’s hell bent for destruction.
Unless the world is coming to an end right away,we can survive Hillary, Barack, or even Edwards just like we survived Kennedy,Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Clinton and the Bushes.
Your touchy feely loyalty to a corrupted political party is not consistent with true conservative ideology in the first place.
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Well, as so many of you best of us have been pleased to observe for the past few years, I am not - and never have been - a “true” conservative. I’ve never claimed to be. Classical Liberal, here - quite homeless, since there is no room for me in either party.
As to the other - I have closely observed political campaigns, and volunteered in a few, all my life and have never believed an election to be this important. But we can disagree.
See you in 2012.
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Rush has absolutely NOT told people to sit out the election. He is always admonishing people that that would be a perfect way to get the worst possible White House resident. Someone has misunderstood Rush, he would never advocate sitting out an election.
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:15 pm
There is a narrow line one walks when considering whether to vote for a candidate. Of course one will never find a perfect choice, they’re human. But one can only compromise so far. If we accept someone who is merely awful rather than someone who is truly terrible, then we will rarely get anyone acceptable. I have often voted for, and indeed campaigned for, some presidential candidates with whom I had major disagreements. Since I got started with Goldwater ( as a 17 year old who could not yet vote ), I have managed to vote for the Republican nominee every time but once. After Gerald Ford beat the much stronger Ronald Reagan in ‘76, I voted for him. I voted for GHW Bush in ‘88 and Bob Dole in ‘96. I voted for Nixon twice and Reagan twice. I voted twice for BW Bush. In 1992 I voted Libertarian because I could no longer trust Bush 41. I want to vote GOP this year. I will if I can.
I cannot vote for John McCain. He is an American hero and if they want to solicit contributions for a statue of him to place at the Naval Academy, I’ll chip in. He has been a mediocre Senator. That’s okay, there are a lot of those. What finally repels me is McCain-Feingold. I cannot trust a man who has so little regard for free speech. I just cannot.
I cannot vote for Mike Huckabee. Anyone who thinks that a national smoking ban is a good idea is simply a busybody. I know he has withdrawn his support for the ban, but it reveals his mindset. BTW I am an ex-smoker and it would not affect me at all. It is simply the mindset.
I have differences with all the candidates. I can overlook them them in the case of Romney or Giuliani. Since both of my favorites have withdrawn ( Hunter and Fred ), i have no particular candidate who inspires me. That’s not too rare. I haven’t supported the eventual nominee before the convention since ‘88. I can compromise. I just cannot compromise my principles. There is no perfect candidate. I had some issues with Ronald Reagan. We won’t see anyone like him soon, so I’ll probably have even more issues with whomever is the nominee. I hope those can be overcome. I have no interest in the Democrats. They will nominate whichever socialist manages to promise to buy off enough interest groups within their party. I seriously doubt that any third party will get enough votes to influence policy over the next administration. It’s painful. I respect your position. I can see the logic. But there must be a minimum standard. And each of us must choose his or hers.
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Fred Tompson Drops Out Of The Race By The Local Starbucks…
Welcome to Starbucks, what can I get for you? Yeah, I, um…uh…uh… That is to say, I…uh… … Uh…uh… Did you want to order something, sir? What the hell does it look like I’m doing right now? Sorry - go…
January 23rd, 2008 at 12:44 am
THANK YOU. Thank you thank you thank you thank you!!!!
(And I’m still trying to find the problem with pingbacks/trackbacks!)
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:21 am
“The imbecility of men is always inviting the impudence of power.” — Ralph Waldo Emerson
Free thinking people. It’s an inconvenience for far too many people. It’s easier to find a mouthpiece to listen to, a crowd to associate with, find a label to affix as a badge of honor (conservative or liberal) and relax while others promote the thoughts of the masses. Without input, you either go along with the agenda now mandated by the few and become mainstream or resist and become a radical anti.
The price is steep, for without the works of all citizens of the community a single voice may carry the greatest weight, even to the worst of consequences.
Because people take one day each election year to endure the process some feel they have fulfilled their obligation and are now entitled to complain about the state of affairs around them. A convenient rationalization.
The truly free thinking citizen shuts off the Rush Limbaugh Radio, Tunes out the Air America and involves himself in discourse with other citizens of all points of view. We learn as people through this instead of becoming zombies of the Spin Doctor Propaganda, right and left.
There is no better place to start than to attend your local government meetings. The process starts at the bottom and resolves at the top, and is most effective when people become free thinking through participation. Be forewarned, politicians would rather stroll among sheep that the machine has conditioned to adore.
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:22 am
I am not - and never have been - a “true” conservative.
FWIW, Anchoress, I *am* a true conservative, and always have been. And I agree with you 100 percent. A thousand percent.
Reagan was no fool–he was a great leader of the conservative movement even before he was President. He didn’t get the conservative movement to where it was and is by being stubborn; he understood that politics is an art, a balancing act, AND a science. It’s not a baseball game.
I am terribly distressed that fellow conservatives are destroying Reagan’s conservative legacy by ignoring some of the most basic, common sense ways of achieving our goals. It’s almost enough to make me want to tune out and watch dumb sitcoms, rather than watch everything that people have worked so hard for get destroyed by the very people who want another Reagan so badly.
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:22 am
I agree 100%.
I am so tired of hearing people tell me they can not vote for someone because of yada yada blah blah.
They can not vote for McCain because of McCain/Feingold, but they idolized his sidekick Fred Thompson who supported the bill as much as he did. And in case no one noticed the first amendment is alive and well in spite of this bill. Most people do not give a rat’s behind about campaign finance anyway and consider this preoccupation to be weird. There is no pleasing people who can be this petty.
They can not vote for McCain because he supported immigration reform with the dreaded Kennedy, but it is ok if true conservatives like Coburn from Oklahoma work with Barack Obama on a bill. However, they are willing to sit and home and let more people like Kennedy win elections.
They can not vote for Huckabee because he is an Evangelical, but so was Bush.
They can not vote for Romney because he is a phony, puhleaze..the man is a politician. They can not vote for Rudy because of the second amendment.
They can not vote for Rudy because he is a womanizer or pro choice or whatever. Come on people, the man was the mayor of NYC. Could the perfect conservative have even won that kind of election in the first place? Could the perfect conservative ever win any election in which all sorts of people get to vote?
Get real.
The truth is 74% of the people in the country have a favorable opinion of John McCain, only about 26% have said they will never vote for him. This tells you how out of whack some of the talking heads on the right really are. If Rush really thinks he speaks for America then maybe he should take a big pay cut, and jump right there himself. Run for office, run the country, run something other than his mouth. I am sick and tired of all the silliness.
I have not made up my mind either. I will vote for the Republican candidate in 08 because I will not break faith with the hundreds of thousands of young Americans we have sent into harms way. If GOP voters do that, then they deserve to lose. Really they do.
January 23rd, 2008 at 8:36 am
I blog, you decide, oh, and shut up…
Rush Limbaugh: Why should we shut up? In Nevada, Romney cleans up, and nobody talks about it. “Romney is nowhere. He’s off the charts. He should quit. Thompson should quit. He should get out of the race!” They remain on……
January 23rd, 2008 at 8:49 am
Romney’s proposal to aid the auto industry was a real hard one for me.
On one hand, as a good sink or swim Conservative, this sounds like rank socialism. On the other, as somebody who thinks the world is heading hell bent back to the dark ages, I think that we will need those assembly lines and skilled workers for national defense. And our steel mills and our shipyards and our radio and tv and shoelace factories, and the zillion other things that make up the arsenal of democracy. Yeah, yeah, I know, that horse left the barn 20 years ago. But it’s urgent to get it back, and only Big Government (avaunt thee, Satan!) can do it.
Wow. I’m soundlng like a democrat, and if they weren’t all treasonous corrupt scum, I might be.
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:35 am
For a Moment There, Fred, My Heart Broke…
I heard about Fred Thompson pulling himself out of the presidential campaign. I admire him and everything he’s written and said in the past year, and I had a true hope that he would somehow get in if we had……
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:56 am
We get the government we DESERVE and those who choose to ignore their responsibility as citizens of this great land ought to spare a thought or two to how many people throughout this world don’t have a CHOICE as to their government in any real sense. We have that choice and it is our responsibility as citizens to exercise it. There’s no doggone point in demanding our rights when we aren’t fulfilling our responsibilities.
I am mostly conservative with a few liberal whiffs here and there, and like the Anchoress, I am a Catholic. And of course, my religious beliefs color my voting in some ways. BUT, I truly do believe that, religion and some policies aside, either Mitt Romney or Rudy would be decent choices for the Republicans. I have given it a mighty effort but I just cannot “do” John McCain! I think McCain/Feingold is a hurdle a lot of us can’t overcome in his run for the nomination, and rightly so. It is an egregious assault on free speech in the first place and, even worse, made the 527s like MoveOn.org possible, thus rendering the political conversation seriously demented!
January 23rd, 2008 at 11:33 am
GOP Voters Searching for Mr. Right: Time to Commit…
In one of the best blog posts I’ve read this week, the Anchoress takes GOP voters to the woodshed. Here’s an excerpt, but you really should read the whole thing:If my email is any indication, too many “faithful GOP voters” are having a hell of a …
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Must Read (Political) Post Of The Day…
Via The Anchoress, who pulls no punches taking the GOP base to the woodshed.If Ronald Reagan were alive right now, watching the GOP split into these tantrum-throwing factions (whereby perfection is duly defined as pro-life, pro-gun, pro-free-mark…
January 24th, 2008 at 12:06 am
Terrye, have I ever told you how much I love reading your comments?
I agree with every word you wrote!
January 24th, 2008 at 7:22 am
Thursday Links…
The Anchoress advises Repubs to grow up. That’s always good advice for everyone. It’s so difficult, though. I want everything I want, for free, right now."Hey, I know, because I’ve done a study." neoneoYale celebrates abortion. That is sic…
January 24th, 2008 at 8:27 am
Anchoress,
You make many good points, but miss some of the underlying issues. I agree that many Republicans pouted and stayed home in ‘06. We all now suffer because of that. I have also heard many say there is no really excellent Rep candidate this time, and one of them was me.
Although I might at some point say I’d rather sit this one out, that would just be a form of verbal protest at the weakening of the “R” field. On election day, no matter how bad the “R” might be, they will certainly be better than any of the “D’s” so I will drag my discouraged self to the polls, and push the button (I really miss flipping the lever)
The strident protest you hear from folks like me is however, necessary. If we are not vocal and demanding, then our firmly held convictions will be glossed over in the process, and our voices muted. It is imperative that we engage in the process of driving the party platform, and it’s candidates in the direction we think best.
That being said, there is no point in being vocal about the weak field, if in the end, you will not vote for the best available candidate. Self-defeating behavior leads to only one end.
Framistat
January 24th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Yes, Beth, I’m not seeing my pingback either. It’s a wordpress blog. It should show up.
January 24th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
GJMiller:
I heard Senator Coburn make an interesting remark about McCain/Feingold. He said he did not support the bill, but McCain was responding to charges of corruption against politicians and he was trying to make things better. Actually trying to respond to a problem with a solution. Disagree with the solution, but do not assume the man does not respect the Constitution. I think the charge is ridiculous. Just like the I think the charge that Bush is destroying the Constitution with the Patriot Act is ridiculous.
January 25th, 2008 at 8:49 am
Sure, Terrye. Now try and square that with McCain answering a reporter’s question whether he would rather have “clean government or the First Amendment” with the answer, “clean government”.
At that moment, John McCain violated his commissioning oath, his Senatorial oath, and his possible Presidential oath to protect and defend the Constitution. He should have been stripped of office immediately.
Oh, and spare me that the Supreme Court upheld this monster of a law; the Supreme Court once thought that slavery was dandy, too.
January 25th, 2008 at 8:56 am
“America is not going to wait for you; while you dither and sniffle, she is moving forward. If you want any say at all as to where she goes, you cannot remain seated on your bench.”
Yep. Which is why, if either McCain or Huckabee is the nominee, I plan to walk into the voting booth and pull straight Democrat. If “Americans” want Socialism, I plan to make sure they get it “good and hard”. Maybe after enough living like Eastern Europeans in the 1950’s, they’ll be ready to be free again.
“And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four –
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.
* * * * *
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man –
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began –
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire –
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!”
Rudyard Kipling, The Gods of the Copybook Headings”
January 31st, 2008 at 4:31 am
[…] Attn GOP, Meet the Woodshed Did Bush Kill the GOP? Thompson, Reagan and Goldilocks Republicans Bush, Betrayal & the […]
February 3rd, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Political Heresy…
As the election season comes into full swing, the political junkies and promoters from all corners of the arena seem to be creeping out of the woodwork. And from under rocks. Let's not forget those weird politicos you only run into during the poli…
February 4th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Ok, so you don’t want my vote. Do you remember when I voted for Perot twice? But you are willing to risk a repeat because you have to have YOUR guy.
I would vote for Hunter, Thompson, Romney, or Huckabee and in that order. You will notice that McCain is not in my list; because I won’t vote for him no matter what.
You, on the other hand, insist everyone accept your special guy who was picked for you by the MSM.
I suggest you pick one of mine.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Wildpointer who are you talking to? I KNOW you’re not talking to ME, because, I haven’t told anyone who to vote for at all!
February 12th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
[…] and we’re seeing all over the place. From reliabley conservative bloggers such as the Anchoress and Neo-neocon (and yours truly) and from columnists such as George Will. Even reliably […]